I was thinking specifically of those investigating the apartment bombings that brought Putin to power, the ones where they caught the FSB planting the bombs.
I'll accept that to mean that you don't know where to find the law that you want to refer to in your attack on Moore.
No, your questions don't even have anything to do with what the law is. In this country a legislature passes a law, so asking its origin is dumb. In this country the government of the of the state that passes a law enforces it, so asking who enforces it is dumb. In this country an entity incorporated under the laws of a state is subject to the jurisdiction of that state under the incorporation law, so asking that was dumb.
Well, either it was dumb, as in "What color is green," or it was purposeful misdirection or an effort to simply frustrate me. The latter succeeded.
I notice you have refused to actually refute any of the facts. The bank scene, staged, would not normally happen. Denver, misrepresented. After the killing, your buddy Moore was there stumping for Nader and you didn't even know it ("it seems unlikely that he was stumping for him in 2000"), and won't acknowledge it. The Saudis leaving, the 9/11 Commission Report shows Moore lied (facts are facts, and Moore got them wrong).
You of course fear to address any of the facts and prefer misdirection such as you are doing now. Why? Simple, because Moore lied so it is impossible to stay on the subject and stay honest and still defend him.
And are you still going to stand by your claim that Moore did not walk out of the bank with a gun in Bowling for Columbine? You say he never said they handed him a gun in the bank, but the movie shows someone handing a gun to him in the bank so he didn't exactly need to say it. Who supposedly saw the film, you or me? Who is getting scenes in the film wrong, you or me? You seem to be throwing out some lies in support of Moore.
and then offer up speculation instead of answers to the questions.
I'm sorry, I guess the jurisdiction for an entity incorporated under New York law might be New Mexico, or maybe even Albania. I guess the Russian Duma was responsible for the law and a Boy Scout chapter in Ohio is responsible for its enforcement.
This is a standard liberal tactic, divert attention with a bunch of inane questions. As far as the law, why don't you try the state of New York web site? As far as the by-laws, why don't you try the NRA? Given the earlier questions you asked maybe you didn't realize those are good places to find the information you want. How about the timely coverage of what happened from the Rocky Mountain News.
What's important in that situation are two things: 1) the NRA bent over backwards after Columbine, and 2) Moore completely misrepresented what happened, giving the viewer a completely opposite perspective from what really happened.
I see you're still avoiding Nader and the Saudi family. I wonder why. Have you run out of diversions for those?
Did you find out that Moore and Gore were indeed in Michigan around the same time, so you can't vilify Heston over it? But you can't admit Moore was being dishonest about that, can you?
How about the misrepresented Bush speech, where Moore made him look like a greedy plutocrat, but it was at a hospital charity fundraiser? Yes, Moore of course didn't include the part of the clip that showed Gore was there too. That wouldn't fit with the deceptive picture he's trying to paint for the viewer.
Who is responsible? Uh, I dunno. Aaahm not all that brainey with this hea law thang, but maybe the government of the state of New York?
What are the consequences? Who cares? Do you decide whether or not to break the law based on the consequences, or do you just try to follow the law in the first place? The NRA tends to promote law-abiding behavior, unlike you.
What are the requirements? Already told you the applicable parts, must have a meeting, 10 day notice of change.
Where did the law originate? Uh, I dunno, maybe the legislature of the state of New York? Just throwing out a wild guess there, but I bet I'm right.
Jurisdiction? Uh, duh, maybe over entities incorporated under New York state law as the NRA is? Just going for a guess there again, but I think I'm right there too.
It's interesting that you and Moore* harp on them not canceling their meeting when they canceled days of events that net millions of dollars. Actually no, Moore didn't harp on them not canceling a meeting, he made it look like they just barged in in response to the tragedy in order to take advantage of it. Despite your little detour, that right there was Moore's lie.
Now back to Moore/Nader, which you're trying very hard to forget. Ready to change the subject again so you can keep defending him?
Or how about the 9/11 Commission Report stating that the Saudi family was interviewed by the FBI and left after airspace was reopened? Remember, Moore said no interview, left before airspace opened. No trying a diversion of "Well, how high-quality was the interview?" The question is whether the administration let them go with no scrutiny, before airspace was reopened.
You have said you can do it, but you have not yet done it.
Lie #1. I gave him fault for the current recession.
You place all the economic blame of the current situation on Clinton
Lie #2. I placed the post dot com recession on Clinton. Bush was not in office long enough to have caused it.
ou complain about the "liberal bias" in the media:
And you ignore the absolute frenzy over Obama.
You called his movies "faux documentaries"
Documentaries should be truthful, or they are not documentaries. Thus faux documentaries.
You said he had "academy award winning movies" - when he has won only one academy awar
And you're the one talking about splitting hairs.
You tried to induce comparisons in movies you haven't seen that simply were not there
Lie #3, I have seen the movies.
When I asked you for a straight answer regarding one of your assertions
Straight answer given. I guess you aren't smart enough to Google New York state laws and NRA by-laws? You'd have really been stuck if I cited a precedent that's not available freely online, wouldn't you?
In your other response, you appear to be saying the NRA should just ignore the laws governing its incorporation. Sorry, real corporations just don't do that. You're being obtuse again with questions such as this:
"Where does it have jurisdiction?"
Hmmm, I told you the NRA was incorporated under the laws of New York. That would mean any such actions of corporate governance fall under the laws of New York and thus fall under the jurisdiction of New York.
I still see your history. You were proven wrong about the NRA just being a private entity and can't be told to do anything. Now you're stretching as far as you can to rescue yourself since you've been shown they're subject to laws of incorporation.
And I see you've dropped your assertion that Moore didn't support Nader, and with that stopped defending the whole issue of Heston coming into town after that killing. So are you at least willing to admit Moore lied about that, or will your ideology not let you?
Blind ideology? I can admit that Bush does wrong, which is easy since I'm not Republican and he's not my guy. I can show you where Clinton was wrong, but you can't believe it because your ideology prevents you.
The issues in Moore's films have not been addressed. I have seen what I saw here, distraction from the actual proven factual lies and deceptions in his films.
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting because they are a private entity. Then when shown they are incorporated and must follow the laws and rules of incorporation, you simply couldn't digest it, asking again what forced them to have the meeting. It is such ideological purity, that hard-headedness to the point of being obtuse in the face of the facts before you, that is annoying enough to make me swear.
But to believe that you don't hate Moore, or that you did not approach his films with a prejudice against them, is insanity.
