I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film. read up
You asked for sources for my information that he changed "source" material he used in his film not for every lie and half truth. Are you arguing that he didn't?
Here's a link showing what he put in his film and what was actually printed in the paper. enjoy
At least one thing is good about this election, after this election he will never have to shake the hand of the average man again for the rest of his life.
You talking about Moore, or Kerry?
Taking a letter to the editor and representing it as a headline is more than "getting the date and font of a newspaper wrong". You just saying it that way is misleading. He didn't get them wrong... HE CHANGED THEM!!! There's a huge difference.
some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with
That's exactly what Moore does in his "documentaries".
I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".
Kerry admitted that his first purple heart was the result of a self inflicted wound (more than a week after the supposed incident he wrote in his own log that they had yet to be fired upon) and the third one came from rice that was lodged into his butt after he threw a grenade into a rice pile that was too close. Add to that the lie he told several times of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and what do you have? Then again I could care less what he was doing before I was even born. I'd like to hear what he's been doing for the past 20 years in the Senate including the bill that he sponsored last year that would have banned the gun that he's holding here.
I know when I was in the Marines all I wanted to do was kill innocent civilians. And as I carried my full alice pack on 15+ mile humps I couldn't help but think how much like a video game protecting the freedom for people to be total a$$holes really was. Maybe you can meet some of our servicemen and women at the airport as they come home so you can spit on them and call them babykillers. I've got an even better idea... just go here.
Corporations are sentient beings that make their own decisions. I'll let you in on a little secret. Corporations don't pay taxes but people pay taxes through Corporations.
If the library has one of those air filters that "cleans" the air and this guy was standing outside the door breathing the library's filtered air that was being released would the policeman be able to ask him to stop breathing?
i always thought it was a necessity... that's it! tonight I tell my wife she's got to stop throwing 500.00 a month out the window on frivolous crap like... food =)
I think you're overanalyzing here and giving the President too much credit/blame. I don't want a President to "add" jobs. The only jobs the government can create are "government" jobs and guess who pays for those... you and I do. I want the government to leave me alone and I will create jobs. It's their job to protect us and provide an infrastructure and nothing more. I believe the reason that the last 6 years of Clinton's Presidency were so great was because Congress was ruled by the other party. I truly believe that the fewer "accomplishments" they make in Washington the better off we the people are.
The malaise of people in the Red States, who are used to handouts from the Federal government
I live in Oklahoma and we're a donor state... thank you very much.
"For a while, I used to hear people use the devastating attacks as an excuse to fail in business for years afterwards."
I'm sure that some people have used it as an excuse but considering what the attacks did to confidence in our markets and the devastation it had on the transportation industry I think you're minimizing their affects on our overall economy.
p.s.
What you call apathy I call "independence" or "the American spirit".
The unemployment rate now is lower then it was when Bush took office (and lower than it was at the end of Clinton's first term.) During the last four years the economy has been hammered by terrorist attacks which were planned during the Clinton administration, corporate fraud which was committed during Clinton's administration, and the bursting of the tech bubble that also occurred during Clinton's administration and our economy is still pretty strong.
And the Federal economists reported just last month that the Bush recession started well after Clinton was out: in Summer 2001.
If you're implying that Bush was able to single handedly turn the economy of the US in the wrong direction within the 1st 4 months after he took office you're just not very bright. I can find plenty of economists that say that the good times we had during Clinton's terms were a direct result of the policies of Reagan.
You are a Bush apologist.
Actually, I'm a different kind of lib, a libertarian. I can bash Bush with the best of them, but when I see ideologues spewing forth crap I find it necessary to put in my 2 cents. You want to have an honest debate then come armed with all the facts not just half truths that you've twisted to fit your agenda. Bush has done (and not done) plenty of things that are easy enough to attack without having to make stuff up. Next time stick to objective and verifiable facts like his lack of a real Energy policy, destructive immigration policy, faith based initiatives, or even attack him for not being able to put together a coherant sentence. Believe me there's plenty there. The economy is bigger than any one man (except maybe Greenspan) and to blame Bush when it goes bad is even more silly than giving Clinton credit for when it was good!
