Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Dr. Hfuhruhurr On The LIBERTY FILM FESTIVAL In LA And Being A Republican In Hollywood!!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

I love this article. I love this article as much as I love any article I’ve ever published on AICN. To me, this is the whole point of running a website. Publishing reactions from film fans that aren’t the same as my own, and giving someone a chance to make their case. Dr. Hfuhruhurr is one of my favorite guys in LA, and this article took guts to write. I’m pleased to present it, and I hope the Republicans who always claim to feel so unwelcome here at AICN enjoy this one, just as much as I hope the Democrats who read the site are able to read it with open minds. Check this out:

Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, reporting for duty.

There’s something I have to get off my chest. Something I have known about myself since I was a very young boy and that only a few very close friends know about me now. It’s time for the lies and the secrets to come to an end. I am tired of my disguise, I’m tired of being too intimidated to expose my true self, and I’m tired of going to parties and doing that little “is he or isn’t he?” dance hoping that maybe, just maybe, I’ve found a kindred spirit.

So let me step out of the closet and shout it from the rooftop of my cranial lab:

I’m a Hollywood Republican, goddamit!

And it turns out that I’m not the only one. This weekend, at the first annual LIBERTY FILM FESTIVAL in Los Angeles, I discovered a sold-out theater full or non-liberal film geeks, studio execs, actors, writers, directors, agents, and cute Bushies. It was three full days of anti-Michael Moore, pro-American Dream cinema. For a while it felt like I was in...America. But alas, when it was all over, I realized I was still in Los Angeles.

Before I review the festival and you all start shouting “Nazi!” let me set the record straight and dispel the stereotypes. Yes, it’s true, I love Reagan, Schwarzenegger, tax cuts, George W., Bill O’Reilly, the 2nd Amendment and taking the ass-kicking boot to anyone who even smells like they might try to hurt or kill any of our fellow Americans someday.

But...

(1) I am not a wacky right-wing Christian fundamentalist. I’m not even a Christian. I’m more of a Hindu/Taoist/Jedi. (Yes, the right-wing religious nuts have set up their tent in our camp. Just as Barbara Streisand, the French and the neo anti-Semitics have pitched their tents in the Democrat’s camp. We all have shit on our bathroom floors that needs to be mopped up.)

In fact, if you read to the end of this column, you’ll find a guaranteed way to drive any right-wing Fundamentalist Christian absolutely batty with regards to the Ten Commandments.

(2) I also don’t have a problem with abortion. In fact, when it comes to Michael Moore, I believe in abortion up to the 236th trimester.

(3) I have a deep, deep distrust of and a distaste for big corporations. I am especially displeased with the consolidation that is taking place in the entertainment industry. I say bring on the anti-trust suits asap.

So now that you know where I’m coming from and all my potential biases let’s check out the festival.





Why the LIBERTY FILM FESTIVAL? Here’s a nice liberal word for you: diversity.

Remember: No matter what your politics, 50% of the country disagrees with you (unless you support Ralph Nader, then pretty much everyone thinks you’re a loon). There is always room for, a need for, and a demand for the other side of the story.

The polarization in our country is not a bad thing. It keeps us all honest and on our toes. The bad thing is that the level of debate and discourse between the two sides has been reduced to name-calling, insults and lies. There seems to be a genuine intolerance for opposing points of view and, dare I say, especially for conservative points of view in Hollywood.

So there. Now tolerate this you pinko commie, French-loving, naïve, peacenik, terrorist-enabling, out-sourced Heinz Ketchup chugging, cowardly liberal, American-hating fucks!

Hehehehehehehehe. (No talkbacks on that please, I’m just playing with y’all.)

“GREG WOLFE: REPUBLICAN JEW”

The festival began with tongue firmly planted in cheek with this short film about Hollywood’s true minority: the Republican Jew. The only guy I know who is any lonelier that Wolfe is my friend who’s a gay Jewish Republican. Man, talk about askin’ for a beatin’. Wolfe also poked some fun at the diversity outreach programs at studios and networks. In order to comply with new standards of diversity, network executives are seen picking up Mexicans on street corners to become staff writers on sitcoms. Yet, strangely enough, there were no diversity outreach programs for poor Greg and his kind.

“BRAINWASHING 101”

If any of the films shown at this festival are going to breakout and become huge mainstream hits, it’s either going to be MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA or this one. Directed by new, sharp-witted, gonzo-journalist Evan Maloney, 101 is an unbiased look at censorship and P.C. run amuck on college campuses. This will piss off and frighten conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between.

This is one of the most horrifying and hysterical documentaries I have ever seen. Basically, Maloney’s point is that university campuses have become mini-Totalitarian states where students do not have free speech, the right to due process, or the right to express opinions that dissent from those held by university administrators.

For example, Maloney shows the various “speech codes” in place at universities. At one campus you are not allowed to use the gender specific phrases “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” and must use “lover or partner.” At another university you are not allowed to use any words or speech that may “hurt someone’s self-esteem.” Another campus has banned “inappropriate laughter.” And finally, one speech code is so insanely broad that it simply states that any speech that may offend anyone is prohibited.

What if you’re offended by speech codes?

But the most egregious trampling of student rights comes in the realm of political speech and ideas. And it just so happens that the students who are most often being silenced on these campuses are the conservatives and Republicans. But ironically, it’s a far left liberal organization that comes to these students’ defense.

A couple of examples. At the University of Tennessee in Jackson, Tennessee, five white students dressed up like the Jackson 5 for Halloween. The students were suspended and their fraternity shut down. At the SAME UNIVERSITY, a Sikh student received death threats after writing an op-ed piece in the school paper. An e-mail from an unhappy reader circulated around the campus saying that someone should “shoot the raghead in the fucking face.” What did the university do? Nothing. Why? Because the Sikh student happened to be a conservative who had written about what he thought were lefitist Totalitarian policies on the campus. The official university response was that the person making the “death threat” was just blowing off steam.

Just so we have this straight: at the University of Tennessee it’s okay to threaten to kill someone and to call them a raghead, but you can’t dress up like the Jackson 5 on Halloween if you’re a white dude.

Another example from Cal Poly. The College Republicans had recruited black conservative activist Clarence Mason Weaver to speak about his latest book It’s OK to Leave the Plantation: the New Underground Railroad. The white male college Republican who had helped recruit Weaver was constantly having to replace flyers around the campus after “people of tolerance” kept ripping them down (not because the speaker was black but because he was conservative). One day while he was hanging up flyers a student told him to take it down because she was offended. She said the word “plantation” was racist and made her uncomfortable. He explained the book title in context to her and also pointed out that the author was black. But she insisted that he take it down. When he refused, she called the police.

The student was then subjected to a seven hour hearing in front of the University board, was not allowed to have his attorney present and was told that he would have to write a public letter of apology and then take a class on “sensitivity.” In other words, it would be on his permanent record that he was racially insensitive. He refused, so they began the process of kicking him out of school. Enter FIRE , the Foundation for Individual Right in Education, a LIBERAL ORGANIZATION, to defend the young Republican! After a lengthy battle, the University lost (of course they lost!) and had to reimburse the kid for his $40,000 of legal expense (your tax dollars hard at work).

To say that there is a double standard on campuses is soft-peddling it. It is nothing short of political repression.

But Maloney doesn’t make this a partisan issue. He interviews plenty of pissed off college democrats as well. This is a free speech issue and it is getting dangerously out of control.

“IN THE FACE OF EVIL”

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” – Edmund Burke.

In other words, act like Reagan, not like Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford who all tried to appease “the Beast” (a metaphor used throughout this documentary). Reagan did something and Communism fell. I love how revisionists try to act as if he had nothing to do with it. And I also love how it’s now somewhat trendy (MOTOR CYCLE DIARIES anyone?) to embrace Communism. Um…120 million people butchered. Nuff said, pinko.

This is a brand new documentary (just opened in 5 theaters nationally) about Reagan’s forty year struggle against communism and b-movies. No matter what your politics, I think you’ll find this to be an engaging history lesson on the 20th Century, tracing the rise of Communism from Lenin and Stalin to the Cold War nuclear arms race to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It’s fascinating to see how history is repeating itself. Replace Communist Russia with Islamic Extremist, Ronald Reagan with George W., and John Kerry with Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and “No Nukes” John Kerry circa 1980, and it’s the same story.

Evil (Communism, Fascism, Islamic Extremism) does not respond to pacifism or negotiations or waffling. History teaches us that these nutbag aggressors respond to only one thing: force.

Sure, peace would be swell. It would be nice if we could all hold hands and sing “Imagine.” It’d kill to live in a world like that.

Let me repeat myself: I’d KILL to live in a world like that.

You know what History teaches us brings peace? War.

War ended slavery, fascism, communism and it’s going to end terrorism. Peace and appeasement, the Jimmy Carter plan, only invites violence. Ironic, isn’t it? But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Osama Bin Laden himself. When the United States failed to take any decisive action after terrorists made their first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center, after they bombed the African embassies, after they bombed the Cole, and after we pulled out of Mogadishu (BLACKHAWK DOWN to those of you who only get their history from movies), he declared that America was a paper tiger that could not stand the sight of its own blood. That was our weakness and that would be are undoing. It inspired him to plan 9/11.

There’s a great quote about war and peace from mythologist Joseph Campbell (THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES):

“Life lives on life, eats life, and would otherwise not exist. To some this terrible necessity is fundamentally unacceptable, and such people have, at times, brought forth mythologies of a way of perpetual peace. However, those have not been the people generally who have struggled in what Darwin termed the universal struggle for existence. Rather, it has been those who have been reconciled to the nature of life on this earth. Plainly and simply: it has been the nations, tribes, and people bred to mythologies of war that have survived to communicate their life-supporting mythic lore to descendants.” (from MYTHS TO LIVE BY, p. 174).

Translations: Pacifism leads to extinction. End of lecture.

“CELSIUS 41.11: THE TEMPERATURE AT WHICH THE BRAIN BEGINS TO DIE”

We’ve all seen Michael Moore’s FAHRENHEIT 9/11 by now and unless we live under a rock we’ve heard about all the inaccuracies and clever manipulations in the film. And a lot of movies are now being made to set the record straight, like this one.

“CELSIUS” deals with the broader issue of the roots of the “Anyone But Bush” mentality and covers everything from the Florida election to WMDs. I still find all of these “Bush Lied” people to be amusing entertainment and my favorite part of the film is a montage of folks such as Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Edwards and John Kerry all stating emphatically that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that he must be dealt with before he used them on us.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

”Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yet somehow, when George W. says it, he’s a liar. Hmmmmm?

Here’s something we should all be asking ourselves. If Michael Moore really had a case to make against President Bush, why would he have to lie and cheat and fudge and distort and manipulate to prove his point?

Wake up, people. Don’t be sheep.

I’ve never seen so much goose-stepping as I have in the shadow of Moore’s fat ass.

Okay. I’ll play nice now.

“IS IT TRUE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT ANN?”

A non-partisan documentary about supersexy, right-wing diva, pundit, and author Ann Coulter. Is she candid or crazy? An icon or an idiot? Filmmakers Elinor Burkett and Patrick Wright follow her around for a few days to find out.

Love her or hate her, I think everyone will agree with Bill Maher: she is sexy and hysterically funny. Watching her deal with hecklers while speaking at a University is priceless. This woman cannot be ruffled or intimidated. Because she loves to be hated. She lives for hate mail. She finds it amusing.

My favorite jab: “Ted Kennedy says that our policy in Iraq is adrift. Hmmm. Maybe like a car adrift in the water after its has gone over a bridge?”

Maher, a close friend of Ann’s, talks about his friendship with her and makes a point that we need to all heed. He says his liberal friends constantly ask him how he can be such good friends with such a right-winger as Ann Coulter. His response is that you don’t need to have the same political views to be friends with someone. But he was disturbed that it was his liberal friends – those who claim to be the champions of tolerance – who were the ones always asking him this.

“HAN SOLO SHOOTS FIRST!”

Actually, this film is called “CONFRONTING IRAQ.” Just wanted to get your attention. Because I find it oh so curious that many of the STAR WARS fans who are outraged by “Greedo shoots first” are politically opposed to George W.’s policy of preemption. For what was “Han Solo shoots first” if not a preemptive strike? Han had no proof that Greedo was holding a weapon. Even if he saw the gun holstered at Greedo’s hip, he had no proof that it was loaded. So he worked with the evidence he had, and knowing Greedo’s character, he shot the green bastard first.

This is Roger Aronoff’s documentary on why we shot first. And, I’d like to ask you all to take the “Dr. Hfuhruhurr’s Two Brain Challenge”. We’ve all seen FAHRENHEIT 9/11. That’s one side of the story. So, in the spirit of open-minded debate, and seeing both side of the story, I would encourage everyone to see this film as a companion piece to Moore’s. You may completely disagree with all of it, some of it or none of it. But you may learn some things you never knew.

Then again, if you have no tolerance for opinions other than your own...

“TERMINAL ISLAND”

“Terminal Island” is a low, low-budget ($10,000) black and white film noir/stalker/black comedy about a Bounty Hunter after terrorists in Los Angeles Harbor. The film was made by the festivals co-directors: Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzza.

It stars mostly unknowns, but...IRWIN KERSHNER is in this film! I shit you not. Apparently he is friends and/or neighbors of the filmmakers and offered them advice about filmmaking and donated himself for a small role. Even though he’s a die-hard liberal, he is their mentor. (See a theme here? Can’t we all get along?)

