It doesn't. None of the Democrats, including Kerry, seemed to have a problem with Bill Clinton who dodged the draft and protested against the U.S. while overseas. This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
Know why I don't have a problem with either Clinton or Kerry? Because they don't freaking lie about their service records, that's why. Clinton was open and honest about what he did during the Vietnam War. He didn't lie, dissemble, or attack his accusers like Bush Corp.
Since I'll assume your response, if any, will be "Yeah he did!" I'll go ahead and ask you for some sources for that. And cynicism is not a source.
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience.
Hyping? Hyping? He should be *rewarded* for his service. You fascist fucktard, he served his country -- well -- and all the Republicans can do is fall over themselves to smear that service for political gain. Pathetic and dispicable. Here's hoping you rot in hell, partner.
Perhaps you have a problem with Kerry's service because it makes Bush look so bad in comparison? "But Kerry shot himself in the leg! He's just doing it for political gain! Bush is good! Bush is great!" You know, morality is a good thing. Try it on for size some time, see how it fits. Exagerration and lying aren't justified, no matter what the cause.
Dear conservative comrade: When charges are levied that appear to be valid, use your imagination to find ways to discredit the argument. Smear, question motives, question the accuser's patriotism, dissemble, and so forth. Attacking the source diverts attention away from the arugment at hand, and will cause confusion and cynicism, allowing "our side" to come out less damaged, or even undamaged.
Ex: "If Kerry wins terrorists will attack us." (Dick Cheney)
Ex: "The person making the charge is just a partisan Democrat." (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, passim)
Do you get this upset about France and their helping Irag (against UN agreements) build their oil industry and buy weapons? Or is that behavior ok as long as someone other than the USA is doing it.
You're a fucking liar and a tool. You buy uncritically accept any load of bullshit you hear from Sean Hannity and propagate it to spread the meme. People have repeatedly pointed out to you that the whole UN "scandal" was nothing of the kind, and yet you perpetuate it endlessly.
So screw you, dickcheese. If you have to resort to lies and Republican spin then you are either a pathetic hanger-on or a truly stupid invidual. Either way, go fuck yourself until you get find some morality and just a shred of decency.
I can just about see C-SPAN or PBS broadcasting it, but probably not for about twenty years. Moore's request for it to be shown on TV is just a way of generating publicity for the DVD release. (Moore is a good movie maker, but the thing he really excels at is PR. Even McCain's speech at the Republican convention helped to promote his movie!)
Of course, because it is absurd to think that someone actually believes in the cause they are championing. I mean, it's all about money. "If I, being complicated and cynical, can imagine profit as being the primary motivator, why, that simply MUST be it!"
I have come to reject such cynicism because it has been my experience that people are frequently driven by nobler motives than mere profit. Ascribing such motives is cheap and easy, and does a disservice to the larger issues in question.
If Bush is a bad President, it ought to be fairly trivial to refute the claims of any postings supporting him.
It is. When, that is, such statements are made. But Bush's record is the reason the Republicans are so insistent in their themes of fear and hate: his record is one of failure.
If their views are as "substantial" as you assert, they should display the substance of their views through hitting the Reply button, not the Moderate button.
I largely find myself agreeing with your post, but I did want to address the following:
We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.
Why do you think there was no special exception? The flights out of the country to Saudi Arabia happened during the time that all other flights were grounded. Many -- but not all -- were members of the bin Laden family. Take this in conjunction with recent revelaations that actively sought to suppress an investigation:
And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment.
Or maybe more people than you realize that Bush is a bad president. Maybe it has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with "intelligence" and "critical thought." Just maybe, just maybe, many people have very good, substantial reasons for disliking Bush, and labelling it "bias" is just a cheap way for some to avoid having to face that reality.
any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?
Just wondering: How exactly is airing a movie short circuiting the democratic process? Sounds like a robust exercise in free speech to me. And do you really think that Bush is so weak that a movie will be able to topple him after all his vast successes? Or perhaps maintaining the appearance of success is more important than ACTUAL success...
He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.
Where?
This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.
The only thing the Bush campaign seems to be able to offer is fear. Since their record is so freaking pathetic, this is small wonder. "9/11! Terrorists! Be afraid of change! Be afraid of Kerry! Fear! FEAR! FEAR!"