How? I am more mad at Moore than conservatives because I feel he betrayed me. The hard-hitting, yet funny producer that I loved turned to blatant lies and misrepresentations in his later films. Moore caused the present hate, not ideological differences, especially since I agree with him on a lot of things.
I addressed the question. You refuse to listen. Thus my frustration.
Of course the conversation is over according to you. Your blind ideology will not let you see that Michael Moore lied in his films. You yourself were reduced to lying in order to defend him.
At what point can we start to consider that the shitty decisions from Bush & company are helping to drive the US economy into the shitter?
That would be the economy now that Bush is helping damage. I was talking about the recession set up during Clinton that hit just after he got out of office and how you only remember him for the boom.
Funny though, the Clintons never reaped anywhere near the magnitude of profit and campaign contributions from the Saudis and their companies as did the Bushes.
And you still miss the point that the movie lied.
Certainly debatable.
No, it is not debatable. Moore's cuts definitely diverged from the reality of the situation. In other words, he lied.
He made that choice because people were blaming Columbine on all sorts of other things (video games, music, etc...) when really they needed to look at themselves./blockquote>That was a valid point. So why the need to lie to make it?
You're splitting hairs on the Flint-Davison "controversy".
Yeah, somebody from Beverly Hills says "I'm from LA." Flint was a dump, Moore grew up someplace much nicer. It is an issue because Moore tries to make a connection with the audience by saying he grew up in that town that was hurting, when he didn't.
Yeah, that won't have any anti-Moore bias. I'm sure we can trust that movie to be accurate.
It was so easy to predict your response. And we know Moore has a bias so we can trust him? In that movie the bank employees who were there, you can recognize them, flat-out said Moore misrepresented the situation. This movie was made because a young film maker saw the movie, saw the lies in it, and wanted to expose them.
Back on your false "Moore didn't support Nader" claim maybe you should watch that movie and see Moore standing in front of a Nader 2000 podium giving a speech for Nader.
In that there is Moore in context saying that it is "not true" that he changed the order in the Heston speech. Moore lies to cover up, at least you just try to spin.
If you had watched the movie, you would know that he didn't walk out with the gun. He stood in front of the bank with the gun. He never said they handed it to him in the bank.
This is just insane. You have this blind love for Moore that is warping what you see. I just replayed the scene to confirm since I have the movie. A man with jeans and a blue shirt hands Moore a rifle, Moore cycles the action and talks with him. Later is a view of the front of the bank. Moore walks out quickly, raises the gun high in his right hand with a big grin on his face before the door closes behind him, puts the gun on his shoulder and walks away to the right past the camera. You've been all over the map trying to defend this scene, and now you're reduced to simple lying.
After all, why would someone who calls them "faux documentaries" "full of lies" want to sit through them?
Because I liked Moore and didn't know they were full of lies when I saw them.
And for that matter, you make it sound as if the "laws" that "require the meeting" are held so unflexibly that the NRA never had a chance of petitioning to re-schedule.
Now you're just getting ridiculous and purposely obtuse. Why does there always have to be blame? We're supposed to expect legislators god knows how many decades ago to foresee exactly this circumstance? The NRA got stuck in the circumstances. The New York state laws of incorporation state they MUST hold meetings accord
Required by law? I'd be interested in knowing how a private organization could be required by law to hold a meeting at a given place and time.
You don't appear to believe me. That would mean you think the NRA had the option to cancel, and not canceling so soon after Columbine was not a good thing. Now you're saying they should have canceled out of respect? Now it's not about the gun culture anymore, is it? It's about vilifying them for holding the meeting so soon after Columbine. That is exactly what Moore was doing.
You didn't even know the status of the NRA? Thought it was just a good ol' boys club that could do whatever it wanted? The NRA is an incorporated non-profit under New York state law, and as such must abide by the law and its by-laws.
Their required annual meeting was scheduled for May 1st months in advance, giving all members a chance to make their arrangements to attend should they wish to do so. But then Columbine happened on April 20th, 11 days before the scheduled, and legally required, meeting.
That creates a problem. The NRA could reschedule the meeting for somewhere else, but to do so it must give 10 days notice to all members. That's four million members who must be notified in less than a day including the time in the mail. It was a practical impossibility for the NRA to legally cancel the meeting.
Yet the Denver mayor decided to squeeze Columbine for some political gain and called for the NRA to cancel a meeting that it couldn't, even though it had canceled the days of events that were not legally required. Then Moore decided to get some propaganda gain by not mentioning any of the facts of the situation in context.
It's going to be interesting to see how you spin that one.
If you heard a report back in 2000 that Saddam Hussein had had yet another person killed, you'd think it was just par for the course. If rumor was that Bush allowed another fat-cat single-source contracting deal with his friends, you'd think it was probably true. Why? Because it falls in with that person's modus operandi.
Putin's Russia has been a very dangerous place for anyone who has opposed him, or even tried to investigate what was happening under him. Many are dead, exiled or in jail. So while I won't automatically put this in the "It's true" category, it does belong firmly in "Most likely true."
You, however, insist that the economic crash under Bush is 100% the fault of Clinton.
I despise people giving Clinton all the credit for the boom and none for the bust. As with most recessions, it was a combination of factors, but Clinton did have a hand in much of it. Bush was not in long enough to cause a recession since the economy usually lags government action by longer than that.
Because if you actually read it - actually, if you even read the line before it begins - you'll see it was not a CBS article.
Did I say it was a CBS article? Or did you not realize Slashdot automatically puts the domain name after a link?
So the footage then of a young GWB visiting the Saudis is forged?
Despite what Moore would have you think, the Saudis have been close to every president WAY back, including Clinton.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Bowling for Columbine was about gun culture, not gun owners or guns themselves.
Again you can't see the trees through the forest. I know what the message is. The problem is Moore's complete dishonesty in getting it across.
I see your point of view. We are allowed to lie our asses off, because that doesn't matter, only the larger message does.
The meeting was included to show how much gun culture has permeated the country.
Then why the tie with Columbine if it was just about general gun culture? Why play with the quotes so it looks like they rushed in right after the tragedy? No, it was a hack job. Moore was so vicious towards Heston in that movie even Al Gore sympathized with him.
I don't know what part of Flint you think is "pretty nice" "doing quite well".
That's because we're not talking about Flint, we're talking about where Moore is really from, Davison, which is doing well.