So why would a film noir/stalker/black comedy about terrorist be part of a conservative film festival? Because, for some strange reason, in post 9/11 Hollywood, Islamic terrorists seem to be a taboo subject. Why is that?

During the Cold War, movies were filled with Russian bad guys. From RED DAWN to ROCKY IV, you couldn’t go to the movies with out seeing an evil Ruskie.

Yet post 9/11 there are no evil Islamic terrorist movies. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think it is politically correct, touchy feely censorship bullshit. Remember THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, that Ben Affleck bastardization of the Jack Ryan franchise that came out in 2002 and got shit-kicked by THE BOURNE IDENTITY? In Clancy’s novel the bad guys were Islamic terrorists. In the movie they were South African neo-Nazis.

I don’t know about you, but I did not buy a gas mask because I’m afraid of being attacked by South African Neo-Nazis.

And that, in a nutshell, is why festivals like this are springing up all over the country: to tell Hollywood to get its head out of its collective ass! Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us in the real world! Hello!? How can we not be making movies about this? Are we that sensitive? (rhetorical question, yes we are).

I for one am getting bored with the “evil corporation” bad guy. I mean forget the asinine hypocrisy of that considering that “evil corporations” are releasing this crap. It’s just boring as hell. Enough. Bring on some real threats.

“MICHAEL & ME”

I feel like I’m back in the eighties listening to early rap music when artists would always release “answer songs” in response to another artist’s song. Michael Moore has created an entire cottage industry of “answer films” thanks to his reckless disregard for facts. I mean, surely even the most liberal of you have to agree that Moore deserves to rot in hell for the way he misrepresented and harassed Charlton Heston in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

“Michael & Me” is black libertarian talk show host Larry “The Sage from South Central” Elder’s answer song to BOWLING. Larry’s alternative title: “The Passion of the 2nd Amendment.” Did I mention that he’s black? So if you disagree with anything in the film, you’re a racist! (A little left-wing trick hurled right back atcha!)

There’s a lot of interesting info in this film. For example, who knew that in the 36 states where you are allowed to carry a concealed handgun, crime has gone down? Or that crime in England has skyrocketed since they outlawed guns? Or that over 80,000 people a year defend themselves with guns? Or that only 50 children a year die from gunshots, but 115 die in bath tubs? Where are the anti-bathtub activists?

The film also contains several anecdotes of Justice Gone Wild, when innocent people who defended themselves with guns are sent to jail while the criminals who tried to rape them or rob them go free.

I think the gun control debate is summed up quite nicely in an exchange between two neighbors. One neighbors wants guns banned. The other neighbor owns several guns. The anti-gun neighbor is always telling the pro-gun neighbor how evil guns are and how they need to be outlawed. So the pro-gun neighbor puts a sign on his own door that says: “Owner is armed and not afraid to shoot. However, my neighbor is an unarmed and afraid of guns.” The anti-gun neighbor finally got the point.

“DARK VICTORY” (1942)

Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn battling Nazis in WWII. On the big screen! And a near perfect print! This is my favorite Ronald Reagan film and it’s a nice reminder that all of his films weren’t Bonzo crappers.

This film was part of a tribute to Ronald Reagan, but it was also a tribute to Hollywood’s past. Hold on to your seats: Hollywood was built by...Republicans! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! The horror, the horror!

Let we quote from the film festival program:

“Every major Hollywood studio was founded by Republicans and cultural conservatives – and under Republican leadership, Hollywood enjoyed a Golden Age of unparalleled creativity and prosperity. Conservative filmmakers such as CECIL B. DEMILLE, JOHN FORD, ALFRED HITCHCOCK, RAOUL WALSH (director of DARK VICTORY), and HOWARD HAWKS defined the high cinematic style that modern film descend from…”

“MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA”

This is the one we’ve all been hearing about. Everywhere it plays it gets 10-minute standing ovations. But it’s not what you might be expecting. Despite the provocative title, this is far from a hate-filled slugfest or diatribe. In fact, it’s a gloriously optimistic documentary about the American Dream. Apparently there really are two Americas: (1) Michael Moore’s bleak, cynical and hopeless land where everyone is kept down by the Man and (2) Michael Wilson’s land of opportunity where hard work, faith and a refusal to play the “victim card” leads to a paradise of your own design.

All that and it really is a damn good film.

On his journey to interview Michael Moore, Wilson has a chance to visit with people who Moore used, tricked and manipulated in ROGER & ME, BOWLING and FAHRENHEIT as well as people from Moore’s “alleged” hometown of Flint, Michigan who has started their own businesses, bet on their own spirit, and made a difference in their community. You’ll also see that Flint is very much alive and well, not the bombed out war-zone portrayed in ROGER. You’ll also see the Canada is not the paradise that Moore would like us to believe it is (as if I needed anyone to tell me that). And you’ll also see that Michael Moore can dish it out but cannot take it.

The film also explores the art of documentary filmmaking. When and how should one inject themselves and their opinions into the process? Should you deceive people in order to get to the “truth” that you want?

Three of the more interesting stops Wilson makes:

-- The employees of the bank where Michael Moore claimed he walked in, made a deposit, and walked out with a gun. Um…not quite.

-- a man who analyzes Moore as having classic Narcisistic Personality Disorder.

-- Legendary documentary filmmaker Albert Maysles (WHEN WE WERE KINGS, GIMME SHELTER, MONTEREY POP). Maysles is also a liberal activist who happens to agree with Moore’s politics. But he thinks Moore is a disgrace to the documentary art form and, indeed, a liar and a manipulator. And yes, after pondering the question, he does think that Michael Moore hates America.

- The soldier who lost both arms in the Iraq war who unknowingly found himself in FAHRENHEIT 9/11. He was outraged that Michael Moore was using his tragedy to suit his own anti-war propaganda. The solder wanted to set the record straight, but none of the major media would listen to him. But Michael Wilson did. Forget the fact that this soldier believes in the justness of the war and has no regrets about the loss he suffered - this small segment is one hell of an inspiring story in and off itself! The man loses his arms, but finds himself. He does not live in a world of pity and blame (Michael Moore’s world) but lives in a world of hope and optimism. He downright insists that what happened in Iraq has made him a better human being.

People ask me if I hate Michael Moore. The answer is definitely no.

In fact, I used to love him. I really did. I even saw THE BIG ONE in theaters. Opening night. ROGER & ME was one of my favorite films OF ALL TIME. I made everyone I knew go see it. Then I found years later that even that film was contrived horseshit.

“IMPACT: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST”

This is a documentary about the influence of Mel’s little Jesus movie. Remember all the hysteria before the movie came out from people like Frank Rich and Sharon Waxman at the New York Times? Before even seeing the movie they called it vile, anti-Semitic and predicted that Christians would rise up and start stoning Jews in the streets. Remember all that? Never happened did it? Not one example of anti-Semitism as a result of this film.

Yet there is at least one studio president who still refuses to ever work with Mel Gibson again because he made this film. Even after it set box office records. Even after Mel was recently named the biggest movie star in the world.

And I ask? Do the shareholders know this? Is this corporate responsibility?

One last thought. Do you remember when the fundamentalist Christians protested THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST without seeing it? All the uproar about right-wing censorship?

Well, as proven with the PASSION outrage (and in BRAINWASHING 101), the LEFT seems to be the new RIGHT. Think about it.

Okay. Nuff said on that. Now let’s go make fun of Christians!

“THE TEN COMMANDMENTS” (1956)

The last film of the festival. And I was downright gleeful. I have never been able to see this on the big screen until now. And it was glorious. Another near perfect print (save for the first reel). This movie defines the phrase “they don’t make ‘em like they used to.” We’ve all seen it before, so there’s no need to discuss it.

However, as promised at the beginning of this review, I’m now going to show you how to drive Fundamentalist Christians absolutely crazy when talking about the biblical Ten Commandments. Because 99.9% of the Christians have it all wrong. When they are defending the Ten Commandments from being taken out of public buildings, they are actually defended the wrong Ten Commandments.

Moses destroyed the original tablets. We see that moment in the film. But later, God made a new set for Moses. This is the set that went into the Ark and endured. But what people don’t realize is that GOD CHANGED THE COMMANDMENTS this time. He had obviously had a change in mind before retooling the tablets, because the new draft, the draft that survived, was different!

Here are the original ten commandments (that Moses destroyed but that we all know and love from Exodus 20):

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thos shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife slave, ox, etc.

But here are the revised Ten Commandments, the ones that God obviously wanted to endure and to be hung on courthouse walls (from Exodus 34):

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the fest of the Passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

Holy Moses! And on that note --

Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, Hollywood Republican, signing out.

“May God have mercy on my enemies, because I won’t.”

– Gen. George S. Patton.

I can’t wait till Harry wakes up, reads this, and writes one of those angry e-mails to me and the good Doctor that looks just like the ones he gets every day from the people who hate his liberal leanings. I’m positively giddy, I am, I am. First cigar’s on me tonight, Dr. Hfuhruhurr. Nicely done.

Mori - remember - I'm the guy that posted the interview with the Producer of MICHAEL MOORE HAS AMERICA - and loves all of Charlton Heston's movies. Heh. As for Dr Hfuhruhurr - I know him too, call him friend and he gets 2 tickets every year to BNAT with his Life Partner. But he also believes we never landed on the moon. He's a wild and crazy guy with talent. And smart writing is always welcomed here - even if it is from the unhinged minds of Dr Hfuhruhurr. heh... ---Harry

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 6, 2004, 7:09 a.m. CST

    I'm with you Moriarty

    by Pumpkinsboy

    Lock and load. Gear up. Who we gonna fight next? How about the hotbed of Al Queda funding that is Saudi Arabia? Where the majority of the 9/11 hi-jackers came from? Or Pakistan, where militants pass over the border often unrestrained by the military dictatorship of Musharaff? Or North Korea, which was seen by British prime-minister Tony Blair as a more pressing military threat than Iraq? What do you mean, Mr President? We're not gonna fight them? Saudi Arabia is an ally? But it's not a democracy. It produces terrorists. What do you mean, Musharraf is an ally on the war on terror? He seized power in a military coup, which got Pakistan expelled from the British commonwealth. I don't understand. I'm ready to fight. Why won't you let me spread democracy? I thought we needed to protect America? You called North Korea EVIL. When are we going in? Hoo-ha! I'm ready! Why won't you give the order?

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 7:18 a.m. CST

    Han Solo shoots first...

    by Talandir

    ... at the guy pointing the gun at him. Not at the guy across the room who cheated him in last weeks card game. Moron.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 8:03 a.m. CST

    The Cold war and this war aren't alike

    by Heleno

    This war has more parallels to the McCarthyite scares than the Cold War proper. A scared government is lashing out at a perceived threat (reds under the bed / Iraq), rather than taking careful steps to deal with a real one (terrorism, best addressed through careful intelligence gathering and coallition building). And if you think Reagan ended the Cold war rather than that being a result of Soviet internal crisis, you tripping. I agree - as does any right-thinking person - that political correctness, especially on campuses, has gone mad - but to portray only conservatives as the victims is disingenuous in the extreme.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Hey idoit !!

    by ATARI

    Han Solo was threated at gun point. If you are going to use an analogy, get your facts straight first. This guy now has zero credibility (just like most Republicans I know).

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:02 a.m. CST

    The man with how many brains?

    by Recognizer

    Sorry, but past a certain point, Coulter and O'Reilly cease to be funny, as do you. There's a reason that most thinking people dislike the ideology of the current Republican regime, and a lot of that has to do with the way they belittle and denigrate any opposing view. Today's liberals just denigrate the Goldwater-Bush Republican view, and that's because it's so jarringly insular and pigheaded; also, Bush is a failure as a statesman. And... well, I dunno, but I have to laugh at a Bush-Cheney Republican looking for tolerance.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:10 a.m. CST

    ATARI's unusual viewpoint

    by WillowFan2001

    Ah, yes. ATARI is no doubt willing to tolerate the fudges and outright lies of men like Michael Moore, even after they're proven, because they're saying the right thing overall. But if a Republican says just one thing that's wrong, in any context, then they've lost all their credibility and can never get it back. Applause, applause, ladies and gentlemen, for the double standard.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Ah, Recognizer...

    by WillowFan2001

    You said in your post, "Sorry, but past a certain point, Coulter and O'Reilly cease to be funny, as do you. There's a reason that most thinking people dislike the ideology of the current Republican regime, and a lot of that has to do with the way they belittle and denigrate any opposing view." Perhaps you haven't been reading Harry's articles all summer, where he belittles and denigrates Republicans. Well, now you know how I feel. I'm not defending the people in my own party (Swift Boat Vets, etc.) who engage in this tactic, but my friend, if you haven't realized by now that it's coming from your side too (Michael Moore, most of the Hollywood elite, etc.), then I feel sorry for you.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Willowfan

    by Heleno

    Hollywood "liberals" aren't denigrating and belittling Republicans or the administration by saying that the war is wrong or that President Bush misled the nation to bring about the war. They are disagreeing, something which Republicans seem loathe to believe is a First Amendment right. Given the hate mail these people get, and the fact that some of them were actually threatened with losing their jobs as a result, I don't think the Right has quite so much claim to the high ground as you would like to think. Sure, there are people who describe themselves as liberal who are intolerant, but there are a heck of a lot of conservatives who are equally intolerant, agressive and prone, when all else fails, to sexing up or making up news to suit their agenda (see Fox news).

