No More Moore!

Errant weapons still does not constitute "carpet bombing", especially when what happened was not intended.
 
The fact is that some of the missiles missed their mark and hit civilian buildings thus collateral damages. This can be easily translated into growing animosity towards the ones that launched the missiles, wich helps the terrorists recruit more easily. And if this would have been a campaign to free the iraqi people, not take out some WMD a different approach would have been mandatory. Bottom line: the invasion of Iraq was all about the money, the oil, the power. Bush does not give a rat's ass about the iraqis, all he cares about is power. The one correct fact in fahrenheit is that the whole campaign was bullshit. Moore is pretty much a liar, but the invasion was also a lie.
 
looks like this move to block Moore has crapped out. Perhaps a bit too late.

Damn that free speech thing!

U.S. Panel Dismisses 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Complaint
By Steve Gorman
Reuters

Friday 06 August 2004

Los Angeles - A U.S. regulatory agency has dismissed the petition of a conservative advocacy group to bar TV ads for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary as a breach of federal restrictions on "electioneering" activity.

In a unanimous decision made public on Thursday, the Federal Election Commission found no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law or that distributors of the film intended any violations in the future.

The commission said it agreed with the recommendation of its general counsel that the FEC "cannot entertain complaints based upon mere speculation that someone might violate the law."

Moore has said he intended for the film, a blistering critique of President Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq, to help persuade Americans vote against a second term for Bush in November.

The group Citizens United filed its complaint against the "Fahrenheit 9/11" ad campaign in June, saying TV spots for the film which then included images and sound clips of Bush would be illegal if aired after July 30.

Federal election law prohibits companies and unions from advertising for or against political candidates 60 days before an election and 30 days before a political convention.

The distributors argued that the "Fahrenheit 9/11" ads broadcast after July 30 were permissible because they focused on audience and critical reaction to the film, and that no federal candidate for public office is identified.

The distributors - Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group spearheaded by Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey and Bob Weinstein - issued a statement applauding the FEC ruling.

"The distributors feel that this was the correct and proper response under the circumstances, and applaud the commission for its timely and appropriate decision," they said.

Citizens United, which had also took part in a failed court challenge against a campaign finance reform law enacted to curb the influence of money in politics, could not be immediately reached for comment.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at the Cannes film festival in May, has grossed more than $100 million, making it an unprecedented commercial success for a political documentary.

-------
Click to expand...
 
Meanwhile, concerned citizens, in Albany, Oregon, try to ban a book, 'cause it makes fun of Santa Claus...
 
Meh, down by me some woman tried to get Tom Sawyer books banned (From a HIGH SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT) because Huckleberry Fin had a referrence to sex or something in it.
 
Wooz69 said:
Meanwhile, concerned citizens, in Albany, Oregon, try to ban a book, 'cause it makes fun of Santa Claus...
Click to expand...

I think there is something very smelly about Saint Nicholas . There must be something wrong with a fat old guy that keeps watching kids to see if do something wrong. And why he gives candies or gifts to kids? Where he gets the money to keep his factory?

santa3d.jpg


The following link has the truth about the true nature of Saint Nicholas and his "elves". Prepare for the impact of this article in your life. :P

http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html



hehehe I would love to send this to the "concerned" citizens, in Albany, Oregon.
 
Hey Malk- actually I heard of a teacher who didn't get a grade school teaching job because she thought kids reading Harry Potter was cool. Apparently she didn't realize the satanic implications.
 
Double u - T - F mate?

That went from a religious zealot's cry to satanize santa to a rant to trust Jesus and that he's real....



I smell bullshit....
 
Back to Moore-

Recently, here's a bit on the flip and the flop in the Bush administration.

Remember- it's the big picture-

Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Iraq: "A flip and a flop and now just a flop."


9/22/04

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:


“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:


Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001


Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.

Yours,

Michael Moore
Click to expand...
 
I just got back from some CS and its my sworn duty to spark loud and obnoxious political debates with random names to annoy people i.e; OMFG BUSH SUX0RZ, KERRY IS MEH BITCH!, FUCK J00 DEMOCRATS etc. Well, it seems that on EVERY server the terrorist team always talks about michael more and f 9/11 and how bush is an asshole retard and the counter-terrorist team always talks about how much of a big pussy john kerry is (oops i cut my hand with the grenade pin).

Isnt that ironic...
 
am i glad i'm spared from political debate on game servers...

worse than bush is barely possible, so i hope kerry makes it

some random interview: "i'd trust bush with my daughter, but not my country. i wouldnt trust kerry with my daughter but i'd trust him with my country."
 
yes, i think it's barely possible for the american people to vote even worse than they did last time. no one could be that stupid. :unsure:
 
Voting? Why do you assume votes? See, you've hamstrung yourself by assuming Democratic elections are the only method of putting someone in control of a country

And remember, its not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes
 
Commissar Lauren said:
...
And remember, its not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes
Click to expand...

Sadly, sometimes the Supreme Court can make even the people who count votes irrelevant. I only pray that with 30% of America using electronic voting machines that no one try's to put any algorithms in there to swith votes.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Commissar Lauren said:
Voting? Why do you assume votes? See, you've hamstrung yourself by assuming Democratic elections are the only method of putting someone in control of a country

And remember, its not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes
Click to expand...

Good point Lauren. There were a lot of republicans that didn't want Bush originally, yet Bush was pushed through. Likewise, Kerry was pushed through with the Democrats.

Which makes you wonder about the electoral process as per- who actually sets the agenda.

One interesting argument on the nature of power is that power actually has three dimensions-

First, where you see two people battle it out and it's zero-sum.
In that case, it imagine Bush vs Kerry in a battle for electoral support, or two guys boxing.

Second- who sets the agenda- Who sets the nature of the debates, who chooses the candidates and what issues get raised. Here it's not so much the fight, but who chooses the fighers and what they will fight about.

Third- is the nature of values and norms- in this case- why do we accept the notion that there has to be a fight? Here we are confronted by issues that we rarely even examine. Think in terms of how many people actually Judeo-Christian values in Western societies, or Confucian values in Asian. We act in conformity to those values without even questioning them.

It could be that we are looking at Bush and Kerry as a battle in that first dimension, but maybe the real issues are
(1) Who controls the agenda
(2) Why are the issues we argue even accepted.
 
Comrade Welsh has hit an an EXCELLENT point. Why ARE the issues we argue even accepted?

The only reason that makes sense is precedents. Its what has always been the issues, so people just assume thats what the issues will be. In all honesty, many people, without realizing it, subscribe to some bastardized version of Judeo Christian values or another. The problem is, no one really understands WHY they do.

The sad fact is that the vast majority have no incentive to look closer, because they are bound to not like what they find. They are governed by a self sustaining system they do not even try to comprehend. It is tragic that Capitalism has so hamstrung the workers of America that they would rather strive to live their petty bourgeois lives as uncomplicated as possible then work to change things for the better.
 
AH workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Yada yada yada.

Except that we'll just be chained up again. Oh well.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Click to expand...
----- the Who

Still it pays to be aware of the guys that are fucking you up the ass, right?
 
Yeah, but Commie rhetoric asside, most people just don't care to look at whats going on because they don't really want to know. By having a good idea of how truly fucked up things are, they might be moved to take action to change it. Most people dont WANT to take action. Its... well, action.
 
Interesting but for in Chinese philosophy, the same instinct towards apathy was also the path to death.

Maybe because actually living life involves work and effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top