Which interviews are you referring to? I just checked the extras from the disc
Do you think Moore would put that on the DVD? He's not that honest. Watch Michael Moore Hates America (by a young, low-budget, non-Republican documentary maker) for the interviews with the actual bank employees who were there. Part of the movie went like Roger & Me, only this time it was Michael Moore who would not give an interview and lied about his reasons why he wouldn't.
Have you purchased a long gun in the US? I already told you it isn't unusual for the background check to clear in 10 minutes or less.
I already told you that contrary to what Michael Moore portrayed, that bank does not hand out guns on the premises. Yet for some reason you bring up other stores that do hand out guns on the premises. You might have a point if Moore had gone to Bass Pro Shops, but he didn't. And, yes, I have purchased a long gun, and in my state it requires absolutely no checks.
But you buying at your shop and me at mine has no bearing on the fact that Moore absolutely misrepresented what happens at that bank. He might have done better to represent this had he gone to a gun show, then he could have walked out with a gun without lying.
It cannot be said that he never had anything to do with the city of Flint as you seem to be trying to imply.
No, I'm saying Michael Moore is not from Flint, Michigan, which is true.
Actually, if you check the cities on Google Maps [google.com] you'll see that there is a big difference between the two pairs of cities.
Oh, so now it's geography. Clinton says he's from hope because 1) it makes it look like small-town boy made good and because 2) IT'S TRUE! Moore wants to make it look like he came from a town falling on hard times, he's one of "us." The difference here is that's not true.
Now back to you saying I've hated Moore "from square one" and that I haven't seen the films. Did you notice I haven't mentioned Sicko? That's because I haven't seen it yet and therefore won't comment on it.
Lying must be a liberal disease, you've done it twice referring to me.
Wow, complete distraction from Clinton's pardon payoff. Even if I were Republican I have shown I can dish the dirt on Republicans and admit they are corrupt. Yet you continue to shield your eyes. With Clinton's corruption right before you all you can say is "But, but, the Republicans are corrupt too." You can't even admit Clinton was corrupt.
I bet you just finished watching the Democratic convention and got all excited over "CHANGE." Then you'll watch the Republican convention thinking, man, those Republicans are in the hand of big business, and you'll probably be right. You'll forget the millions corporations just finished pouring into the Democratic convention. That includes AT&T. Wow, didn't the Democrats just give AT&T immunity for their helping the government illegally spy on us? Didn't even Obama vote for that?
Nice bio on Obama. And I saw government executive experience where in that? Uh, none, zero. Ferraro had only been in Congress for 3 1/2 years before she was selected as VP. Got any venom for her?
BTW, it was 12 years teaching constitutional law (not that it shows, but that's a different subject). If he's your boy you might as well get your facts straight about him.
You seem to hold the Bush administration as being quite perfect, considering how you aren't willing to fault them for anything.
You are following the classic liberal strategy, Clinton can do no wrong, the Republicans are responsible for all the evils in the world. Bush has done some bad things, and has been flat-out incompetent in others, but you're deflecting from Clinton by bringing up Bush.
You'll never find "McCain is 72 years old and too old to lead".
He was following the money, which in the case of the Bush administration, went straight from the federal government to the pockets of CEOs that were intimately close to the Bush administration.
He was following links between Bush and the Saudis. But that link was not there. The Clintons had more links.
Why don't you go ahead and demonstrate your knowledge of the movie (which you clearly haven't watched) and tell us what this "completely false impression" is that was created.
Which I have seen. The impression is clear: The NRA is harsh and uncaring, barging in on Denver right after Columbine, not caring anything about what had happened, trying to capitalize on the tragedy. But as I said the truth is opposite: That meeting was required by law and it was too late to reschedule, they cut days of events, only holding the required meeting. They did the opposite of what Moore suggests. And the "Stay out? We're already here" was cut to mean "we barged in and it's too late to keep us out" when the context that Moore chopped out was Denver is full of NRA members, including the police and fire department who responded to Columbine, so of course the NRA is "already here."
You make it sound like he was living in Beverly Hills.
He shows footage of a practically destroyed Flint, saying he's from there, when his town is actually pretty nice, solid white middle-class, doing quite well.
Why don't you go ahead and tell me what this terrible lie is that you feel I am dismissing?
Smearing the NRA with the KKK even though the NRA was against the KKK.
If it was cut out, how do you know it was filmed? And he never showed a vault of guns in the bank.
Because I have seen the movie and the interviews with the bank personnel. He didn't show a vault, he filmed the bank lady saying they had a vault full of guns, with Moore giving the impression the guns are on-site, especially since they gave it to him right there.
What qualifies you to say that is the impression he wanted to make?
It appears you haven't seen the movie. He walked in and within 15 minutes of filling the form walked out with a gun. The obvious impression is that it is possible to do that at that bank. The part you can't seem to understand is that this was STAGED for him. Contrary to Moore's representation, anyone else could not do the same.
As that shows that you don't believe he said anything worthwhile in the movies and was lying constantly from opening to close.
Thank you for walking into that one. I wanted to see whether you'd zero in on one word to try to dismiss the proven lies and misrepresentations in the movie.
An open minded person would see that he brings up several valid points in each of his documentaries
Find somewhere I said Moore did not bring up valid points in his movies. I didn't because I think he does. The problem is his need to lie and deceive while doing it. If you're okay with that, then you're subscribing to Machiavellian principles, it's okay to lie as long as you agree with the message.
You clearly view the Bush administration through unbelievably rose-tinted glasses.
I haven't even started on the Bush administration yet. But here we're talking about the Clinton administration and how every liberal thinks it was just perfect.
I challenge you to find anything in the mainstream media that criticized McCain.
They're all over his age.
The network anchors were still in the states.
Check your "facts." Anchors Brian Williams from NBC, Katie Couric from CBS and Charles Gibson from ABC followed him.
The two are not even in the same league. Clinton was running for president. Palin was selected for VP.
Time headlined Ferraro with "A Historic Event." Not seeing it here.
Now I am ready for the usual lame defenses of Moore, it didn't matter, it didn't really affect the message, the message matters more than the facts, etc.
We have never heard anything of what was asked in the FBI interview.
Strike one. Moore said they left before the air restriction was lifted without *any* scrutiny. Both are false. You haven't shown them to be true, just brought up other arguments.
The importance of the Carlyle group isn't the Saudi connection, it is the industry connections
Even better since Clinton's pack has FAR MORE connections. But the point in the movie was the Saudi connection, which was false at the time.
Hence the Saudis own 7% of the country's influence.