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:46 a.m. CST

    More Moore?

    by moviemaniac-7

    "It

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 11:25 a.m. CST

    UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

    by AlecBings

    the University Of Tennessee thing (mentioned in the BRAINWASHING 101 review) was in Knoxville, not Jackson. (i'm a student there.) the Jackson Five thing did indeed happen, and there was a big stink because it was obvious the frat boys had no idea that dressing up in blackface was a racially insensitive move at a university where there are already tensions. ------------ but the issue about the Sikh columnist...the situation there is that he accused the Issues Committee of being weighed too heavily towards the Left, and thus not bringing enough conservative speaking guest. (he applied to be on the committee but was not picked...guess he was sour. but there is merit to his accusation.) then in a private email to Issues Committee members, the president (i think) addressed his frustration at the accusations, and in his frustration made an admittedly tasteless but, taken within context, clearly ironic jab. turns out, though, that email sent through a university's system isn't private after all, and the wrong people ended up receiving it. the student was admonished, though no more serious action was taken because it was clearly not meant as a death threat. --------------- i don't know if the film is misrepresenting these things, or if the reviewer's memory is just a little shaky after being exposed to all these pathetic reactionary conservative films. (awwww, did F9/11 leave a teeny widdle bruise?) but that's the truth about how it went down.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Heleno...

    by WillowFan2001

    1. "Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant." --Julia Roberts. Yeah, that's not belittling Republicans in any way, is it? I am gratified to see, however, that you confined your objections to Hollywood, which to me means that you have conceded the point about Michael Moore doing the same thing. 2. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. Of course, as we've all seen, not everything that will come out of the mouth is pretty, but what are you gonna do? I would draw a distinction between "I think Bush is wrong" and "I think Bush is a dumba$$"...one is a conscientious objection (and commendable), the other is a venom-laden personal attack (and not commendable). Much more of the latter than the former is coming out of Hollywood these days. Similarly, I would draw a distinction between "Your comments have made me never want to watch your movies again" and "You dumba$$ liberal piece of &%$*, I'll kill you for saying that!" for similar reasons. 3. Once again, I am NOT defending any of the conservatives who do any of this. But y'know what? I'm getting sick of having my party called mean-spirited by the left, while they blithely ignore their own rabid attack dogs. You've got something in your own eye too, so maybe it's time you guys stopped pointing at what we've got in ours.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Willow...

    by Heleno

    Sigh. OK, let's do this. 1. The vast majority of the opinions expressed were rather more focused than that quote from Julia, which does win points for being quite witty if harsh, and if she'd left out the word "just" twice she'd have been alphabetically correct. And while I specified Hollywood because you did, I hereby extend those remarks across any and everyone who criticises Bush. I concede no points. I personally think Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was unfocused, slightly hysteric and rambling, which detracted from its power, but I rather suspect that hyperbole and polemic aside he had some points underneath it all. 2. You're saying that free but rude speech is less valuable

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 11:52 a.m. CST

    The talkbackers can do it too

    by WillowFan2001

    Many of the talkbackers have proved my point that there's plenty of shoveling to do on the liberal side of the fence, too. Take these lovely examples. "DO I EVEN HAVE TO REMIND YOU ALL THAT REPUBS SUCK A GIANT RUBBER DUCK???" Ah. Yes. How tolerant. How enlightened. Or take my favorite..."Even though this guy is full of the usual republican caveman horseshit". And that's actually a backhanded compliment. :::sarcasm on::: Wow. Clearly all Republicans are just mean-spirited name callers, and Democrats are enlightened, tolerant, friendly folk. :::sarcasm off:::

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Viva Dr. Hfuhruhurr!

    by mrbeaks

    Even if I disagree with the massively articulate and endlessly witty mensch on the doctrine of preemption, especially with the way it's been abused by this administration. Oh, and don't forget that the WMD intelligence offered to the House and Senate largely elided the heavily contentious debate that was going on in the intelligence community over those pesky aluminum tubes; i.e., they were reacting with due concern to cooked documents. Still, that was a mighty fine read -- tough, hilarious, provocative and downright sexy. If nothing else, we can certainly agree that Michael Moore is a menace to the documentary form and to reasoned discourse in this country (same w/ Coulter). Hopefully, I'll see ya before BNAT, Doc!

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Willow

    by Heleno

    Those comments have less to do with being liberal, and more to do with being a talkbacker. Using that sort of comment as ammunition for any sort of argument smacks rather of desperation. What's more, neither of those two are necessarily "liberal" - they may simply be anti-Bush which isn't always the same thing.

  • And none of these films are going to do a tiny fraction of the business that F 9/11 did. Awwww, is right. Poor put-upon white Republicans with all the money, I feel so sorry for their lame bigoted greedy asses.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 12:52 p.m. CST

    RE: "War=Peace" -- from another Republican

    by jorson2

    As a Republican, I'm here to say that war does not equal peace. On the other hand, the desire for world peace, in a literal sense, is phony. I wouldn't wish world peace on anyone, for we enjoy complaining far too much. Taken literally, peace is the absence of conflict, be it physical or ideological. Take away conflict and one takes away what gives meaning to one's life, namely one's sense of purpose, accomplishment, and pride in being an individual despite the temptation to join the pack. I could write more, but I don't have time and I think most of you get my drift, whether you agree with me or not.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 1:13 p.m. CST

    I have a deep, deep distrust of and a distaste for big corporati

    by lettersoftransit

    Well, if that is true, then why no "deep, deep distrust of and a distate for" George Bush????? The man has grown up having no idea what it's like to struggle for a living, and hearing only the complaints of big corporations. The Bush family business -- going back a hundred years -- has been counselor to and protector of the interests of big corporations. And virtually every single action Bush has taken in office has been for the benefit of big corporations. They whisper in his ear and cry sad tals of woe that they don't have enough and he never, never disagrees with them. If have a "deep distrust" of big corporations, then what is your response to Bush's outrageous comment that the "haves and have mores" are "my base"???? If you trly have a "distate" for big corporations, that should outrage you. The President of our country blatantly, flagrantly and unambiguously announcing on camera that he looks our for big corporations first and foremost. You know what is truly the biggest obstacle to the American Dream? Overstuffed corpoations that use their wealth and clout to crush anyone who tries to "start their own companies" and "make a difference." Big Corporations that are so tight with government that, while they talk about getting government "off your back," do everything they can to make sure government has their backs whenever they want to screw you.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 1:28 p.m. CST

    If war equals peace

    by Vern

    Then Bush must be a REAL god damn peaceful guy. Because he's got us stuck creating peace for a long fucking time, even after his ass is sent back to his fake soundstage ranch in Crawford next month, where he can spend his years of exile cutting down brush and being afraid of horses. I would also like to give thanks to the Israelis and Palestinians for creating such a wonderful atmosphere of peacemaking over the past many, many, many years. Good job, guys. Anyway, I wanted to say something about those quotes of democrats talking about weapons of mass destruction. It's true, they are all chumps. But this is not a good defense of Bush and company. Bush's people are the ones who cherrypicked the data that said there were weapons and suppressed the data that said there was not. They are the ones who pressured the intelligence agencies to say there were weapons there. They are the ones who, through political rhetoric and media bullshit, created the atmosophere where those of us saying there were no weapons and no threat (i.e., those who were CORRECT) were supposed to be unpatriotic Saddam lovers. So politicians, being politicians, gave in. Not only did they believe the fake intelligence they were shown, but they went over the top in trying to prove who was the MOST against Saddam. This is the moronic dickmeasuring idiocy created by the administration and the "liberal" media. So yes, I hold it against the democrats who gave into it, but I hold it way more against the assholes who actually DID it. Anyway bud, you are wrong, but you seem like a mostly okay guy. Don't worry, you'll come over to the light side or whatever they call it in star wars that you love. Over here we have better documentaries and MAN do we got better than Ann Coulter. So I think you're gonna like it. thanks bud.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 1:43 p.m. CST

    You guys are so silly

    by cshea1138

    Here is a positive thought: Isn't it nice that in a town so widely believed to be left of EVERYTHING, the idea of a Conservative film festival isn't immediately pooh-poohed? Even you talk-backers seem to be okay with that - You bunch of commie fucks. What you should be saying is, "How dare another viewpoint be expressed! We have a monopoly on all ideas!

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Awwww.. Poor babies

    by treenut

    I can almost hear your liberal tears falling as your flail in front of your monitors... I love it when your side is exposed like a newborn baby's ass after birth.. In fact, I'm sure many of your faces are that color right now.. Boo Hoo babies.. Maybe if you found a decent candidate and had some real proof, it would make a difference..

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Wacky fundamentalists

    by Palhaco

    OK, so this guy just seems to be the flip-side of Michael Moore, with whom the "Dr." seems to have a love/hate relationship. Although I didn't detect much "love" of anything. Just ideological zeal and hatred. I guess "love" is what us wimpy wusses who call ourselves Christians talk about. "The bad thing is that the level of debate and discourse between the two sides has been reduced to name-calling, insults and lies. There seems to be a genuine intolerance for opposing points of view and, dare I say, especially for conservative points of view in Hollywood." But all the "good" Doctor seemed to do was engage in this exact same sort of infantile behavior. It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or liberal, a vulgar, tantrum-throwing brat is still just that. And finally 8^), he's all concerned that anyone mistake him for wacky right-wing fundamentalist Christians. Then says he's a Hindu/Taoist/Jedi, but fundamentalist Christians are the "wacky...shit" that needs to be mopped up off the floor...? You are just like Michael Moore. Whatever good points you make are set off by your otherwise irresponsible behavior. Right-wing fundamentalist Republicans pervert the Christian faith -- not the other way around.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Bout' time the Repubs and Conservs started coming back

    by Fandude

    Things are definitely changing in Hollywood and for the better. History will prove that it was Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that blew apart the doors, windows and everything else in between that set the stage for the Republicans, Conservatives and conservative Christianswill and conservative Jews to again have a voice in the entertainment industry. Everyone will be blessed as a result of this "new blood" Cheers Fandude

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 3:34 p.m. CST

    tolerant Bush-Cheney Reps. They're tolerant all righty

    by Homer Sexual

    Tolerant of their right to tell everyone what to do. But not tolerant of other folks' right to pursue happiness in their own way. I have to laugh as well. See, it's like the KKK saying that it's unfair that blacks don't want to tolerate them even though they have to tolerate blacks. They want to have their attempts to deny the right to co-exist "tolerated." Bogus! I can tolerate beliefs that aren't my own, but if one of those beliefs is that I don't have a right to exist, then how shall I tolerate that?

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 3:52 p.m. CST

    The good Dr. is wrong about the bible...

    by Blacket-Man

    The Lord wrote the original 10 the second time also, plus told Moses other laws for the Israelites to follow. In fact I believe there ended up being 600+ laws listed in the first five books of the Old Testament. Actually, I used to be one of those people who was all gung ho about keeping that statue up, but recently changed my mind about the subject. Through out the Bible, God makes it clear we should stay very far away from even the appearance of worshipping inanimate objects. I say let the darn thing go. It amazes me how God reveals his righteousness, even through the work of unbelievers, by having the state remove the statue.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Frankly...

    by Super Person

    I really enjoy watching movies of those people who dance around chanting handling venomous snakes... that's some funny stuff... makes me glad to be an "unbeliever"... gotta run, here come the believers with pitchforks and torches!

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Cry more Repubs *wah*

    by Reverendz

    Seriously. What a bunch of whiners. The Republicans control: the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. They've held a majority in the congress for nearly 10 years, they have a majority in a large number of states. And yet, they constantly bitch and whine because of... Hollywood? It's like winning the big prize at a raffle and then complaining because you didn't get the $10 trinket. Stop feeling sorry for yourself that you are so oppressed. Republican ownership controlls most of the media, and I don't recall Democrats ever starting a witchhunt in congress that BLACKLISTS people, unlike, say THE REPUBLICANS. Get over yourself you whiny little babies.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Was that a breath of fresh air?

    by wato

    Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, you are one serious rock star. Thanks for having the guts to write this. Keep on keepin' on. There are more of us here than the pikos realize ;)

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Heleno...a couple points

    by DoctorWho?

    Hi. The WOT is not a reaction of a "scared govt.lashing out against PERCIEVED threats". I do recall we all "percieved" planes flying into skyscrapers one Tuesday morning, piloted by men who, momements earlier cut the throats of the pilots and flight attendants alike. Yes the Cold War was more about long term intelligence gathering,espionage,etc...The GWOT is also that and much more.I know a little about the minds of folks in the middle east. They positvely despise our percieved "weakness". They(terrorists) see our geniune good intentions and desire to "work things out" as pathetic. And as far as Reagan ending The Cold War...understand, all previous presidents simply tried to "manage" communism...to dance with the Soviets before the next partner(president)cuts in. Remember detente? Reagan said F it...I'm gonna accelerate their downfall...he sensed their "internal crisis" as you said, and knew it was time to hit the gas pedal and out spend their asses and strike while the irons hot.(Whoa ...2 metaphors in one sentence!)Never had to fire a shot...Thank God! Anyway...not refuting you, just a little different insight I happened to learn recently. And BTW...if anyone's listening...ban the "Sucks Guy"!!

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Bouffant

    by Super Person

    They're doing it because they know it works... thirty years ago, we had a relatively liberal press... the conservatives started loudly complaining about it to anyone who would listen, and since around the 80s with the Reagan era, our press has been tilting to the right, culminating in these last few years of the Bush administration, when the press has reached new levels of conservative sympathy... they did it because if you complain loudly enough, long enough about something, eventually the people you're complaining about will bend over backwards to prove your accusations wrong, which is what the press did... in their repeated efforts over all that time to prove that there really wasn't a "liberal media bias", they actually went too far and gave it a "conservative media bias"... if the right can do the same with Hollywood, they'll have that in the bag too, and that's a major source of propaganda power...