It's propaganda if it doesn't provide contrary evidence. What contrary evidence wasn't provided? Did, perhaps, Bush Jr. and Sr. NOT meet with Saudi officials? Is this not a particularly damaging piece of evidence?
In short: what is *factually* not true about what Moore presented? And please, try to use your own words.
It seems that the United States government has also abrogated any responsibility to provide a decent educational system to it's citizens. Was that a typo, or do you honestly not understand why the USSR could never have been considered a fascist country?
Next time try and be less insulting. It does nothing to further the dialog.
I chose the term "fascism" deliberately. It was certainly not Communist, not in the Marxist sense. Soviet Russia was not a fascist state like Germany or Italy during the 1930's and 40's, but it most certainly was fascist in all but the "single powerful ruler" aspect. It was a distributed fascism, with power spread across a single party apparatus, but it was most definately fascist in its dealing with liberties, democracy, and a fair justice system.
We can continue to debate about terminology if you wish, but honestly such discussions tend to be rather boring. If all we are truly arguing about is how best to label 1970's Russia, then so be it. I hope we can have a more meaningful discussion, however.
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
Gore did not lose. Every recount had him winning. Every one. Not to mention that tens of thousands of black voters had their votes illegally thrown out, when if they hadn't Gore would have *easily* won.
And buddy, I most certainly will not get over the damage done to our democracy by that act of blatant criminality. My forefathers died so that the people could have a voice in government. When Republicans -- or anyone else -- usurp those rights then the appropriate response is most certainly NOT to "get over it."
This hasn't even come out yet, it hasn't been investigated yet.
That's because there is nothing to investigate. That won't stop you from believing all charges made were 100% valid, now will it?
In 5 years we'll see where we are, the same with the WMD's in Iraq (personally I think they've been shipped to Syria), before passing judgement.
Of course you do. And in five years you will still believe Saddam had WMDs, because admitting otherwise would mean admitting you were duped or misled, and for your kind that is simply unacceptable.
Besides, this list is mostly nothing more than tin-foil hat theories and crackpottery. The site that compiled it is quite left-wing and is looking for any example of the left being kept down. If you like, I can find the same sort of shit from the right-wing side.
Name-calling and "I bet I can"? Come on, you must be able to do better. And what "left" is being kept down here, exactly? Looks to me like you either can't or won't debate the actual issues raised in any form, so you mindlessly brush it all aside with vague accusations about "the left", all the while stroking your ego by maintaining that you are above the frey.
Both miss the point that it is the right of an individual or corperation to choose what they do and do not say/report.
That is not the point at all. The point is what these entities choose to report or not report. The fact that they have such a choice is a predicate of the criticism given by Project Censored.
And I have to say that it is you who are fundamentally naive if you think that a profit motive can explain away even a majority of what the media chooses to follow. Profit is a part, but only a part. The political forces both within the media establishment -- from Michael Eisner to Rupert Murdoch to Sun Yung Moon -- are political players in their own right, and pressure is put on them from outside, frequently allied, political forces on an ever increasing basis.
What's so surprising about the current administration supporting nuclear power? In todays world nuclear is the only real alternative to coal and oil.
That's not what the article is complaining about. The article is complaining that you are paying for a power plant that is used by private industry. Instead of an entrepreneurial individual or company getting investors to invest in a plan to build a plant, they use the taxpayers and then keep all the proceeds from that plant.
Sandy Bergler Pilfers Terror Memos for Clinton...is not on the list, so we have a real good idea of the political persuasion of the compilers of the list.
1) That was all over the news for a solid week. It lead all the major broadcast network's 6pm news shows for two days staight, and made it on the cover of both the NYT and the Washington Post, who both did in depth stories on this. How is that ignored, hmm?
2) Berger was completely exonerated of those charges, but that exoneration lead exactly zero 6pm news broadcasts, nor did it his exoneration make it at ALL into the pages of the previously mentioned papers.
3) If you have to resort to lies and spin to make your point stick then you are weak and wicked, and will eventually fall.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're really having to reach now, aren't you? My dad had one of those typewriters. It sure as hell COULD do superscript.
It doesn't. None of the Democrats, including Kerry, seemed to have a problem with Bill Clinton who dodged the draft and protested against the U.S. while overseas. This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
Know why I don't have a problem with either Clinton or Kerry? Because they don't freaking lie about their service records, that's why. Clinton was open and honest about what he did during the Vietnam War. He didn't lie, dissemble, or attack his accusers like Bush Corp.