Wrong again. The Saudis own 7% of FOREIGN investment along with dozens of other countries. This foreign capital is a small percent of the TOTAL investment, which is majority American. All you did was parrot the same lie Moore made.
And have we seen a net increase in beds yet under this larger plan?
I haven't checked. You might like to know that Clinton did a study of hospitals that showed $1 million a day waste due to many old and underused hospitals, and started a study on how to fix it. What Moore is talking about is the implementation of something begun under Clinton.
. Flint is where Moore grew up.
Wrong, he grew up in Davison. You perpetuate the lie.
The phrase itself is synonymous with him now, and was used to familiarize the audience with the man.
As expected, no real response to the massive re-editing used to give a completely false impression of what happened in Denver.
Do you have a source for that? Considering Moore personally begged Nader to not run in '04, it seems unlikely that he was stumping for him in 2000.
You really don't know Moore. He was a huge Nader supporter in 2000. You don't remember him saying "A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush" and "It is a wasted vote if you vote for more of the same, which is what you get with Gore or Bush"? It's on Nader's site.
You must not have seen the part of the movie where Moore shows his NRA membership card.
I've seen it. And I see how you are simply dismissing the lie.
He never showed or implied a vault full of guns at the bank.
Yes he did. Watch again and see what the bank lady says when he asks where they are. He cuts out the part where she says no guns are actually in the bank and the vault is far away. But I see you still completely dismiss that the whole bank episode was fabricated and WOULD NEVER HAPPEN as he showed it happening for a regular person opening an account.
it isn't that much of a stretch for a bank to obtain the same credentials.
Yes, the bank had a license. Having the credentials does not automatically mean they will be handing out
Rich had to pay a fine far greater than the amount he supposedly dodged ($100 million) and would still be open to civil lawsuits.
He's rich enough for that. What matters he paid for his pardon which allowed him back in the US and kept him out of prison. I can do even worse for GW Bush. He released murderous anti-Castro terrorist Orlando Bosch to help Jeb get in good with the Cuban community in Miami. He pardoned Armand Hammer after some big contributions. He pardoned a high-volume Pakistani heroin trafficker.
If it blathers like a Republican, is ignorant like a Republican, and couldn't make an honest argument to save it's soul just like a Republican, it's probably a Republican.
Standard Democrat tactic. Revert to ad hominem when hit with the truth of your own corruption.
No, it's asking Republicans to be consistent for two consecutive seconds,
Again, I am not a Republican. Just like above I believe I can come up with more examples of their corruption than you. But unlike you I won't make excuses for their corruption or try to distract from it because I'm not so far up the DNC's ass I can see donkey teeth.
Catching and publicizing corruption is a good thing. Turning a blind eye to it because it's in your own party is pathetic.
how experience was vital for the presidency according to McCain up to last week, yet now is completely irrelevant
Q: Which of the four candidates has the most experience as a government executive?
A: Palin, two years governor vs. absolutely none for Obama, Biden or McCain.
Media: I guess you haven't noticed them fawning over Obama (he's practically media-built), calling Hillary's run for president historic (that's not happening much for Palin), painting the Iraq war in a bad light, etc. McCain went overseas several times with little press coverage, while the big news outlets sent their best people with Obama to Europe.
You don't need to look for lies. You need to look for bias
Care to demonstrate some of these lies
Remember, taking something out of context or only giving partial information in order to give the viewer a false impression is a lie. Get ready for a long read:
Fahrenheit:
The Saudi family leaving: Moore gives the impression they were just allowed to leave with no scrutiny before airspace opened. They were interviewed by the FBI and allowed to leave after airspace opened.
The Carlyle Group Bush Family conspiracy theory with Bin Laden. Fact: Bush Sr. came in after the Saudis dumped their Carlyle investment. Plus, many of Clinton's confidants are highly placed in the Carlyle Group, and George Soros is a major investor.
The scene where Bush is in front of a bunch of rich people calling them his "base." Moore makes it sound elitist and uncaring, but it was at a hospital charity fundraiser where the candidates are expected to make fun of themselves. Gore was there too.
The Saudis own 7% of America. Wrong, they own 7% of the foreign investment in America, which translates to a far, far smaller percentage of all of America.
The Unocal pipeline was supported by the Clinton administration, not Bush.
Porter Goss said he had an 800 number, Moore said he was lying. That is splitting hairs to the point of dishonesty since Goss does have a toll-free 877 number. Anybody knows "800" is synonymous with "toll-free" in America, but Moore leaves the viewer with the impression that Goss doesn't have a toll-free number.
Bush closing veterans hospitals. Oops, forgot sort-of-on-purpose to mention it was part of a larger plan to better serve veterans that included the building of many more veterans hospitals.
He cut up the interview with Rep. Kennedy to make it look like he wouldn't want to help recruit the children of congressmen, but he did in fact say it was a good idea and offered to help.
Flynt is not Moore's home town, it is the white and wealthy Davison.
Now to Bowling for Columbine:
The Heston/NRA footage was full of deception. Moore makes it look like they rushed in, when by law they were required to hold that meeting that had been planned far in advance, and they did cancel days of events, save for that required meeting.
The Heston Denver speech is actually two speeches, one from Denver that was many carefully arranged smaller clips from the actual speech separated by cut scenes in the film, and the "cold dead hands" one was from North Carolina a year later.
Heston having a pro-gun rally in Flynt after a shooting. It was eight months later and was a get out the vote rally. Bush and Gore were there for such rallies, as was Moore himself trying to get votes for Nader. To make it look like Heston went there right after the death he shows an NRA web page with "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead" hilighted. It's presented so fast you can't read the rest, but the rest says something about Bill Clinton being on TV talking about it, not Heston.
NRA/KKK, Moore wants you to think they're parallel groups with the same start year. That's wrong, the Klan precedes the NRA, but the NRA's start year is the year anti-Klan legislation was passed. Grant signed that law and moved to be the head of the NRA after he left the presidency. In fact, the NRA has been staunchly anti-KKK, to the point of blacks joining in order to get access to weapons with which to defend themselves against the KKK.
When I show how corrupt Clinton is, liberals like to show corruption in the Republican party as if it were some kind of counter, some excuse, for Clinton's corruption.
The tactic might actually have some validity if I were a Republican, but I am not.
Liberals like to think Clinton was a saint, and it's fun to disabuse them of that idea. You already know the Bush clan isn't clean because your ideology led you to discover that, and the news sources that feed your your positions have told you, so I don't have to go over that side.