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 5:14 p.m. CST

    That's the gayest poster I've ever seen

    by ZTR421

    It's hot!

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 5:58 p.m. CST

    How to REALLY piss off Conservative Christians: Show them how Mo

    by TheYoungLion

    As the story goes, Moses studied the Egyptian priesthood -- as well as other high disciplines -- before learning he was actually a Hebrew. ("And Moses became learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." -- Acts 7:22) Now, has anyone ever gone into a reputable library, gone to the Egyptology section, and actually read about the religion of the Egyptians? What the beliefs were, what the laws were, who was allowed access to and knowledge of the faith, etc.? I did this once while a student at the University of California (at the prompting of a fellow student) and was amazed at what I found: When you look at the laws of the religion, ALL OF THE SO-CALLED "TEN COMMANDMENTS" ARE IN THERE. Every one of them! (There are far more than just ten -- I forget the exact number, but there are a lot.) Now, remember that Moses would have studied these laws, and would be so familiar with them that he could recite them verbatim if asked. Alright, so fast forward to Moses learning he's a Hebrew, then leading his fellow Hebrews out of Egypt. And he gets to that mountain which he alone ascends for three days, then comes back with the tablets that he says God gave to him. The question to ask: HOW COULD GOD HAVE GIVEN HIM LAWS THAT HE HIMSELF HAD ALREADY KNOWN AND STUDIED FOR YEARS? Now, consider it from the perspective of the Hebrew following Moses. You're a newly freed slave with no education, but most likely religious and superstitious. You're restless and scared because you know that any moment the Egyptian troops could come roaring over the plane and slaughter you and everyone else. You watch your great leader ascend the mountain, and then three days later you watch him come back claiming God spoke to him and gave him these tablets. What else will you do but believe him? (And even if you're the rare one that doesn't -- Are you going to stand up and call him a liar?) So the Hebrews, and all Jews, Christians, and Muslims in all of that time since then believe it SIMPLY BECAUSE MOSES SAID IT HAPPENED. But remember, the key to what I suspect really happened rests in Moses' own history, and the reality of what was the Egyptian religion. So what most likely happened? Moses, the great leader who led his people out of slavery, believed -- as all good leaders before and since then have believed -- that people need a myth to believe in and rally around. Moses knew, as all good leaders know, that people need a great myth to draw strength and inspiration from. (Consider all of the great American myths from the Revolution to today. Most Americans don't even realize they're myths. Many even have roots in reality, but have been amped up to mythic status.) So Moses went up on that mountain, carved those tablets himself WITH TEN LAWS THAT HE ALREADY KNEW LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HAND -- and that he knew the Hebrews wouldn't have known about, since they were slaves in Egypt -- and came back saying "God gave these to me." Moses did the same thing that most televangelists do today: "God personally told me this." (How many of you will believe a televangelist who says God made a business plan for buying satellite stations mysteriously appear on the kitchen table?) Anyway, whether you believe my theory or not, the fact remains that Moses knew what we call "The Ten Commandments" long before he went up on that mountain. Do the research. It's irrefutable, and it's there for everyone to see.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Nicole21 expresses admiration for anti-capitalist movie - SHOCKE

    by Pumpkinsboy

    I'm actually interested about your ideas about `democratizing` the film industry. I mean that. I think both `Passion` and Fight Club` faced resistance in Hollywood. `Passion` for being too conservative, `Fight Club` for being too captitalist. Remember, it was a movie described by Alexander Walker as being `anti-God`. I'm pleased that, unlike many of your conservative buddies, you don't just cry blue murder at anything that attempts to deconstruct society. After all, what is conservatism if it isn't maintaining that the status quo is fine and that society is stable? Good on ya'. More movies that inspire as much debate as `Passion` and `Fight Club` would be great, and I would even venture that Hollywood's resistance to many interesting stories is actually an example of conservatism.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Correction

    by Pumpkinsboy

    Fight Club faced resistance in Hollywood for being ANTI-CAPITALIST, of course.

  • Classic example of people taking things from Moore, digesting them as fact, and being completely misled as a result, as was Moore's intent. You mention Bush's comments about his "base", when talking to a bunch of rich people as "proof" that all he cares about are corporations. You also mentioned the "haves and the have mores" quote. Brilliant. Moore gave you that quote, but not the context. Here is the actual context, which completely diffuses your comments, and hopefully will get you to investigate Moore's claims before he causes you to make a further ass of yourself in public:-------------- --------------- -------------- He says, "I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." The joke follows several segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Mori

    by Silver Shamrock

    I had no idea such a festival was going on. I suggest that anyone who has seen Farenheit 9/11, and onsiders themselves openminded and fair, should rent FarenHYPE 9/11, avalible at most Hollywood Video stores. It takes great pains to tell the rest of the story Moore forgot to put in. Like that F9/11 clip of the fancy white dinner Bush attented, "the haves.. and the have mores" etc. Turns out it was a fundraiser where he and AL Gore(!) raised millions and millions for hospitals for impoverished children. Kind of a nice thing that wasn't fully explained in Moore's opus.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Nicole, you speak a lot of sense - but...

    by Pumpkinsboy

    I honestly can't see many liberal movies in Hollywood, in recent years. Ones with a liberal agenda. The ones I can think of: , `Frieda`, any Michael Moore, any Tim Robbins (loved `Cradle Will Rock`, disliked `Dead Man Walking), any Spike Lee. With the exception of 9/11 (which had its own problems with Disney, of course), it seems to that ALL political movies, whatever side they take, are marginalised. Really, Spike Lee struggles with funding EVERY TIME. Sure, Robbins is the darling of the academy - but I recall when he spoke up for America's treatment of Cuban AIDS victims - and was ostracised in Hollywood for a while. You mentioned `Sum of All Fears` (was that you? I forget - I'll apologise if you didn't mention that movie): with Muslim bad guys replaced by something less controversial for the sake of political correctness. But Danny Boyle and Peter Berg, two well known filmmakers with no political axe to grind - both were essentially cut off at the knees when they tried to make movies that depicted firefighters as less than heroic - 'cos they're all stand up guys, right? Every single one. No. They're just people. Most are good - some aren't so good. Just like any group of folks. `Ladder 49` is what Hollywood is comfortable with, or `Backdraft` - standard heroics. No moral uncertainty. That's political correctness too. It swings both ways. I think Hollywood movies are largely apolitical. Read `Fight Club` producer Art Linson's `What just Happened? Bitter Tales from the Hollywood Frontline` and you'll see just how these supposedly left-wing Hollywood suits care about one thing and one thing only: profit. Trust me, if they thought it'd sell tickets, they'd make a movie called `Babykiller Abortionists Must Die` without thinking twice.

  • But that's to be expected - of course the ideaology that dominates the filmmaking scene will be the one that gets the most representation in films - it's not a "conspiracy" so much as the simple fact that the films obviously reflect the perspective and world-view of the people that make them - and the people that make films in Hollywood are overwhelmingly liberal. And there are many films that ride the line, such as John Q. - an embarrassingly naive and libearl look at healthcare in America. Same for the anti-death penalty film The Life of David Gale. Businessmen and corporate people provide the country with the jobs that people like Kerry and Edwards say we need, yet in Hollywood a bad guy is twelve times more likely to be some "evil businessman" than anything else. The latest John Grisham film, I forget the name, with Gene Hackman and Cusack... Runaway Jury, was it? The book version was different from the Hollywood version - by the time the film got to Hollywood it was about evil corporate gun-makers somehow being responsible for gun crime -and the film just assumes the audience will come to that conclusion. The examples are vast and numerous, but perfectly understandable - again, liberals make these movies, so of course their view of the world is what will be reflected in them - many of the films I mentioned are not only reflections but outright political activism, and that happens far more often than you have given it credit for, probably since so many of those films are simply so forgettable. But even films not overtly political activist in nature still tend to have loads of liberal slant because the filmmakers who make them are liberal. It's that simple.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 8:50 p.m. CST

    In the dictionary, "Democrat" comes after "asparagus", and befor

    by pizzatheface

    Shake hands fellas.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy.........

    by Silver Shamrock

    I'm not nicole, but I would like to throw in my 2 cents. Yes, there have been many recent movies with overt liberal agendas and they don't come to mind easily because they bombed at the BO: Buffalo Soldiers, John Q, The Life of David Gale, Runaway Jury, the Contender, The Last Castle. Now Oliver Stone wants to play up the bisexual angle in Alexander. The Last Samauri was basically a remake of Dances with Wolves, both being liberal revisonist fairy tales. The unenlighted white man gains true wisdom by submerging himself in an exotic foreign culture. The larger crop of HW movies know that overtly liberal movies don't sell in middle America, so they push their agendas more covertly. One such example is The Magic Negro, where in the black person is sooo much wiser than the ignorant white leading man, who then has to rely on the black mentor to gain spiritual guidane and true understanding of the world and himself. Examples can range from Bagger Vance, Morpheus and Oracle, Will Smith in Jersey Girl, Bulworth, Cuba Gooding Jr in What Dreams May Come, Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty, Micheal Clarke Duncan in the Green Mile, and so on. Now, I like some of these movies, but one has to admit there's still stereotyping of blacks in movies, only now it's liberals apparently overcompensating for past wrongs. All of my examples an't be coincedence, can they? Ever see a white male in a mentor role to black person in recent movies? The concept that Hollywood kepts hammering that someone of a different skin color is somehow superior to me is alien to me. I want to live my life seeing everyone as equals, and I get tired of these liberal BS agendas snuck into most Hollywood movies.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Liberal Wisdom

    by monkeyboyjunior

    "I feel so sorry for their lame bigoted greedy asses." -enlightened liberal part 1 "The man has grown up having no idea what it's like to struggle for a living (speaking of George W.)..." Yes, unlike John Kerry who was born wealthy and them married not one folks, but two-count em-two, ultra-rich heiresses, adn would be, if elected, the WEALTHIEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA. Rethink your liberal bias. Throw off the shackles. Open your minds.

  • Oct. 6, 2004, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Liberty Festival? Gimme a break

    by Ikaruga

    Why do so many conservatives use things like "liberty" "patriotism" "Americanism" to describe themselves or their causes, like they own it and no one else does? They actively say to their political opponents that they're NOT for liberty, patriotism, and America. It's fucked up. What the fuck is wrong with you people? SERIOUSLY. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Michael Moore Hates America? BOY YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS!! This fucker says "I felt like I was in America. But alas, I was in Los Angeles." WHAT THE FUCK? LA isn't America? Because why? Because what you conservative fucks believe that you're the true Americans, and everyone else isn't? What the fuck?

  • Because for so long they stood as figures of decency and moral guidelines for so many people. they were basically mini gods. they were special people in our society that many put on a podium and went to for guidance. They presented themselves as people with strict moral values. YET now it comes out that many (and more than one is far too many. but actually we aint talking just a few, we be talking a bucket load) priests have abused their unique role that society has afforded them. THAT IS WHY! it's called a backlash. And because of all those priests that made the news the entire institution has been brought into disrepute. BUT how long has this been going on? obviously for centuries cause in the end we are just animals and our biological make up determines that indeed we do want to fuck whether it be a sheep, a little boy or a prostitute. a famous british comedian once said, "a cat would give Mrs Thatcher a blow job if it were hungry enough".

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:51 a.m. CST

    You dum shit Republicans just don't get it! It's the bombs dropp

    by TheGinger Twit

    Jesus Christ you fuckers are the dummest sons of bitches that ever walked the Earth! Since When has Michael moore been anti-american, anti-freedom, Anti-liberty. Ferfuksake - Michael moore exposes corruption and deceptions within your corrupt and deceptive government. You guys are just doing yourselves in. Yes America is Number 1, we all know that - you Americans keep telling us. There's a sign up on the bud stop down the road saying "Visit the country voted best travel destination by over 90% of Americans" And it's an add for America. Yknow, there is such a thing as to much patrotism.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:02 a.m. CST

    No one say Saddam was a cool dude and that he should be left alo

    by TheGinger Twit

    As for now, you stupid bastards, There is street battles and car bombs and VERY REAL danger to America like never before NO ONE LIKES YOU!

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:08 a.m. CST

    And we NEVER DID land on the moon

    by TheGinger Twit

    Do some close examinations of those photo's and tell me they're not studio lit pieces of shit. Plus, and this is the clincher for me, Bush says it'll take 20 years to develope the technology to get us back to the moon.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:13 a.m. CST

    My God, i just read that whole 'Farenhype' page. Anyone who seri

    by TheGinger Twit

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:10 a.m. CST

    The world is pissed?

    by DoctorWho?