First you bring up "Reagans Debt" but after I point out that the Democratic Congress was just as responsible (if not more so) you come back with "that was because of the "Cold War." Why do libs always change the arguement in the middle of a discussion?
Many economists will argue that the "wealth" created during Clinton's term was an illusion that was shown for exactly that when the bubble burst at the end of Clinton's term.
Bush took office at the beginning of an economic downturn and not to take that and the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 in addition to being currently at war into consideration when looking at the deficit is just misleading.
Sure. Wasn't that you I heard callig Limbaugh telling him how you voted for Bush the first time but you're so upset because of XYZ you're going to vote for Kerry now? Fact is both parties do it. Listen to any conservative talk show for 15 minutes and you'll hear an obviously scripted call from a lib pretending to be an upset conservative. They're called "plants" and every organization has zealots that do this. You implied that it's only conservatives because you have an agenda. Maybe what you said is true, but it's a half truth and as my momma told me "half the truth still equals a whole lie." Just because you tell us your agenda doesn't make you in any way objective and unbiased.
I guess they get a free pass. Maybe you should pull out a history book. You'll see that in the 50's the last time before 94 that the Repubs had control of both houses there was no national debt. Fast forward 40 years later after the Dems controlled Congress for four decades and what was the debt? It wasn't until the Repubs took back over in 94 that we saw a surplus. Here's a little government lesson free of charge. According to the Constitution, all Federal appropriations must be authorized by Congress. This is a source of great power for Congress known as the "power of the purse".
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film.
read up
Take a look here.
I see... different rules for your guy. Guess that the FACT that he missed 76% of the Intelligence Committee Hearings doesn't matter either.
link
You asked for sources for my information that he changed "source" material he used in his film not for every lie and half truth. Are you arguing that he didn't? Here's a link showing what he put in his film and what was actually printed in the paper.
enjoy
At least one thing is good about this election, after this election he will never have to shake the hand of the average man again for the rest of his life.
You talking about Moore, or Kerry?
That's really hard to do. Let me take 15 seconds to find some...
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9
That's how long Kerry said he sat stunned on 911.
Taking a letter to the editor and representing it as a headline is more than "getting the date and font of a newspaper wrong". You just saying it that way is misleading. He didn't get them wrong... HE CHANGED THEM!!! There's a huge difference.
some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with
That's exactly what Moore does in his "documentaries".
The ones he altered to push his agenda?
I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".
Kerry admitted that his first purple heart was the result of a self inflicted wound (more than a week after the supposed incident he wrote in his own log that they had yet to be fired upon) and the third one came from rice that was lodged into his butt after he threw a grenade into a rice pile that was too close. Add to that the lie he told several times of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and what do you have? Then again I could care less what he was doing before I was even born. I'd like to hear what he's been doing for the past 20 years in the Senate including the bill that he sponsored last year that would have banned the gun that he's holding here.
I know when I was in the Marines all I wanted to do was kill innocent civilians. And as I carried my full alice pack on 15+ mile humps I couldn't help but think how much like a video game protecting the freedom for people to be total a$$holes really was. Maybe you can meet some of our servicemen and women at the airport as they come home so you can spit on them and call them babykillers. I've got an even better idea... just go here.
I already have a gmail account but I was wondering how you get invites to give. Do they just give them to you randomly to give away?
Corporations are sentient beings that make their own decisions. I'll let you in on a little secret. Corporations don't pay taxes but people pay taxes through Corporations.