Since I'll assume your response, if any, will be "Yeah he did!" I'll go ahead and ask you for some sources for that. And cynicism is not a source.
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience.
Hyping? Hyping? He should be *rewarded* for his service. You fascist fucktard, he served his country -- well -- and all the Republicans can do is fall over themselves to smear that service for political gain. Pathetic and dispicable. Here's hoping you rot in hell, partner.
Perhaps you have a problem with Kerry's service because it makes Bush look so bad in comparison? "But Kerry shot himself in the leg! He's just doing it for political gain! Bush is good! Bush is great!" You know, morality is a good thing. Try it on for size some time, see how it fits. Exagerration and lying aren't justified, no matter what the cause.
Ex: "If Kerry wins terrorists will attack us." (Dick Cheney)
Ex: "The person making the charge is just a partisan Democrat." (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, passim)
Ex: "This is just another example of media bias."
Point taken.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the truth is biased against a certain viewpoint, namely the view that Bush is somehow a good president?
Do you get this upset about France and their helping Irag (against UN agreements) build their oil industry and buy weapons? Or is that behavior ok as long as someone other than the USA is doing it.
You're a fucking liar and a tool. You buy uncritically accept any load of bullshit you hear from Sean Hannity and propagate it to spread the meme. People have repeatedly pointed out to you that the whole UN "scandal" was nothing of the kind, and yet you perpetuate it endlessly.
So screw you, dickcheese. If you have to resort to lies and Republican spin then you are either a pathetic hanger-on or a truly stupid invidual. Either way, go fuck yourself until you get find some morality and just a shred of decency.
I can just about see C-SPAN or PBS broadcasting it, but probably not for about twenty years. Moore's request for it to be shown on TV is just a way of generating publicity for the DVD release. (Moore is a good movie maker, but the thing he really excels at is PR. Even McCain's speech at the Republican convention helped to promote his movie!)
Of course, because it is absurd to think that someone actually believes in the cause they are championing. I mean, it's all about money. "If I, being complicated and cynical, can imagine profit as being the primary motivator, why, that simply MUST be it!"
I have come to reject such cynicism because it has been my experience that people are frequently driven by nobler motives than mere profit. Ascribing such motives is cheap and easy, and does a disservice to the larger issues in question.
If Bush is a bad President, it ought to be fairly trivial to refute the claims of any postings supporting him.
It is. When, that is, such statements are made. But Bush's record is the reason the Republicans are so insistent in their themes of fear and hate: his record is one of failure.
If their views are as "substantial" as you assert, they should display the substance of their views through hitting the Reply button, not the Moderate button.
I did, me old bucko.
Eeeeenteresting. I just tried the same thing, and it didn't work for me, either. Mea culpa. Seems that the prefs don't work like they are supposed to.
Then change your prefs so you don't see politics on the front page. It's not like you don't have a choice what you participate in.
Of what being true? Fox only telling one side of the story, or lying?
We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.
Why do you think there was no special exception? The flights out of the country to Saudi Arabia happened during the time that all other flights were grounded. Many -- but not all -- were members of the bin Laden family. Take this in conjunction with recent revelaations that actively sought to suppress an investigation:
All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment.
Or maybe more people than you realize that Bush is a bad president. Maybe it has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with "intelligence" and "critical thought." Just maybe, just maybe, many people have very good, substantial reasons for disliking Bush, and labelling it "bias" is just a cheap way for some to avoid having to face that reality.
any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?
Just wondering: How exactly is airing a movie short circuiting the democratic process? Sounds like a robust exercise in free speech to me. And do you really think that Bush is so weak that a movie will be able to topple him after all his vast successes? Or perhaps maintaining the appearance of success is more important than ACTUAL success...
He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.
Where?
This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.
The only thing the Bush campaign seems to be able to offer is fear. Since their record is so freaking pathetic, this is small wonder. "9/11! Terrorists! Be afraid of change! Be afraid of Kerry! Fear! FEAR! FEAR!"
Screw that. Kerry is the man.
It's propaganda if it doesn't provide contrary evidence. What contrary evidence wasn't provided? Did, perhaps, Bush Jr. and Sr. NOT meet with Saudi officials? Is this not a particularly damaging piece of evidence?