    Did it piss you off to see 3,000 people get whacked in an instant, whose only crime was getting up and going to work that day. Does it piss you off to see and hear a man shreik as he's getting his head sawed off by a masked Islamo facist? Its all over the internet... I answer yes to those.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Yes Dr. Who, it did piss me off to see 3000 people crushed by tw

    by TheGinger Twit

    But that does NOT give you guys to right to start crushing countless more people under countless more buildings. What the fuck do you think this is? Is september 11 going to be the justification for every fucked up thing America does in the world. Part of me now wishes that whole fucking city got totalled. You cunts just don't get it.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:58 a.m. CST

    this is funny you guys feel picked on, yet you pick on the rest

    by Dr Farragammo

    This is just sad. You guys get your own film festival because you feel left out in Hollywood. Awwwww. You control the government and you cry in your pillow that the majority of Hollywood doesn't like you. Boo Fucking Hoo. Meanwhile anybody who disagrees with you is unamerican. Anybody who shows up at W's campaign stops in antibush gear gets his ass hauled to jail on trumped up charges so as not to disturb the King George facade. Sorry, but your shows are lame, your books are lamer, and you guys eat more hate for breakfast then michael moore could shit out his fat ass. You love to hate him, and all you can counter is with farenhype and michael moore hates america, too things about as revealing and accurate as Cheney's lies he spewed last night. Some prize ones I must repeat: (1) he was only at those senate meetings 2 times in the past 4 years, so he's a hypocrite accusing Edwards of not being there (unless it was those 2 times he was there.) (2) He had met Edwards several times before (there is a pic of them together at a fund raiser. (3) and finally this beauty: (cut and pasted in it's entirety.) Cheney Blunder Lauded Anti-Bush Web Site By Joanne Kenen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a Web site calling for President Bush's defeat but that's what a slip of the domain achieved. Anyone who heeded Cheney's advice and clicked on "factcheck.com" was greeted on Wednesday morning with a message from anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros entitled "Why we must not reelect President Bush." "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values," Soros' message said. Defending his record as Halliburton's chief executive, Cheney said in the Tuesday night debate that Democratic vice-presidential challenger John Edwards was trying to use Halliburton as a smokescreen. Any voter who wanted the facts, Cheney said, should check out factcheck.com -- which led to the Soros site. The Web site Cheney had in mind, factcheck.org, was not amused when the vice president proved that he was not master of the factcheckers' domain. Factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said on its site on Wednesday that Cheney not only got the domain name confused, he had mischaracterized its fact-finding. "Cheney ... wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the site said on Wednesday. "In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right." The White House Web site annotated the debate transcript, parenthetically noting that Cheney meant factcheck.org, not factcheck.com. It linked the transcript to factcheck.org. See what's so funny is not only did he direct traffic to a site DENOUNCING him, the one he thought would DEFEND him, DENOUNCED him as well. Gotta love that hateful fuck, he just keeps on ticking with his bad ticker. Now back to your regularly scheduled propaganda. And newsflash : NOBODY GIVES A SHIT AND NOT ONE FILM YOU EVER MAKE WILL BE LAUDED AS A CLASSIC OR NOTEWORTHY FILM. NOT ONE. But I will give you credit for actually creating something, instead of BANNING EVERYTHING like your Religious Right cuckoos love to do. Bye Bye.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:13 a.m. CST

    To Super Person & Bouffant

    by Dr Farragammo

    first off I didn't read any of th eposts on here 1st (let's face it , no one's changing anybody's minds on here) but I had to let freedom reign (don't you love how Dumbya even fucked that turn of phrase up?) and drop a bomb of reason over these right wing zombies (by this I mean ferevent Bush supporters. Regular fiscal and non religious right republicans you are decent people now please get your party back). Just glad to know you know that these guys are insane with their need for power and have a persucution complex to back it up. That's why they love Mel Gibson so much , given that element in his films. But Super Person don't despair. the pendulum always swings in this country. From the scary days of McCarthy, to the hopeful days of JFK & MLK, from the Reagan Bush era of a dismal future and hatred of those with less, to the Clinton era of compassion and those days where these kooks would get so mad they couldn't sleep at night, and we laughed our asses off at them. Our time is coming again. Thomas Jefferson said the best way to change democracy is to have a revolution every 100 years. WE ARE LONG OVERDUE. So vote these assholes out and let's take our country back!!

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:38 a.m. CST

    Dr Who, a couple of points back atcha

    by Heleno

    Hello. The War on Terror (I assume you are not referring to the Wheel of Time books with that acronym) is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the war on Iraq, which is a very different thing and which unquestionably is a "scared government lashing out at a perceived threat". Had you read that post carefully, you would have noticed that I specifically identified Iraq as the subject of that comment. The hijackers on September 11 were mostly Saudis, not Iraqis; no links have been proved between Saddam and those hijackers; Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror and the war on Iraq are different things. What's more, people in the middle east don't see your "genuine good intentions and design to work things out" as pathetic

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Is it November yet???

    by RowanM

    My mind has been so preoccupied with Bush, Kerry, Iraq, Bin Laden, the end of the world as we know it, sex etc etc that I think it's gonna go nova on me. Movies help me deal with this pressure. That's why I come here. Now, if I can hold out for just one month.....maybe five weeks, all this politic BULLSHIT will subside enough for me to get my mind back to things that matter in my own little world and endure whoever for whatever amount of years until the day I die. I'm not American, so I'll just sit on my hands and watch events unfold..... vote for Kerry.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 5:53 a.m. CST

    Silver Shamrock

    by Pumpkinsboy

    Yep, you're right - those liberal movies you mentioned did bomb. Because they sucked (apart from `Buffalo Soldiers`, which had me laughing all the way through). 'Cos preaching movies DON'T WORK. Either from the right or the left. Nicole thinks a revolution is coming; that the `Passion` is gonna shake things up. It isn't. People will resist right wing idealogue movies just as stringently as they avoided crap like `John Q` (worthy intent, embrassing failure) or `Life of David Gale`).

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 7:34 a.m. CST

    A liberal film with a priest that isn

    by gg

    How about Romero with Raoul Julia? Ann Coulter sexy? Huh?!? http://users.wi.net/~johnh/01_ann_coulter.JPG

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 7:50 a.m. CST

    The Contender a liberal film?

    by gg

    Not really....if it had been truly liberal, assuring the audience that, no, she hadn

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:38 a.m. CST

    passion of the false prophet Jesus

    by ScaryJim

    Got ur attention huh ? I'm amazed , sincerely I am why does every right wing fundementalist cite this film as great for the christian fundementalist cause ? It lambasted a few Jews , whoopee is that it? i'm happy for you if that makes you happy nicole . It was ok , nothing new pretty pointless really .. Monty Pythons life of Brian was a way better interpretation of the absurdity of it all . Nicole it's nice to see you embrace movies written by Homosexuals now .. It's a step forward for you - it really is .It's quite a shame U TOTALLY MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF IT .Ahh never mind , I'm sure you are right now googling for more bollocks to quote in your painfully boring posts . I'll be honest though , I am quite surprised that everything seems so black and white to quite a few people . So your a democrat and your automatically against the war? your a republican and your for it and everything else your government stands for ? It's a fucked up system over there . Your government seems to be run by 2 rival corporations that never even seem to question their own partys morals . Over in the UK we openly have Labour cabinet members denouncing the war on national tv . Only this morning i saw Glenda Jackson on breakfast tv calling for Blairs resignation . Even the opposition conservatives supported the war .. until they realised they could win a few votes back by pretending they wouldn't have gone to war if they had the same evidence Blair did . There are a lot of sides to every party it just amazes me you guys over there can agree with apparently every single thing fed to you by the people you have chosen to vote for . Over here i'll probably have to end up voting conservative just because there's no way i'll let Blair get away with all his fuck ups and I don't trust the economy in the hands of the Lib Dems . Also cons promise to give us a say about whether we should join europe (no) and also raise thresholds on tax so the rich people DO end up paying more .. All stuff yet to be seen BUT these are all different issues .. if nothing else can't you even see that Bush appears to be an idiot , probably the most lampooned president in history . Don't you even feel you'd like a better more articulate republican leader . FFS on this sci fi film i cannot remember, they referenced president schwartzenegger - and we all laughed but with the blabbering mess that is the current leader i can actually see that happening . I read the article wanting to hear an opinion that was intelligent , I was sure he would agree with the war but i wanted to listen to the guy. I was certain he'd have something intelligent to say . I cannot believe he actually said war is neccessary for peace though , that war solves problems . It doesn't for the people that start it, all this has done is create thousands more terrorists than would have been and given them a whole country to recruit . Well done, nice move. All the while there is Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel and the saudi terrorist factory racing to be on the same level as the west is with their nuclear arms .And in Pakistan, India and Israels case- being on very shaky ground with their neighbours WHAT A GREAT COMBO . taking Iraq out was like taking a pawn . fucking useless. I'm not saying we should start a conflict with North Korea but i'm finding it hard to hard to understand why a battered country who's government probably would have fallen within 5 years was chosen as THE axis of evil .The political pressure should be on these countries especially as Israel is getting increasingly trigger happy .

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:47 a.m. CST

    by ScaryJim

    I mean trigger happy with palestine ummk ..

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:58 a.m. CST

    "Or that crime in England has skyrocketed since they outlawed gu

    by Easily Pleased

    Your murder rate is 800% greater than ours. Dont you fucking dare try and bring the UK into your defense. Americans grab the gun whenever they feel afraid/upset/pissed off/insulted/drunk. You cant argue with the muder figures between US and Canada just across the lake. Amricans love to shoot each other. Fact. And yes, crime has rocketed in the UK. Maybe 200 people murdered in the whole country. I think South-Central LA will top that. You have 5 times more population. 800% more murders. Most of the gun crime is from Jamaican "Yardies" who are trigger happy, and no I am not a racist.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 9:36 a.m. CST

    pld

    by ScaryJim

    pld. easily pleased i forgot even to make that point . Most of the gun crime over here is gang related sometimes people get caught in the crossfire but mostly it's drug dealers killing each other. What you won't see is random people having an off day and picking up what they have at hand and blowing schools full of children away .

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Fight Club

    by Homer Sexual

    Got to respond. Fight Club is certainly anti-Ikea, so anti-capitalist isn't a bad tag. I guess it rails against the "feminization" of "American" males since they get their groove on through bare-knuckle fighting, but it is also pretty much the gayest movie I have ever seen, and I know whereof I speak. I can't even say there are homoerotic undertones, because it is so overt, yet straight guys don't see it, I guess? ps. If American males are feminine, where are the "masculine" males, not Europe, I'm sure. I guess Africa and South/Central America. Macho Man. Har.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:15 a.m. CST

    This gun crime in the UK thing...

    by Heleno

    I'm sorry

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Play D'Oh - You're wrong...

    by Dagan

    And this campaign proves it. In the Vice-Presidential debate, John Edwards was the one saying "the light of America is flickering". This is the entire theme of not just this Democrat campaign, but all of them, even though our economy is growing faster than it has in 20 years, we're nearing the days of mass soup-kitchen lines according to Democrats. America is big, ugly and unfair. Everybody is getting screwed, and the middle class is just a paycheck away from losing everything. It's a constant message of negativism, and that party has set itself up so that bad news for America is good news for the party - one Democrat strategist gleefully said in 2002, that "for every 100 points the stock market goes down that's one more seat we get in the House!" But you're saying that it's REPUBLICANS who are doom and gloom, saying America's best days are behind her??? Hardly. Again, just look at this campaign. Look at the greatest optimist we've ever had as President, Republican hero Ronald Reagan, who took us out of DOUBLE DIGIT inflation, "misery indexes", and double digit unemployment to bring "morning to America". Eighties pop culture even reflected the attitude Reagan brought to the country - an explosion of color and bubble-gum optimism in almost every song, movie and TV Show. No other decade has been like it. Reagan's message was not that "we should go back to the past"(that's the Democrat message in this campaign, if you'll rememer), it was that "America's best days are ahead" ----------- ------------- ---------------- America is too great for small dreams -- Ronald Reagan The Democrats say that the United States has had its days in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems, that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. -- Ronald Reagan I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. -- Ronald Reagan And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." -- Ronald Reagan In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. -- Ronald Reagan---------- -------------- ----------- This was the message of Reagan. The message of Democrats is inherently - "you are destitute - you can't do it alone. You need our help." Kerry's own campaign them is "help is on the way". Their entire message consists of getting you to believe you can't do anything without government intervention and "their help". The Republican message is much different - "you can make it on your own, and we will make sure we get government out of your way so you can achieve your dreams."