If the library has one of those air filters that "cleans" the air and this guy was standing outside the door breathing the library's filtered air that was being released would the policeman be able to ask him to stop breathing?
i always thought it was a necessity... that's it! tonight I tell my wife she's got to stop throwing 500.00 a month out the window on frivolous crap like... food =)
I think you're overanalyzing here and giving the President too much credit/blame. I don't want a President to "add" jobs. The only jobs the government can create are "government" jobs and guess who pays for those... you and I do. I want the government to leave me alone and I will create jobs. It's their job to protect us and provide an infrastructure and nothing more. I believe the reason that the last 6 years of Clinton's Presidency were so great was because Congress was ruled by the other party. I truly believe that the fewer "accomplishments" they make in Washington the better off we the people are.
The malaise of people in the Red States, who are used to handouts from the Federal government
I live in Oklahoma and we're a donor state... thank you very much.
"For a while, I used to hear people use the devastating attacks as an excuse to fail in business for years afterwards."
I'm sure that some people have used it as an excuse but considering what the attacks did to confidence in our markets and the devastation it had on the transportation industry I think you're minimizing their affects on our overall economy.
p.s.
What you call apathy I call "independence" or "the American spirit".
The unemployment rate now is lower then it was when Bush took office (and lower than it was at the end of Clinton's first term.) During the last four years the economy has been hammered by terrorist attacks which were planned during the Clinton administration, corporate fraud which was committed during Clinton's administration, and the bursting of the tech bubble that also occurred during Clinton's administration and our economy is still pretty strong.
And the Federal economists reported just last month that the Bush recession started well after Clinton was out: in Summer 2001.
If you're implying that Bush was able to single handedly turn the economy of the US in the wrong direction within the 1st 4 months after he took office you're just not very bright. I can find plenty of economists that say that the good times we had during Clinton's terms were a direct result of the policies of Reagan.
You are a Bush apologist.
Actually, I'm a different kind of lib, a libertarian. I can bash Bush with the best of them, but when I see ideologues spewing forth crap I find it necessary to put in my 2 cents. You want to have an honest debate then come armed with all the facts not just half truths that you've twisted to fit your agenda. Bush has done (and not done) plenty of things that are easy enough to attack without having to make stuff up. Next time stick to objective and verifiable facts like his lack of a real Energy policy, destructive immigration policy, faith based initiatives, or even attack him for not being able to put together a coherant sentence. Believe me there's plenty there. The economy is bigger than any one man (except maybe Greenspan) and to blame Bush when it goes bad is even more silly than giving Clinton credit for when it was good!
First you bring up "Reagans Debt" but after I point out that the Democratic Congress was just as responsible (if not more so) you come back with "that was because of the "Cold War." Why do libs always change the arguement in the middle of a discussion? Many economists will argue that the "wealth" created during Clinton's term was an illusion that was shown for exactly that when the bubble burst at the end of Clinton's term. Bush took office at the beginning of an economic downturn and not to take that and the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 in addition to being currently at war into consideration when looking at the deficit is just misleading.
Sure. Wasn't that you I heard callig Limbaugh telling him how you voted for Bush the first time but you're so upset because of XYZ you're going to vote for Kerry now? Fact is both parties do it. Listen to any conservative talk show for 15 minutes and you'll hear an obviously scripted call from a lib pretending to be an upset conservative. They're called "plants" and every organization has zealots that do this. You implied that it's only conservatives because you have an agenda. Maybe what you said is true, but it's a half truth and as my momma told me "half the truth still equals a whole lie." Just because you tell us your agenda doesn't make you in any way objective and unbiased.
I guess they get a free pass. Maybe you should pull out a history book. You'll see that in the 50's the last time before 94 that the Repubs had control of both houses there was no national debt. Fast forward 40 years later after the Dems controlled Congress for four decades and what was the debt? It wasn't until the Repubs took back over in 94 that we saw a surplus.
Here's a little government lesson free of charge.
According to the Constitution, all Federal appropriations must be authorized by Congress. This is a source of great power for Congress known as the "power of the purse".
You're right. Kennedy should have been shot for getting us into Vietnam! Uhhh.. wait. nevermind.
You must not be from around here, because there are a lost of us who don't use any MS products.
To imply that a veteran is lying about his/her service because he or she's not familiar with some obscure IT policy is pretty petty.