"Is that what you are trying to accomplish - remove all liability for the economy going to hell from GWB?"
Bush inherited a bad economy, made worse by an attack enabled by Clinton. It's really that simple. That's not to say Bush's incompetency wouldn't have destroyed the economy anyway.
Yes, the media in this country swings WAY liberal. I can admit Fox swings conservative, yet you can't admit the liberal bias in almost all of the rest of the media. Oh, and add ultra-liberal PBS.
First and foremost a documentary is supposed to be truthful. Politicians lie all the time, but we're supposed to be able to trust documentaries. Yes, there will often be a slant, but we still expect truth. There are just too many lies and purposeful deception of the viewer in a Moore film, so yes they are faux documentaries, they don't qualify as real ones.
"It is not Michael Moore's fault that conservatives haven't used documentaries as effective tools for their message."
I don't know, maybe they still think documentaries are supposed to be truthful.
The equivalent of the "Cadillac driving welfare queen"
Ah, reminders of post-Katrina with that welfare queen complaining about not getting enough help from the government, picture in the article of her sitting there in her nice apartment next to her huge big-screen TV.
Impressive. If you aren't working for a politician somewhere, you've missed your calling.
The Taliban didn't actually form and start taking over until years after the Soviets left. They did it using weapons we supplied to the Mujaheddin for fighting against the Soviets, but we stopped supplying them when there was no more Soviet threat.
That's quite a few years between when we helped a country successfully defend itself (under Carter/Reagan/Bush) and an enemy formed using those weapons (under Clinton, I see a pattern here).
A good economy helps build a good legacy, as long as the full weight of the crash is felt after your presidency is over so it can be blamed on the next guy.
Too bad mainly Democrats remember that fallacy. The rest of the country will remember him for a new word brought to our sexual lexicon, "to get a lewinsky." Yes, leftist Europeans think it's funny too. You should have seen the "Clinton gets a Lewinsky" float at a German Fasching parade.
Oh wow, Fox and a few radio commentators. Massive? You're funny. I'll call that and on the liberal side raise you CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the LA Times, the NY Times, etc., plus the massively popular Daily Kos. Up my sleeve I have the Academy Award-winning chock-full-of-lies faux documentaries from Michael Moore.
Free-flowing credit fueled the dot com bubble. The government controls the credit. The tax burden also went up as the riches went up, but they were still there when the economy started slowing helping drive what could have been a slowdown into a full recession.
Somehow Clinton is remembered for the boom, not remembered for the bust he helped cause.
"How on earth would increased military spending have helped against Al Qaeda? "
What do you think is funding the current fight against Al Qaeda? Cheerios?
"Clinton paid a lot more attention to Al Qaeda than Bush did pre-9/11"
Clinton lived through years of attacks, giving it little attention, even refusing to take Bin Laden handed to him on a platter. What attention are you talking about? That one ineffective missile salvo?
Bush was in office eight months, not much time to undo two terms of Clinton damage. Not that Bush would have necessarily been competent enough to do anything effectual, but new presidents rarely hit the ground running.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking specifically of those investigating the apartment bombings that brought Putin to power, the ones where they caught the FSB planting the bombs.
No, your questions don't even have anything to do with what the law is. In this country a legislature passes a law, so asking its origin is dumb. In this country the government of the of the state that passes a law enforces it, so asking who enforces it is dumb. In this country an entity incorporated under the laws of a state is subject to the jurisdiction of that state under the incorporation law, so asking that was dumb.
Well, either it was dumb, as in "What color is green," or it was purposeful misdirection or an effort to simply frustrate me. The latter succeeded.
I notice you have refused to actually refute any of the facts. The bank scene, staged, would not normally happen. Denver, misrepresented. After the killing, your buddy Moore was there stumping for Nader and you didn't even know it ("it seems unlikely that he was stumping for him in 2000"), and won't acknowledge it. The Saudis leaving, the 9/11 Commission Report shows Moore lied (facts are facts, and Moore got them wrong).
You of course fear to address any of the facts and prefer misdirection such as you are doing now. Why? Simple, because Moore lied so it is impossible to stay on the subject and stay honest and still defend him.
And are you still going to stand by your claim that Moore did not walk out of the bank with a gun in Bowling for Columbine? You say he never said they handed him a gun in the bank, but the movie shows someone handing a gun to him in the bank so he didn't exactly need to say it. Who supposedly saw the film, you or me? Who is getting scenes in the film wrong, you or me? You seem to be throwing out some lies in support of Moore.
I'm sorry, I guess the jurisdiction for an entity incorporated under New York law might be New Mexico, or maybe even Albania. I guess the Russian Duma was responsible for the law and a Boy Scout chapter in Ohio is responsible for its enforcement.
This is a standard liberal tactic, divert attention with a bunch of inane questions. As far as the law, why don't you try the state of New York web site? As far as the by-laws, why don't you try the NRA? Given the earlier questions you asked maybe you didn't realize those are good places to find the information you want. How about the timely coverage of what happened from the Rocky Mountain News.
What's important in that situation are two things: 1) the NRA bent over backwards after Columbine, and 2) Moore completely misrepresented what happened, giving the viewer a completely opposite perspective from what really happened.
I see you're still avoiding Nader and the Saudi family. I wonder why. Have you run out of diversions for those?
Did you find out that Moore and Gore were indeed in Michigan around the same time, so you can't vilify Heston over it? But you can't admit Moore was being dishonest about that, can you?
How about the misrepresented Bush speech, where Moore made him look like a greedy plutocrat, but it was at a hospital charity fundraiser? Yes, Moore of course didn't include the part of the clip that showed Gore was there too. That wouldn't fit with the deceptive picture he's trying to paint for the viewer.
Face it: Moore lies. There is no way around that.
Okay, once again for the slow people:
Neeww Yooorrrk Staaate Coooorporrate Laaawwwwww.
It's not that hard to find.
And the questions are extremely dumb:
It's interesting that you and Moore* harp on them not canceling their meeting when they canceled days of events that net millions of dollars. Actually no, Moore didn't harp on them not canceling a meeting, he made it look like they just barged in in response to the tragedy in order to take advantage of it. Despite your little detour, that right there was Moore's lie.
Now back to Moore/Nader, which you're trying very hard to forget. Ready to change the subject again so you can keep defending him?
Or how about the 9/11 Commission Report stating that the Saudi family was interviewed by the FBI and left after airspace was reopened? Remember, Moore said no interview, left before airspace opened. No trying a diversion of "Well, how high-quality was the interview?" The question is whether the administration let them go with no scrutiny, before airspace was reopened.