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Easily Pleased - Guns and stuff...

    by Dagan

    Yes, you certainly can argue with the Canada gun rate - although Michael Moore was trying to mislead as usual with his figures on the issue, he only mentioned raw statistics on gun crime, not per capita. Canada has ten times FEWER people than we do here in the United States. Of course they're going to have more murders. Moore also used the trick of picking the lowest gun-crime year in Canada and the highest in the United States to compare. He also used the trick of only counting homicides with guns for Canada's figures. But in the United States figures he quoted, he counted homicides, self-defense, accidents and police actions as well. These things make his comparisons completley misleading and worthless(and prove what a cad he is - he's not interested in the truth, he's interested in what he wants YOU to think is the truth) But you're also missing the bigger picture - as Moore says in Bowling for Columbine, Canada has as much gun ownership as the United States - so what gives? You compared the two in the context of gun control, pointing to Canada as having "less crime" than the US - but they have lots of guns. Also, looking at per capita rates, Canada's is still lower than the US rate. However, put it in perspective: Crime will always be higher in urban areas, and the US has far more of an Urban population than Canada. When you look strictly at POPULATION DENSITY - areas with similar population density in Canada actually has HIGHER crime rates than the US. So your Canada point is completely wrong. Also:---------- ---------------- ---------- Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.4 * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.15 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;16 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.17 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for seven years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the safest states in the union -- having twice received the "Safest State Award."18 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms.19 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period.20 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is almost twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. During the first ten years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 146 to 88 margin.21 * Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia's law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin's murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.22 C. Criminals avoid armed citizens * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.23 * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.24 * Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: * Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.25 Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection * Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.26 * Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.27 Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30 Facts are facts.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 11:02 a.m. CST

    interesting article

    by ScaryJim

    'Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity' James Meek attends the world's first right-wing film festival Friday September 24, 2004 The Guardian If you are travelling to an event that bills itself as the world's first conservative film festival, it is prudent to do a little research in advance. The premise of the American Film Renaissance, held in Dallas recently, was that Hollywood is in the grip of a clique of anti-religious, gay-loving, gun-hating, foreigner-appeasing, left-wing degenerates who wilfully and foolishly fail to represent mainstream American opinion. Cruising over the Atlantic on an American Airlines Boeing 777, en route to Dallas, seemed a good opportunity to test the theory, particularly since I had been seated squarely over the right wing of the aircraft. Films don't come any more Hollywood mainstream than the ones they put 20 inches in front of your face on big US airlines. Fourth on American's inflight bill was Saltwater, a four-year-old foreign film, and hence immediately suspect, but not actually Hollywood's fault (it's Irish). Third on the menu was Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, about an amateur golfer who achieved a clean sweep of the big world golfing trophies in 1930 and went on to found the Augusta National Golf Club. I searched for a Marxist parable on the hallowed greens. I did not find one. I sought, too, for the dark satanic subtext of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, for the hidden message of evil that would draw American youngsters into a life of godlessness and vegetarianism. I sought in vain. Top of the bill was a movie called New York Minute, starring the Olsen sisters, Ashley and Mary-Kate, as pretty blonde teenagers being pursued through Manhattan by a truancy officer, a criminal bungler of less than pantomime menace and a pair of lovable mussy-haired boys. Where was the sex? Where was the violence? Where were the drugs? Where, in this Desperately Seeking Susan de nos jours, was the subversion to inflame conservative America? Advertiser links Play.com - Save up to 60% off UK DVDs Very low prices on thousands of DVDs, plus free, fast... play.com Cheap DVDs Delivered Free A great range, with at least 30% off RRP on all chart... thehut.com Low-Price DVD in Stock Now Read product reviews, check features, full specification and... dabs.com "Our film festival is not really to chastise liberals, it's to chastise conservatives," said Jim Hubbard in the lobby of the Intercontinental Hotel, Dallas, next day. Hubbard set up American Renaissance with his wife Ellen. "Quit whining about Hollywood, quit threatening these meaningless boycotts, get into the market of ideas and fight for what you believe. There was just such a shortage of films and documentaries that represented a conservative world view. For some reason, conservatives don't go into film. They don't tend to be artists. I don't know why. That's just a tendency." Hubbard has been described by the media as a wealthy Dallas attorney, although he isn't. He's from Arkansas, not long out of law school, and has done various jobs, including restaurateur and schoolteacher. He told me he and his wife slept on a $200 futon from Wal-Mart. Ellen Hubbard did not seem happy he told me this. The Hubbards set up the festival - mainly, they say, with money from family and friends - after going to an arthouse cinema one night and being faced with a choice between Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine and Frieda, a film about Frieda Kahlo - "a film about a communist artist," as Hubbard put it. "Neither of those films reflected our world view." What upsets Hubbard and festival-goers is as much what Hollywood puts into its films as what they leave out. Why, Hubbard asks, did they change Muslim terrorists to right-wing terrorists from Europe when they filmed Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears? And could I name any films in which the Viet Cong were portrayed as villains? Well, there was The Deer Hunter, which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1978; in it, sweating, screaming, vicious North Vietnamese soldiers are shown dragging their US prisoners from rat-infested cages and forcing them to play Russian roulette. Hubbard hadn't seen it. The festival launch was in a small function room in the hotel that evening. It wasn't Cannes. Not that it wanted to be. There were lots of black and orange balloons, a buffet and a free bar, and about 80 film-makers, journalists, producers and hard to label individuals drawn to the scent of conservative gatherings like deer to a salt-lick, such as a well turned-out Englishman, Jonathan Boyd Hunt - there to promote his research proving "the very real threat that the BBC-Guardian axis poses to the interests of the United States". Among the crowd I got talking to was a marketing executive, Matt Tibbitts, who was hoping to get his movie Echoes of Innocence accepted for Sundance. It's about a girl whose childhood sweetheart vanishes but who holds true to her promise to marry him. Tibbitts wouldn't tell me how long she waits, but I had the impression it is a very long time. "She promised a guy in seventh grade that he would be the one she married so, obviously, she's still a virgin," said Tibbitts. "We want people of all faiths, of all backgrounds to come and view it, to start the dialogue, because virginity isn't just a Christian thing." To the outsider, it might appear that 2004 was honours even for the anti-war left and the pro-war Christian right in film terms in America: the former had the astonishing commercial success of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to enjoy, the latter the huge phenomenon of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. They didn't see it that way at American Film Renaissance. They were angry about Fahrenheit 9/11, certainly - surprisingly so, given that so few of them had seen it. But they were still angry that the big studios had scorned The Passion. Even their triumph at Gibson going off and showing the big players how a Christian film could make money was tinged with rage. Michael Medved, the right-wing talk radio host whose speech opened the festival, is not a Christian, as he took pains to point out; he is Jewish, which is why, he explained, he couldn't use a microphone. It was the Sabbath. "The huge success of The Passion of the Christ has changed western culture permanently and forever," he said. "The opposition to the film is not because it was anti-Jewish but because it was pro-Christian ... People who fear all religion are going to react to that movie like Dracula reacts to the cross." Medved's festival oration climaxed on the struggle over the legalisation of gay marriages. "Every single image you see of homosexuality in the media is positive, saintly," he said. "When was the last time you saw some degraded [homosexual] character?" He accused the Massachusetts judges who ruled gay marriage constitutational of jeopardising America's mission in the Middle East. "We are engaged right now in trying to plant the seeds of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq ... how do we try to teach Iraq about democracy when a handful of unelected judges dictate to the American people?" The festival opener was one of only two full-length feature films on show - DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, a dramatisation of events in the Bush administration on and after September 11 2001. Timothy Bottoms, best known for his role in The Last Picture Show, plays George Bush. The movie premiered on the Showtime TV channel and went swiftly to DVD from there. Bottoms turned out for the opening, the only remote hint of anything suggesting the glamour of Cannes, Sundance or Venice. He also had the only limousine, and offered me a ride to the screening venue, which was a mile away. Bottoms distanced himself from the festival's agenda. "I'm not into that conservative-liberal stuff," he said, pointing out that the last time he played Bush, it was as a clown for the TV channel Comedy Central, in a sitcom from the creators of South Park called That's My Bush. That was before 9/11, however, and Bottoms said he played Bush serious this time so as to give something back to the survivors of the terrorist attacks on America. "For that two-week period, America came together and helped pick George Bush up and gave him the spotlight and the stage to make a decision," said Bottoms, sitting in the dark interior of the limo with a stubby plastic bottle of water in one hand, as the lights on the vehicle's built-in bar changed from orange to yellow to green. "The comparison is with Peter Pan. Tinkerbell, her heart was broken, you think she's going to die, but Peter Pan tells everyone they can bring her back if they just believe in fairies. I think America did that to the president of the US, especially when he went to Ground Zero." I vowed not to review the festival films, and I will be as true to that vow as a good Christian girl guarding her chastity for her missing sweetheart. Let the record show only that DC 9/11 does show Donald Rumsfeld predicting the coming attack to his marvelling generals before it happens; that Paul Wolfowitz, the real version of whom can be seen in Fahrenheit 9/11 chuckling, licking his comb and running it through his hair, is portrayed in DC 9/11 as looking like one of Samantha from Sex and the City's more attractive lovers; that when a senior Democrat was portrayed on the big screen, pledging loyalty to Bush, a moan of hate rippled through the audience, like wind in the chimney; and that DC 9/11 includes quite a lot of dialogue like this: George Bush: I have faith. Laura Bush: We both do. GB: I love you. LB: And I love you. GB: Amen. Next morning kicked off with The Siege of Western Civilisation, by Herb Meyer, a one-time minor official in the Reagan administration. "By" in this context means that Meyer is the whole film: Meyer standing there on the big screen and talking at you for 42 minutes about why Islam needs to be dragged at gunpoint towards modernity, on American terms, and about why it is more important for American women to have children than to have careers. Speaking with the relish many men of his generation would reserve for discussions of a forthcoming golfing trip, he talks of a coming second American civil war, and explains how abortion is robbing America's retired people of their welfare safety net. "Abortion is a human tragedy but it's also an economic tragedy," he says. "If these children had been allowed to live, we would not have the problem we have now. We would have the consumer base, the tax base, and wouldn't be facing a social security and Medicare crisis. Isn't it amazing? We never think of it that way." In true film festival style, Roger Aronoff, the maker of Confronting Iraq, a professionally-produced documentary intended to show why the US was right to launch its invasion, told the audience that he had only finished the final edit the night before. He was proud of its watertight accuracy. He challenged me to find any outright untruths in it, and, sure enough, it did not contain outright untruths. Among the interviews with Christopher Hitchens and Bernard Lewis, and the footage of Al Gore intercut with footage of the extreme fringe of the US peace movement, there were many outright truths that it didn't contain either, particularly the outright truth that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. The documentaries rolled on. Silent Victory was about the valour of a special forces unit in Vietnam. The unit's veterans spoke candidly and movingly of the horror of war. Afterwards Don Hall, one of the veterans, who co-produced the film with his wife Annette, was asked what he thought of John Kerry, who also served in Vietnam. Hall said he thought Kerry was a charlatan and a fake. I asked him later why; he said that Kerry had won more medals than he deserved in too short a time. "I used to be a Democrat," said Mrs Hall. "That was before I knew. Then came talk radio and the internet. The blinkers came off." Next up on the big screen was another Republican woman. There she was, talking to students at a campus meeting about Iraq. "Suppose, for the sake of argument, this was a war just for oil," she told them. "We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?" This was Ann Coulter, the mind of Rush Limbaugh in the body of Lisa Kudrow, a witty and blazingly right-wing columnist and chat-show guest who cannot quite make up her mind whether she is a comedian or a serious political analyst - a combination that may be easier to get away with over there. As the star of the documentary Is It True What They Say About Ann? she had American Renaissance festival-goers rolling over and purring. They already knew her greatest moments off by heart: the time she called Joe McCarthy a great American patriot, those liberal media types she bested head to head on TV (in these clips, at least), and her most notorious opinion, expressed shortly after 9/11. She wrote: "It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Towards evening, the focus shifted to gun control. I watched Innocents Betrayed, a collage of archive footage devoted to the proposition that laws restricting private gun ownership were responsible for the most notorious genocides and civilian massacres of the 20th century, including Turkey's massacre of the Armenians, Cambodia, Rwanda and the Nazi slaughter. Hitler's gun control laws came in for particular attention. "All over Europe, people resist the Nazis, except in Germany," the narrator intoned. The message of the film was so all-encompassing that I was surprised it didn't go for broke and argue that if Jesus had only owned a gun, he might still be alive today. Earlier, I'd spoken to the film's director, Aaron Zelman, who is also executive director of an organisation called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. "It's a warning to human beings on how to stay alive," he said. "Our film is a warning to people to be on their guard, to be alert, to watch out for when governments go bad." I asked Zelman about something that had been bothering me: that traditionally film festivals welcomed film-makers who considered that their films were, in some way or another, artistic, whatever political message they might have; that, traditionally, polemics of any stripe didn't make great films. I asked Zelman if he considered himself an artist. I might as well have asked him if he considered himself a cross-dresser. "This is my first effort at making a film," he said. "I'm not going to put the whole artist label on myself, put on a beret, you know. Our documentary is based on a book called Death By Gun Control. We adapted our book into a film: that I would not consider to be artistic." Surely Hollywood was only interested in making money? Could he give an example of a left-wing Hollywood movie? He could. "The one Michael Douglas had; he was the stockbroker. I forget what it was called. That was a message showing how evil capitalism is ... Forget about the movies they make, just their politics, look at who they support. Hollywood is famous for, 'If you want to make money, everything else is secondary.' But the perception of the leftists in Hollywood is based on their political activities." (I checked later: Oliver Stone's Wall Street was released 17 years ago, and proved such a setback to capitalist values that the Republicans stayed in the White House for five more years.) It was at around 7pm that I broke. I cannot pinpoint the precise time. It may have been the moment when, in Larry Elder's anti-gun control documentary Michael & Me (made as a response to Bowling For Columbine) he reveals how safe children really are with guns in the home by pointing out that, in 2001, only 50 kids died in firearms accidents in America. All I know is that when I came out and saw a line of Texans queuing up to see a non-festival film, the unpleasant horror movie Resident Evil, I envied them. I asked Hubbard why, when the festival was so preoccupied with Michael Moore, he hadn't been to see either Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling For Columbine. That wasn't fair, said Hubbard; he'd seen bits of Bowling, and had read Stupid White Men. "I know what he said in public," said Hubbard. The last film of the night, To End All Wars, the second of the festival's two features, starred Kiefer Sutherland and Robert Carlyle as Allied prisoners of the Japanese during the second world war. Neither actor was present; the picture was, after all, three years old. It shows how Christian faith helps the POWs endure their ordeal, which is not without crucifixions. The movie never got a full distribution deal. Introducing it, Dave Ellswick, a talk radio host from Arkansas, said this was because of its Christian content, rather than because it wouldn't have sold tickets. "Conservatives have given up Hollywood and movies to the liberals and the left," he said. "That's got to stop. We've got to be in the arena of ideas because our ideas are right, they are the correct ones. They are not teaching our kids these things; it's not on TV, it's in hardly any of the books any more. You and I and that big silver screen and talk radio can really start a renaissance. Enjoy the film!"