In short: what is *factually* not true about what Moore presented? And please, try to use your own words.
It seems that the United States government has also abrogated any responsibility to provide a decent educational system to it's citizens. Was that a typo, or do you honestly not understand why the USSR could never have been considered a fascist country?
Next time try and be less insulting. It does nothing to further the dialog.
I chose the term "fascism" deliberately. It was certainly not Communist, not in the Marxist sense. Soviet Russia was not a fascist state like Germany or Italy during the 1930's and 40's, but it most certainly was fascist in all but the "single powerful ruler" aspect. It was a distributed fascism, with power spread across a single party apparatus, but it was most definately fascist in its dealing with liberties, democracy, and a fair justice system.
We can continue to debate about terminology if you wish, but honestly such discussions tend to be rather boring. If all we are truly arguing about is how best to label 1970's Russia, then so be it. I hope we can have a more meaningful discussion, however.
Here is my hypothesis: America, laregly due to fear first brought about by the cold war and now due to terrorism, has largely abrogated its dedication to a fair justice system, robust liberties, and a government that the people can meaningfully change through the democratic process. As a result, 21st century America shares more characteristics with traditional fascist states (viz. communist Russia c. 1975) than with secular democracies.
Counterpoints are welcome. And to those whose first reaction might be to call me an "America hater", I can assure you that I am not. I criticize my nation because I want it to be better. That means not ignoring it's faults when they are obvious to all.
And buddy, I most certainly will not get over the damage done to our democracy by that act of blatant criminality. My forefathers died so that the people could have a voice in government. When Republicans -- or anyone else -- usurp those rights then the appropriate response is most certainly NOT to "get over it."
Find ONE incident of a editor on their soapbox on the frontpage who isn't taking a left of center position.
Maybe that's because what you consider to be "conservative" is more appropriately categorized as "stupid".
This hasn't even come out yet, it hasn't been investigated yet.
That's because there is nothing to investigate. That won't stop you from believing all charges made were 100% valid, now will it?
In 5 years we'll see where we are, the same with the WMD's in Iraq (personally I think they've been shipped to Syria), before passing judgement.
Of course you do. And in five years you will still believe Saddam had WMDs, because admitting otherwise would mean admitting you were duped or misled, and for your kind that is simply unacceptable.
Besides, this list is mostly nothing more than tin-foil hat theories and crackpottery. The site that compiled it is quite left-wing and is looking for any example of the left being kept down. If you like, I can find the same sort of shit from the right-wing side.
Name-calling and "I bet I can"? Come on, you must be able to do better. And what "left" is being kept down here, exactly? Looks to me like you either can't or won't debate the actual issues raised in any form, so you mindlessly brush it all aside with vague accusations about "the left", all the while stroking your ego by maintaining that you are above the frey.
Both miss the point that it is the right of an individual or corperation to choose what they do and do not say/report.
That is not the point at all. The point is what these entities choose to report or not report. The fact that they have such a choice is a predicate of the criticism given by Project Censored.
And I have to say that it is you who are fundamentally naive if you think that a profit motive can explain away even a majority of what the media chooses to follow. Profit is a part, but only a part. The political forces both within the media establishment -- from Michael Eisner to Rupert Murdoch to Sun Yung Moon -- are political players in their own right, and pressure is put on them from outside, frequently allied, political forces on an ever increasing basis.
What's so surprising about the current administration supporting nuclear power? In todays world nuclear is the only real alternative to coal and oil.
That's not what the article is complaining about. The article is complaining that you are paying for a power plant that is used by private industry. Instead of an entrepreneurial individual or company getting investors to invest in a plan to build a plant, they use the taxpayers and then keep all the proceeds from that plant.
That is not fair.
Sandy Bergler Pilfers Terror Memos for Clinton ...is not on the list, so we have a real good idea of the political persuasion of the compilers of the list.
1) That was all over the news for a solid week. It lead all the major broadcast network's 6pm news shows for two days staight, and made it on the cover of both the NYT and the Washington Post, who both did in depth stories on this. How is that ignored, hmm?
2) Berger was completely exonerated of those charges, but that exoneration lead exactly zero 6pm news broadcasts, nor did it his exoneration make it at ALL into the pages of the previously mentioned papers.
3) If you have to resort to lies and spin to make your point stick then you are weak and wicked, and will eventually fall.