Lie #1. I gave him fault for the current recession.
Lie #2. I placed the post dot com recession on Clinton. Bush was not in office long enough to have caused it.
And you ignore the absolute frenzy over Obama.
Documentaries should be truthful, or they are not documentaries. Thus faux documentaries.
And you're the one talking about splitting hairs.
Lie #3, I have seen the movies.
Straight answer given. I guess you aren't smart enough to Google New York state laws and NRA by-laws? You'd have really been stuck if I cited a precedent that's not available freely online, wouldn't you?
In your other response, you appear to be saying the NRA should just ignore the laws governing its incorporation. Sorry, real corporations just don't do that. You're being obtuse again with questions such as this:
"Where does it have jurisdiction?"
Hmmm, I told you the NRA was incorporated under the laws of New York. That would mean any such actions of corporate governance fall under the laws of New York and thus fall under the jurisdiction of New York.
I still see your history. You were proven wrong about the NRA just being a private entity and can't be told to do anything. Now you're stretching as far as you can to rescue yourself since you've been shown they're subject to laws of incorporation.
And I see you've dropped your assertion that Moore didn't support Nader, and with that stopped defending the whole issue of Heston coming into town after that killing. So are you at least willing to admit Moore lied about that, or will your ideology not let you?
Blind ideology? I can admit that Bush does wrong, which is easy since I'm not Republican and he's not my guy. I can show you where Clinton was wrong, but you can't believe it because your ideology prevents you.
The issues in Moore's films have not been addressed. I have seen what I saw here, distraction from the actual proven factual lies and deceptions in his films.
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting because they are a private entity. Then when shown they are incorporated and must follow the laws and rules of incorporation, you simply couldn't digest it, asking again what forced them to have the meeting. It is such ideological purity, that hard-headedness to the point of being obtuse in the face of the facts before you, that is annoying enough to make me swear.
How? I am more mad at Moore than conservatives because I feel he betrayed me. The hard-hitting, yet funny producer that I loved turned to blatant lies and misrepresentations in his later films. Moore caused the present hate, not ideological differences, especially since I agree with him on a lot of things.
I addressed the question. You refuse to listen. Thus my frustration.
Of course the conversation is over according to you. Your blind ideology will not let you see that Michael Moore lied in his films. You yourself were reduced to lying in order to defend him.
You really need to check your facts.
That would be the economy now that Bush is helping damage. I was talking about the recession set up during Clinton that hit just after he got out of office and how you only remember him for the boom.
And you still miss the point that the movie lied.
No, it is not debatable. Moore's cuts definitely diverged from the reality of the situation. In other words, he lied.
You don't appear to believe me. That would mean you think the NRA had the option to cancel, and not canceling so soon after Columbine was not a good thing. Now you're saying they should have canceled out of respect? Now it's not about the gun culture anymore, is it? It's about vilifying them for holding the meeting so soon after Columbine. That is exactly what Moore was doing.
You didn't even know the status of the NRA? Thought it was just a good ol' boys club that could do whatever it wanted? The NRA is an incorporated non-profit under New York state law, and as such must abide by the law and its by-laws.
Their required annual meeting was scheduled for May 1st months in advance, giving all members a chance to make their arrangements to attend should they wish to do so. But then Columbine happened on April 20th, 11 days before the scheduled, and legally required, meeting.
That creates a problem. The NRA could reschedule the meeting for somewhere else, but to do so it must give 10 days notice to all members. That's four million members who must be notified in less than a day including the time in the mail. It was a practical impossibility for the NRA to legally cancel the meeting.
Yet the Denver mayor decided to squeeze Columbine for some political gain and called for the NRA to cancel a meeting that it couldn't, even though it had canceled the days of events that were not legally required. Then Moore decided to get some propaganda gain by not mentioning any of the facts of the situation in context.
It's going to be interesting to see how you spin that one.
If you heard a report back in 2000 that Saddam Hussein had had yet another person killed, you'd think it was just par for the course. If rumor was that Bush allowed another fat-cat single-source contracting deal with his friends, you'd think it was probably true. Why? Because it falls in with that person's modus operandi.
Putin's Russia has been a very dangerous place for anyone who has opposed him, or even tried to investigate what was happening under him. Many are dead, exiled or in jail. So while I won't automatically put this in the "It's true" category, it does belong firmly in "Most likely true."
I despise people giving Clinton all the credit for the boom and none for the bust. As with most recessions, it was a combination of factors, but Clinton did have a hand in much of it. Bush was not in long enough to cause a recession since the economy usually lags government action by longer than that.
Did I say it was a CBS article? Or did you not realize Slashdot automatically puts the domain name after a link?
Despite what Moore would have you think, the Saudis have been close to every president WAY back, including Clinton.
Again you can't see the trees through the forest. I know what the message is. The problem is Moore's complete dishonesty in getting it across.
I see your point of view. We are allowed to lie our asses off, because that doesn't matter, only the larger message does.
Then why the tie with Columbine if it was just about general gun culture? Why play with the quotes so it looks like they rushed in right after the tragedy? No, it was a hack job. Moore was so vicious towards Heston in that movie even Al Gore sympathized with him.
That's because we're not talking about Flint, we're talking about where Moore is really from, Davison, which is doing well.
Do you think Moore would put that on the DVD? He's not that honest. Watch Michael Moore Hates America (by a young, low-budget, non-Republican documentary maker) for the interviews with the actual bank employees who were there. Part of the movie went like Roger & Me, only this time it was Michael Moore who would not give an interview and lied about his reasons why he wouldn't.
I already told you that contrary to what Michael Moore portrayed, that bank does not hand out guns on the premises. Yet for some reason you bring up other stores that do hand out guns on the premises. You might have a point if Moore had gone to Bass Pro Shops, but he didn't. And, yes, I have purchased a long gun, and in my state it requires absolutely no checks.
But you buying at your shop and me at mine has no bearing on the fact that Moore absolutely misrepresented what happens at that bank. He might have done better to represent this had he gone to a gun show, then he could have walked out with a gun without lying.
No, I'm saying Michael Moore is not from Flint, Michigan, which is true.
Oh, so now it's geography. Clinton says he's from hope because 1) it makes it look like small-town boy made good and because 2) IT'S TRUE! Moore wants to make it look like he came from a town falling on hard times, he's one of "us." The difference here is that's not true.