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 11:43 a.m. CST

    really long posts

    by Homer Sexual

    like the last two from Dagan and Scary Jim. Those posts are so long I can't even attempt to read them. I personally skip any post longer than half muy computer screen. Does anyone out there actually read those really long posts?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Homer Sexual

    by Heleno

    Gun-ownership in Canada, the Uk and the Netherlands is 45% (averaged across all three countries)? Why on earth would it be averaged across those countries? What do they have in common? And I can only assume that counts the number of guns, and the number of households, rather than the number of households with a gun because there just aren't that many guns in UK households - or anywhere near it. You can't trust statistics like this - clearly 87.6% of them were made up on the spot.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Dagan - if everyone could `make it `we'd be living in a Utopian

    by Pumpkinsboy

    Optimism is all very well - but not at the expense of the reality on the ground. What about the 45 million Americans without a health care plan? I guess they're just too `pessimistic` and should get off their asses and climb the ladder, huh? Your post read like a spoof. Was it? If so, sorry - good joke! Reagan, like Bush now, enabled prosperity for wide sections of society, yes - but at the expense of other sections of society. What's wrong with `helping` others? I'm talking about hardworking people who might not have the wisdom, education or ability to rise and succeed - do we just leave them to rot? Have you seen the deficit lately - and did you see the surplus Bush inherited? But hey, give tax breaks to the top 1% of earners and fuck the blue collar guy on the street, the single mother who works two jobs and tries to keep her kids straight and decent, right? Caring isn't about having a `liberal bleeding heart` - it's about ensuring we have a balanced, stable society. There is no reason for the richest country in the world to have swathes of its people living in poverty. `Morning in America?` You're like a drone repeating some bullshit commercial. But I guess bullshit works - I remember Gore outlaying a solid economic plan that would prevent middle-class taxation in 2000 - the difference to be made up by taxing the top 1% of earners. But of course, George gives a wink and smile and we all sigh, knowing he'd be more fun at a barbecue. Maybe we deserve the rise in un-employment amongst the lowest band of earners, the attack on civil liberties, the deficit..maybe we all think that one day, we're all gonna be in that top 1%. God bless us, every one.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 12:24 p.m. CST

    I read Scary Jim's long post

    by Super Person

    And it was one of the scariest things I've read in a long long time...

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy - Thank you for proving my point

    by Dagan

    To the last guy I was responding to - can you see the difference here? Democrats are the party of negativism and defeatism and Republicans are the optimists. Even looking at Michael Moore's doom and gloom films - America as devastated wasteland - versus the response films to his movies - America as a free and hopeful place - should be enough to convince you.------- ---------- ----------------- As you you, Pumpkinsboy, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts. Let's take them one by one. Health Care? Yes, many don't have it - but can the government provide them good health care? I want everybody to have healthcare, but I don't think government is the answer - the answer is stopping frivolous lawsuits that cost the system billions and raise the price of everything to astronomical heights. But the trial lawyer lobby is the strongest lobby these days for Democrats, so they are adamantly opposed to any kind of tort reform, and are all for the "jackpot justice" where lawyers can just sue and sue and sue without consequence, forcing companies to settle rather than endure endless legal fees, no matter how ridiculous the claim. Getting rid of this problem will be far more effective than some kind of government program.-------- ----------- ------------ Deficit? Here is the truth about that... (In the next post for ease of reading's sake)

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy - Part II - The Deficit

    by Dagan

    You then said Clinton gave us "a surplus". This is not true. The debt continued to increase every year under Clinton, and we only had a "surplus" because of PROJECTED economic numbers and creative accounting, not real money. And this "surplus" projection was calculated based on the rate of growth during THE TECH BUBBLE. What fascinates me is how there is nobody out there who doesn't admit that we were in a bubble economy in the late nineties, however, Democrats seem to conveinently forget this fact when they try to give Clinton credit for the economic boom! Truth is, it's impossible to really assess Clinton's ecoomic performance, because no matter who was President, we were going to see a bubble economy in that time. The rise of the Internet in the second half of the 1990s was nothing short of a world-wide revolution, and this new technology "hoooking up the world for the first time" inspired a SPECULATIVE boom - meaning, a bubble - wild speculative investment based on the great hope of new technology and how it would change the world, instead of on economic reality - it was a FANTASY, by definition, and that fantasy exploded, showing the true economy beneath, in 2000 - a year before Bush was sworn in, and during Clinton's last year of his Presidency. Nobody disputes the bubble - so why give Clinton credit for the economy it created? It was a BUBBLE, people! And as a bubble, we saw lots of government revenue coming in because the economic bubble was going so fast and furious - capital was exchanging hands, internet businesses were starting left and right, the stock market was going wild - all of these things were contributing vast amounts of money to the treasury, and a great rate of growth that we used to PROJECT surpluses. But those surpluses never really materialized because those were projections based on a bubble economy and unrealistic economic growth. We have a deficit now with Bush? Of course! For one, we have the War on Terror and Homeland security to deal with, which we didn't(but should've) had under Clinton. But also, Clinton was benefitting from a bubble economy generating unrealistic(because it wasn't based on fundamentals, just speculation) revenues for the government. When the stock market crashed in 2000, it took about a third of the nation's wealth with it - almost overnight. So the government was taking in about a whopping third less tax revenues on stocks than it was before - OF COURSE if you lose that much revenue overnight you will have bigger deficits. But remember, this had absolutely nothing to do with Bush. The "roaring" bubble economy and then crash happened well before he got into office, but he stepped in right in time to feel the effects. So in short, Clinton verifiably inherited a recovery and left with a recession, however I don't blame him for that recession. The bubble happened because of the internet, and any President in office at the time would've seen a boom and a bust bubble cycle, just like Clinton did - so it's not really his fault. But it's certailnly not anything he should be CREDITED for, either, as you quite erroneously have here.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy - Part III - Tax cuts

    by Dagan

    Here is what you said: "But hey, give tax breaks to the top 1% of earners and fuck the blue collar guy on the street, the single mother who works two jobs and tries to keep her kids straight and decent, right?" ----------- ---------------- ---------- Again, I don't know where you're getting your information, but I suspect it's from Michael Moore and John Kerry's website. How did "the little guy" "get fucked" by the tax cut? Contrary to what Kerry and Moore say, EVERYBODY WHO PAYS INCOME TAXES GOT AN INCOME TAX CUT. It's that simple. It was not only a "tax cut for the wealthy". It was a tax cut for everybody - and the wealthy got their taxes cut by a smaller percentage than the poor. Five million people at the bottom of the tax bracket got a 100% tax cut, because they got removed from the responsibility to pay taxes AT ALL. The wealthy saw their taxes decline about 11%, from 38.6% down to 35% for the top bracket. The bottom tax bracket got a 100% tax cut, as I said before. But the second to bottom bracket(now the bottom), saw their taxes decrease 33% - from 15% down to 10%. They now pay 1/3 less in taxes than they did because of the Bush tax cut. That is a tremendous help to poor people, and they got their taxes cut by a greater percentage than "the rich". In fact, the top 10% of wage earners paid 64% of the Nation's tax burden BEFORE Bush's tax cut. AFTER Bush's tax cut, the top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of the Nation's tax burden - their share of the tax burden WENT UP in relation to everybody elses. So you're simply peddling a myth. Misinformation and downright lies at their worst.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Bush's "base"-line reflects his "heart" It's obvious not only fr

    by lettersoftransit

    I knew feull that somebody would eventually concoct a defense for Bush's line, and that it would contain insults (calling me an "ass" for quoting it). The fact that Bush occasionally does charity events with people he enriches at our expense is not surprising. You would be hard-pressed to find a leader who never did charity events. Taking care to point out this is not to say Bush is like any of the following, the worst and most despotic and corrupt leaders in history have attended charity events. Kenneth Lawy did lots of charity events; it did not change what a crook he was. Hell, even mobsters do charity events. Twisted people who feel they are in a better class than the rest of us love to do charity events and ask their fellow fatcats to give up a tiny, tiny amount of the riches they have gotten through dishonesty and corruption. History and current events are full of people who have ripped off billions of dollars and destroyed thousands of lives, yet they do the occasional charity as it will somehow convince people (or God) that they really are a good person after all. To some of those people, the attitude is simply that they'll give some to society but it will be on their terms and their terms only, and only if and when they feel like it. They won't allow faitress or morality or even the law telling them what they should be doing. If the context of Bush's speech were such that it would truly counter the impression, you can bet your ass it would be out there with akll the force of those clips showing Cheney sitting side by side with Edwards. It doesn't. Which is why they've left it to people simply to say shadowy things like "everything in Moore's film is lie" and you can't believe it even when it comes from Bush's mouth. The biggest problem with doing that in regards to the "haves and have mores" quote is that the more you look at Bush's policies, the more that statement is consistent with his world view. Try telling people Bush doesn't mean that, when a guy who makes 50 or 70K and cannot take care of his family pays taxes on the money when he needs every penny, but the guy who makes the money not by working but from dividend income (and not only didn't need it but didn't have to lift a finer to earn it) pays little or not taxes at all. That policy (like most of Bush's policies) underscores that his "have and have mores" line reflects what is in hs oft-lauded "heart."

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy - Part IV - Poverty and "Morning in America"

    by Dagan

    Please not the context. You attack me for the "morning in America" line quite unfairly. I was RESPONDING to another poster who was saying Republicans had a message of negativity, that things are worse off today, blah blah blah - I corrected him, showing him that Republicans have had a message since Reagan of "Morning in America" - that there is hope in this land, not despair as the Democrats preach. That is all. -------- ------ ---------------- Now, poverty. You are aware that the American definition of "poverty" is a completely arbitrary thing - and even if we lived in a Utopia we'd still have that number to represent "the poorest" among us - it's relative. Our "poverty" definition does not coincide with those in other countries at all. If they did, our poverty rate would be almost non-existent, constituting only the homeless. As it stands today, here is what Americans "in poverty" are:---------- ------------- --------------- For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

  • You're trying to talk your way out of it, but you cannot escape the fact that you were trumpeting Bush's line as "proof from his own mouth" that he was only "for rich people". However, the truth is that the line was a joke poking fun at his own image, at an event where Al Gore did the same with his image - in other words, the line was not "proof from Bush's own mouth" - some true admission or utterance that reflects "his true heart". It was a joke. You were portraying it as real because you were duped by Michael Moore who misled you into believing that Bush was being serious. End of story. You'd be much less of "an ass" if you apologized for your error, acknowledged your ignorance on the matter, and stopped using that JOKE as if it is some kind of legitimate attack aginst Bush, exposing "what he really thinks".------- ----------- -------------- As for Bush tax policy - see my post above about the myths of the tax cuts that you liberals are so fiercly and wrongly perpetrating. But on dividends, specifically, you are wrong again: Dividend taxes are merely a form of DOUBLE TAXATION. That money has already been taxed once, when people earned it as income through their hard work. They then turn around and INVEST that hard-earned and already taxed take home pay, as they are told they should, in order to be responsible with their money. Then, when the fruits of that investment come in, the government hits them with a tax AGAIN. This is simply unfair, taxing the same money twice, and it is not only blatantly unfair but a huge drag on our economy, as it discourages investment. If there were no dividend tax, many more people would invest without fear of having more of their already-taxed money taxed again. And it's not just "the weatlhy" - most people in America today are invested in the stock market one way or another, through direct investment, 401Ks, what have you - dividend taxes hurts them all. So stop peddling that bunch of nonsense - you Democrats are trying to appeal to the ignorant with all this stuff, hoping people simply don't know enough about this stuff that you can fool them all into this "us against them" class warfare nonsense to get elected. It's pretty sick, really.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Dagan

    by Pumpkinsboy

    I think I may have been misinformed. I had no idea Bush rose taxes for the top 10% earning bracket. Is that really true? Wow. Inflation adjusted? Interesting. But you agree that over 40 million Amerians don't have adequate helth care, right? And you'd agree that we, as tax payers, should be willing to do everything in our power to change that, right? Right???