Now back to you saying I've hated Moore "from square one" and that I haven't seen the films. Did you notice I haven't mentioned Sicko? That's because I haven't seen it yet and therefore won't comment on it.
Lying must be a liberal disease, you've done it twice referring to me.
Wow, complete distraction from Clinton's pardon payoff. Even if I were Republican I have shown I can dish the dirt on Republicans and admit they are corrupt. Yet you continue to shield your eyes. With Clinton's corruption right before you all you can say is "But, but, the Republicans are corrupt too." You can't even admit Clinton was corrupt.
I bet you just finished watching the Democratic convention and got all excited over "CHANGE." Then you'll watch the Republican convention thinking, man, those Republicans are in the hand of big business, and you'll probably be right. You'll forget the millions corporations just finished pouring into the Democratic convention. That includes AT&T. Wow, didn't the Democrats just give AT&T immunity for their helping the government illegally spy on us? Didn't even Obama vote for that?
Nice bio on Obama. And I saw government executive experience where in that? Uh, none, zero. Ferraro had only been in Congress for 3 1/2 years before she was selected as VP. Got any venom for her?
BTW, it was 12 years teaching constitutional law (not that it shows, but that's a different subject). If he's your boy you might as well get your facts straight about him.
You are following the classic liberal strategy, Clinton can do no wrong, the Republicans are responsible for all the evils in the world. Bush has done some bad things, and has been flat-out incompetent in others, but you're deflecting from Clinton by bringing up Bush.
You are too easy.
He was following links between Bush and the Saudis. But that link was not there. The Clintons had more links.
Which I have seen. The impression is clear: The NRA is harsh and uncaring, barging in on Denver right after Columbine, not caring anything about what had happened, trying to capitalize on the tragedy. But as I said the truth is opposite: That meeting was required by law and it was too late to reschedule, they cut days of events, only holding the required meeting. They did the opposite of what Moore suggests. And the "Stay out? We're already here" was cut to mean "we barged in and it's too late to keep us out" when the context that Moore chopped out was Denver is full of NRA members, including the police and fire department who responded to Columbine, so of course the NRA is "already here."
He shows footage of a practically destroyed Flint, saying he's from there, when his town is actually pretty nice, solid white middle-class, doing quite well.
Smearing the NRA with the KKK even though the NRA was against the KKK.
Because I have seen the movie and the interviews with the bank personnel. He didn't show a vault, he filmed the bank lady saying they had a vault full of guns, with Moore giving the impression the guns are on-site, especially since they gave it to him right there.
It appears you haven't seen the movie. He walked in and within 15 minutes of filling the form walked out with a gun. The obvious impression is that it is possible to do that at that bank. The part you can't seem to understand is that this was STAGED for him. Contrary to Moore's representation, anyone else could not do the same.
Thank you for walking into that one. I wanted to see whether you'd zero in on one word to try to dismiss the proven lies and misrepresentations in the movie.
Find somewhere I said Moore did not bring up valid points in his movies. I didn't because I think he does. The problem is his need to lie and deceive while doing it. If you're okay with that, then you're subscribing to Machiavellian principles, it's okay to lie as long as you agree with the message.
I haven't even started on the Bush administration yet. But here we're talking about the Clinton administration and how every liberal thinks it was just perfect.
They're all over his age.
Check your "facts." Anchors Brian Williams from NBC, Katie Couric from CBS and Charles Gibson from ABC followed him.
Time headlined Ferraro with "A Historic Event." Not seeing it here.
Now I am ready for the usual lame defenses of Moore, it didn't matter, it didn't really affect the message, the message matters more than the facts, etc.
Strike one. Moore said they left before the air restriction was lifted without *any* scrutiny. Both are false. You haven't shown them to be true, just brought up other arguments.
Even better since Clinton's pack has FAR MORE connections. But the point in the movie was the Saudi connection, which was false at the time.
Wrong again. The Saudis own 7% of FOREIGN investment along with dozens of other countries. This foreign capital is a small percent of the TOTAL investment, which is majority American. All you did was parrot the same lie Moore made.
I haven't checked. You might like to know that Clinton did a study of hospitals that showed $1 million a day waste due to many old and underused hospitals, and started a study on how to fix it. What Moore is talking about is the implementation of something begun under Clinton.
Wrong, he grew up in Davison. You perpetuate the lie.
As expected, no real response to the massive re-editing used to give a completely false impression of what happened in Denver.
You really don't know Moore. He was a huge Nader supporter in 2000. You don't remember him saying "A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush" and "It is a wasted vote if you vote for more of the same, which is what you get with Gore or Bush"? It's on Nader's site.
I've seen it. And I see how you are simply dismissing the lie.
Yes he did. Watch again and see what the bank lady says when he asks where they are. He cuts out the part where she says no guns are actually in the bank and the vault is far away. But I see you still completely dismiss that the whole bank episode was fabricated and WOULD NEVER HAPPEN as he showed it happening for a regular person opening an account.
Yes, the bank had a license. Having the credentials does not automatically mean they will be handing out
He's rich enough for that. What matters he paid for his pardon which allowed him back in the US and kept him out of prison. I can do even worse for GW Bush. He released murderous anti-Castro terrorist Orlando Bosch to help Jeb get in good with the Cuban community in Miami. He pardoned Armand Hammer after some big contributions. He pardoned a high-volume Pakistani heroin trafficker.
Standard Democrat tactic. Revert to ad hominem when hit with the truth of your own corruption.
Again, I am not a Republican. Just like above I believe I can come up with more examples of their corruption than you. But unlike you I won't make excuses for their corruption or try to distract from it because I'm not so far up the DNC's ass I can see donkey teeth.
Catching and publicizing corruption is a good thing. Turning a blind eye to it because it's in your own party is pathetic.
Q: Which of the four candidates has the most experience as a government executive?
A: Palin, two years governor vs. absolutely none for Obama, Biden or McCain.
Economy: Yes, Bush inherited the dot com bust.
Media: I guess you haven't noticed them fawning over Obama (he's practically media-built), calling Hillary's run for president historic (that's not happening much for Palin), painting the Iraq war in a bad light, etc. McCain went overseas several times with little press coverage, while the big news outlets sent their best people with Obama to Europe.
You don't need to look for lies. You need to look for bias
Remember, taking something out of context or only giving partial information in order to give the viewer a false impression is a lie. Get ready for a long read:
Fahrenheit:
The Saudi family leaving: Moore gives the impression they were just allowed to leave with no scrutiny before airspace opened. They were interviewed by the FBI and allowed to leave after airspace opened.
The Carlyle Group Bush Family conspiracy theory with Bin Laden. Fact: Bush Sr. came in after the Saudis dumped their Carlyle investment. Plus, many of Clinton's confidants are highly placed in the Carlyle Group, and George Soros is a major investor.
The scene where Bush is in front of a bunch of rich people calling them his "base." Moore makes it sound elitist and uncaring, but it was at a hospital charity fundraiser where the candidates are expected to make fun of themselves. Gore was there too.
The Saudis own 7% of America. Wrong, they own 7% of the foreign investment in America, which translates to a far, far smaller percentage of all of America.
The Unocal pipeline was supported by the Clinton administration, not Bush.
Porter Goss said he had an 800 number, Moore said he was lying. That is splitting hairs to the point of dishonesty since Goss does have a toll-free 877 number. Anybody knows "800" is synonymous with "toll-free" in America, but Moore leaves the viewer with the impression that Goss doesn't have a toll-free number.
Bush closing veterans hospitals. Oops, forgot sort-of-on-purpose to mention it was part of a larger plan to better serve veterans that included the building of many more veterans hospitals.
He cut up the interview with Rep. Kennedy to make it look like he wouldn't want to help recruit the children of congressmen, but he did in fact say it was a good idea and offered to help.
Flynt is not Moore's home town, it is the white and wealthy Davison.
Now to Bowling for Columbine:
The Heston/NRA footage was full of deception. Moore makes it look like they rushed in, when by law they were required to hold that meeting that had been planned far in advance, and they did cancel days of events, save for that required meeting.
The Heston Denver speech is actually two speeches, one from Denver that was many carefully arranged smaller clips from the actual speech separated by cut scenes in the film, and the "cold dead hands" one was from North Carolina a year later.
Heston having a pro-gun rally in Flynt after a shooting. It was eight months later and was a get out the vote rally. Bush and Gore were there for such rallies, as was Moore himself trying to get votes for Nader. To make it look like Heston went there right after the death he shows an NRA web page with "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead" hilighted. It's presented so fast you can't read the rest, but the rest says something about Bill Clinton being on TV talking about it, not Heston.
NRA/KKK, Moore wants you to think they're parallel groups with the same start year. That's wrong, the Klan precedes the NRA, but the NRA's start year is the year anti-Klan legislation was passed. Grant signed that law and moved to be the head of the NRA after he left the presidency. In fact, the NRA has been staunchly anti-KKK, to the point of blacks joining in order to get access to weapons with which to defend themselves against the KKK.
Getting a gun at the Bank. Moore makes i
When I show how corrupt Clinton is, liberals like to show corruption in the Republican party as if it were some kind of counter, some excuse, for Clinton's corruption.
The tactic might actually have some validity if I were a Republican, but I am not.
Liberals like to think Clinton was a saint, and it's fun to disabuse them of that idea. You already know the Bush clan isn't clean because your ideology led you to discover that, and the news sources that feed your your positions have told you, so I don't have to go over that side.
"Is that what you are trying to accomplish - remove all liability for the economy going to hell from GWB?"
Bush inherited a bad economy, made worse by an attack enabled by Clinton. It's really that simple. That's not to say Bush's incompetency wouldn't have destroyed the economy anyway.
Yes, the media in this country swings WAY liberal. I can admit Fox swings conservative, yet you can't admit the liberal bias in almost all of the rest of the media. Oh, and add ultra-liberal PBS.
First and foremost a documentary is supposed to be truthful. Politicians lie all the time, but we're supposed to be able to trust documentaries. Yes, there will often be a slant, but we still expect truth. There are just too many lies and purposeful deception of the viewer in a Moore film, so yes they are faux documentaries, they don't qualify as real ones.
"It is not Michael Moore's fault that conservatives haven't used documentaries as effective tools for their message."
I don't know, maybe they still think documentaries are supposed to be truthful.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Taiwan.
Marc Rich's ex-wife (cash for pardons).
And apparently some charities forwarded their donors' money to the library.
And some people and companies trying to get out of legal trouble.
Rich guy Frank Giustra donated $31 million after Clinton cinched a big uranium deal for him in Kazakhstan.
Ah, reminders of post-Katrina with that welfare queen complaining about not getting enough help from the government, picture in the article of her sitting there in her nice apartment next to her huge big-screen TV.
Impressive. If you aren't working for a politician somewhere, you've missed your calling.
The Taliban didn't actually form and start taking over until years after the Soviets left. They did it using weapons we supplied to the Mujaheddin for fighting against the Soviets, but we stopped supplying them when there was no more Soviet threat.
That's quite a few years between when we helped a country successfully defend itself (under Carter/Reagan/Bush) and an enemy formed using those weapons (under Clinton, I see a pattern here).
A good economy helps build a good legacy, as long as the full weight of the crash is felt after your presidency is over so it can be blamed on the next guy.
Too bad mainly Democrats remember that fallacy. The rest of the country will remember him for a new word brought to our sexual lexicon, "to get a lewinsky." Yes, leftist Europeans think it's funny too. You should have seen the "Clinton gets a Lewinsky" float at a German Fasching parade.
Oh wow, Fox and a few radio commentators. Massive? You're funny. I'll call that and on the liberal side raise you CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the LA Times, the NY Times, etc., plus the massively popular Daily Kos. Up my sleeve I have the Academy Award-winning chock-full-of-lies faux documentaries from Michael Moore.
Free-flowing credit fueled the dot com bubble. The government controls the credit. The tax burden also went up as the riches went up, but they were still there when the economy started slowing helping drive what could have been a slowdown into a full recession.
Somehow Clinton is remembered for the boom, not remembered for the bust he helped cause.
Damn, Democrats know how to rewrite history.
It was easy to let it undo itself. Once the Clinton administration let the dot com bubble get out of control it could only end in disaster.
"How on earth would increased military spending have helped against Al Qaeda? "
What do you think is funding the current fight against Al Qaeda? Cheerios?
"Clinton paid a lot more attention to Al Qaeda than Bush did pre-9/11"
Clinton lived through years of attacks, giving it little attention, even refusing to take Bin Laden handed to him on a platter. What attention are you talking about? That one ineffective missile salvo?
Bush was in office eight months, not much time to undo two terms of Clinton damage. Not that Bush would have necessarily been competent enough to do anything effectual, but new presidents rarely hit the ground running.