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Pumkinsboy - Part V - The rest of your nonsense

    by Dagan

    Here's what you said: "But I guess bullshit works - I remember Gore outlaying a solid economic plan that would prevent middle-class taxation in 2000 - the difference to be made up by taxing the top 1% of earners. But of course, George gives a wink and smile and we all sigh, knowing he'd be more fun at a barbecue. Maybe we deserve the rise in un-employment amongst the lowest band of earners, the attack on civil liberties, the deficit..maybe we all think that one day, we're all gonna be in that top 1%. God bless us, every one." Now the truth: --------- ------------------- ------------ We still have not had to "tax the middle class", as you seem to be implying there. In fact, Bush CUT Middle Class taxes when he cut taxes for all that pay them, and he just made those cuts permanent in the House and Senate only a few days ago - the average family of four saw their taxes cut by about 20% - a huge help. But to you, it didn't even happen, somehow, because you can't bare to give Bush credit for anything. ------------ --------------- ----------- Rise in Unemployment? The Unemployement rate now stands at 5.4% - a great rate, and right at where it was when Clinton got re-elected in 1996 under the media-generated banner of "great economy". That was the start of the Internet bubble, remember. This 5.4% rate is lower than the average rate of the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s, both all together and as separate decades. The rate has dropped almost a full point since last year, as we've added almost 2 million new jobs since last August. Attack on Civil Liberties? What can you not do today that you could before? The only "attack" is the Patriot Act, and despite all the raving mania about that bill(which Kerry voted for and passed 97 - 1 in the Senate, so you can hardly only "blame it on Bush", can you?), all it essentially did was establish Rico statutes that we already have in place on the mob to terrorists. The rest is just fear-mongering to try and get elected. Typical Democrat stuff. The deficit was already answered above.------------ ----------------- ------------------- I must ask you, since nearly everything you said has almost no basis in truth, shouldn't you be thinking about why you support the side you do? If your side was really "the right one", wouldn't you be able to point to more factual, better arguments to support it? This goes for Michael Moore as well - if his side was "correct", he would not have to engage in such back-bending manipulation and trickery to support his point of view - he'd simply be able to lay out the facts as they are, without using the entire array of film technique to twist things his way. Perhaps you should think about that - you can be "right" and have the facts on your side in one instant, if you're simply honest with yourself. If the facts and the truth are more important to you than "where you've stood before", then come on over to our side. Being right now and in the future should be more important than spinning out of control to try and avoid having to admit to being wrong before, isn't it?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy - You seem like a good guy

    by Dagan

    I'm sorry to be "fighting" with you like this, but I really feel there's so much distortion out there that the truth of the matter is being obscured. I think we all want "what's best" for America, we just have differences about how to achieve that goal. But we can never achieve it until we're working from the same set of facts to make judgement on, and in this environment today, spin has replaced facts, and that angers me. Glad to see you willing to talk, listen and talk again rationally. Next post will be an answer to you specifically.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:04 p.m. CST

    correction

    by Pumpkinsboy

    That should have been `I had no idea Bush RAISED taxes for the top 10% earning bracket`. I guess I was so amazed by the statement I couldn't type properly. If that's true...well, maybe I should do my research better. Inflation adjusted, though, right? Apologies, it was not my intention to peddle mistruths, I just genuinely was led to believe that Bush gave tax cuts to the super-rich.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Pumpkinsboy

    by Dagan

    Okay. No, Bush did not raise taxes on the top 10%. I wasn't clear enough in my post. Bush CUT TAXES FOR EVERYBODY WHO PAYS THEM - from rich to poor. But Bush critics try to claim that he only cut them for the rich, and that he "shifted the burden" of our nation's taxes onto the poor. This is simply untrue, and was what I was commenting on. Bush actually cut taxes for poorer Americans MORE than for the wealthy. And he shifted more of the tax burden onto the wealthy, not the other way around. Before Bush's tax cuts, the top 10% of earners paid 64% of our Nations tax burden - meaning, of all the income tax money we take in, the top 10% were paying 64% of it, the bottom 90% were paying 36% of it. AFTER Bush's tax cuts, the top 10% are now paying 67% of our Nation's tax revenue - meaning that of all the income tax money that comes in, the top ten percent now pays 67% of it, the bottom 90% now pays 33% of it. So Bush actually shifted more of the tax burden onto the wealthiest, and he cut taxes more for the poor than for the rich.------------------ -------------- ---------------- Now, in terms of health care, I agree, everybody should get it, and we should strive for that goal. But a government program is not the answer at all. The answer is in modernizing our private system, and stopping the kind of frivolous lawsuits which drive up the cost of medical care to astronomical heights. The Trial Lawyers are dead against this though, as they want to be able to sue anybody for any reason without any restraint. But that's not fair, because they can sue somebody for a completely ridiculous reason, and that company will have to pay hundreds in thousands in legal fees to protect themselves, even if there's absolutely no merit to the case - even if they win, they are still out all that money for no real reason. So most of the companies simply settle with the lawyers to avoid paying all those legal fees - essentially they've been extorted by lawyers who threaten a lawsuit, even if it's for a "nothing" reason. So companies are paying billions of dollars out for no real reason but to make trial lawyers rich. And to pay for that they raise costs on all of us. This is not to say there shouldn't be real lawsuits if real things happen, but often cases are just completely frivolous, "get rich quick" schemes on behalf of lawyers. Reforming this would cut health care costs dramatically. But Democrats stand in the way, because the people that have bought them off, oops, I meant the people that give them the most money for their campaigns, are Trial Lawyers - so Democrats are opposed to any reform to this wasteful and unfair system.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Dagan - I respect your viewpoint, but...

    by Pumpkinsboy

    I truly believe that we, the USA, the richest nation on earth, should have a National Health Service similar to that in the UK. Paid for by tax, regulated by the government - it works for them, has done since 1945. I believe in taxation - and I'm a comfortable professional. Nobody should have to pay for basic medical treatment. Like I say, while visiting my roots in England, I was amazed by their system - not faultless, no - but FREE for all. It's a marvel. Maybe I'm dreaming, but in my overly idealistic heart, I still believe the Democrats are more concerned about those 45 million people we've been discussing. The ones we should take care of. I know it'll never happen. But if I had to pay for it, as a tax payer, I would, and gladly. Unfortunately, I'm in a minority. I respect your reasoning as regards to the definition of poverty, but to me, anyone who can't afford basic health care lives in poverty.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:44 p.m. CST

    The "Double Taxation" view is pure hypocrisy and nonsense

    by lettersoftransit

    The only fair way to tax people is when money changes hands. You pay someone money, and a portion of that is taxed, and then they buy something and a portion of that is taxed, and they use that money and a portion is taxed. The only people who fail to recognie are the plutocrats in the Republican party who are perfectly fine with everyone else paying taxes -- after all, the government needs monry to pay for their government contracts. The s0-called death tax is nonsense because nobody can pay taxes after they've died. The person receiving the money as an inheritance is the person paying taxes. When you pay taxes on money you've earned, you have been taxed once. When you use that money to earn more, you are not being taxed twice on the money you earned, you are being taxed once on the ADDITIONAL money earned. It's that simple. If you were, indeed taxed based on the actual money you were already taxedon that would be double taxation. But it is not that way and the guys who shout "double tgaxation" know damn well it is not that way. They are simply trying to get all the benefits of our government and not to pay their fair share of it. (and I know someone will say what benefits of government? Well, it is not exactly private industry that has invaded Iraq) If we actually bought into that absurd "double taxation" argument and extended the double taxation nonsense across all of society, then the rich would never pay taxes and the poor and middle class would pay everything, but of course that is precisely how the pathologically selfish a-holes want it. The notion that money earned on the job should be taxed but money earned off investments should not be taxed is outrageous nonsense, and you should apologize for espousing such a view.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 2:56 p.m. CST

    My taxes have gone up.

    by Homer Sexual

    I have a high-five-figure income and my taxes have actually increased. I have no "facts" at hand and really question the "facts" thrown around here. I imagine both sides can come up with something to back their viewpoint up, but I don't see any references in any posts and can only speak for myself.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Homer Sexual...

    by Dagan

    Not sure how your taxes could have gone up. Taxes on both individual income and dividends have gone down in rate for all Americans. What kind of work do you do? Has your employer changed your tax status or structure, may you have moved into a higher tax bracket?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST

    BIGOTS

    by Oompa_Radar

    Wow. I'm an independent and with no vested interest in either party I can say quite honestly that the liberals posting here are BIGOTS. You say Republicans are all fundies, racists, either Rich corporate fat cats or mullet headed trailer trash. Wow, what tolerance! If you said that about women or minorities you'd be sent to sensitivity training or in Canada, possibly prosecuted. As a Libertarian, I find the pathological hatred of Bush inexplicable, and the facism and bigotry of liberal folks like you (Not all liberals, just the LOUD ones like you) to be quite frightening. The liberal perspective isn't getting silenced. It's the liberals who just don't know when to shut up! No matter how hard loud you left wing extremists are (make no mistake, you are as religious to your liberalism as any bible thumper is) you do not speak for America. Just like Arnold is more likely to speak for more of America than the loud but marginal Pat Robertson. Both extremes are just as fascist and just as ignorant. However, I've seen facts posted by the more conservative folk that is being answered by nothing but hyperbole, anger, hatred and ignorance. For the record I'm a half jewish but athiest woman who is pro-choice, carries a concealed weapon, racially tolerant, gay friendly, educated but living paycheck to paycheck because I work from home while raising and educating my children. I fit none of your stereotypes, but then again, neither have most of your targets on this board. Go ahead, hurl your insults, your stereotypes, your proud remarks about how anyone who doesn't HATE Bush and want buy F911 is a mullet wearing, god loving, clansman. Go for it. It doesn't make it true, it just makes you ignorant.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Oompa Radar, puh-leeze, you wanna talk about bigots? read this .

    by Dr Farragammo

    You find a dislike of ur arrogant president inexplicable? You don't see the problems he has caused? You call yourself a libertarian? Somehow I don't think so. If you can't see the bigotry inherent in the ush admin and the Christian Right, and good old Nazi loving Arnie, then your living in one of these films they're discussing here. It's called being Naive and thinking that anybody who isn't a millionaire , a christian, or a Bushy is a failure or a piece of shit. Sorry , that doesn't fly. I do agree there are conservatives out there who don't like Bush's reckless spending and reckless foreign policy. BUT I"M GOING TO USE THIS EXAMPLE AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL I GET AN ANSWER, PLEASE READ: How was Rove and the Swift Boat Crew's calls to likely voters during the republican primaries of 99, not racist? They CALLED VOTERS AND SAID WOULD YOU SUPPORT A CANDIDATE THAT HAD ILLEGITIMATELY FATHERED A BLACK CHILD. The child was bangladesh, and adopted but their hateful, racist tactics had done their dirty work. THE SWIFT BOAT GUYS THAT YOU ALL LOVE SO MUCH WERE BEHIND THE MCCAIN SMEAR. How do you reconcile that? AND OOMPA WHAT ABOUT THE MINORITY VOTERS IN HOUSTON WHO JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO WERE HASSELED BY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS THAT THEY WEREN"T PROPERLY REGISTERED WHEN THEY DAMN WELL WERE. You can't argue with this, and I have posted this McCain campaign smear by Bush UMPTEEN TIMES. HOW MANY HAVE REPUBLICANS HAVE RESPONDED OR ACKNOWLEDGED IT? 0. case in point.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:03 p.m. CST

    To Oompa again, with spelling corrections & some addendums

    by Dr Farragammo

    You find a dislike of our arrogant president inexplicable? You don't see the problems he has caused? You call yourself a libertarian? Somehow I don't think so. If you can't see the bigotry inherent in the Bush admin and the Christian Right, and good old Nazi loving Arnie, then your living in one of these films they're discussing here. What makes Arnie great? His heros are Nixon and Hitler for god's sake!I t's called being Naive and thinking that anybody who isn't a millionaire , a christian, or a Bushy is a failure or a piece of shit. Sorry , that doesn't fly. I do agree there are conservatives out there who don't like Bush's reckless spending and reckless foreign policy. BUT I"M GOING TO USE THIS EXAMPLE AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL I GET AN ANSWER, PLEASE READ: How was Rove and the Swift Boat Crew's calls to likely voters during the republican primaries of 99, not racist? They CALLED VOTERS AND SAID WOULD YOU SUPPORT A CANDIDATE (MEANING MCCAIN) THAT HAD ILLEGITIMATELY FATHERED A BLACK CHILD. The child was bangladesh, and adopted but their hateful, racist tactics had done their dirty work. THE SWIFT BOAT GUYS THAT YOU ALL LOVE SO MUCH WERE BEHIND THE MCCAIN SMEAR. How do you reconcile that? AND OOMPA WHAT ABOUT THE MINORITY VOTERS IN HOUSTON WHO JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO WERE HASSELED BY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS THAT THEY WEREN"T PROPERLY REGISTERED WHEN THEY DAMN WELL WERE. You can't argue with this, and I have posted this McCain campaign smear by Bush UMPTEEN TIMES. HOW MANY REPUBLICANS HAVE RESPONDED OR ACKNOWLEDGED IT? 0. case in point. To say there are some liberal loonies out there is without question, but the core belief behind this president is divisive. They're arresting people wearing anti bush clothing at his campaign stops. COULD YOU IMAGINE THEM DOING THIS TO KERRY? They're not. Nightline did a special with a undercover reporter in anti kerry and anti Bush gear, guess which time he got hauled off. And if you think Rush, o'reilly and the like aren't hateful bigots, then you have no right to post on the topic, because you obviously don't understand the term.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Lettersoftransit, that isn't what "double taxation" refers to.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Except in the case of the estate tax. If you consider the estate transaction - where, for example, your money is given to your kids - to be a taxable exchange, just like a salary, then why isn't it a taxable exchange when you buy your kid a sandwich? Or pay for his college tuition? There are an awful lot of kids out there on the receiving end of an awful lot of economic "exchanges" of that kind. Let's capture that revenue opportunity! Your other examples of "double taxation" are not apt. The term originally applied to taxes paid on dividends paid by C corporations - and the theory did NOT hold that the monies being taxed twice were the funds used for capital investment. In other words, your statement "When you pay taxes on money you've earned, you have been taxed once. When you use that money to earn more, you are not being taxed twice on the money you earned, you are being taxed once on the ADDITIONAL money earned," is not referring to the actual instance of double taxation. It is the C corp income that is double-taxed. A profitable C class corporation will pay taxes on its income. If if then passes dividends out to its shareholders, those shareholders then pay personal income tax on the dividend income. But - since the corporation IS the shareholders, that income was already taxed once, when the corporation paid ITS taxes. Taxing the dividend payment because it's an "exchange" is like taxing you for additional income when you transfer money from your savings account to your checking account. The large, impersonal nature of stock ownership in the modern era disconnects the average person from the concept of shareholder as owner, but on paper that is what is taking place. It's kind of a moot issue at this point, though, since the government has already taken cognizance of the problem and allowed for alternative company structures - the S corp, the LLC - that change the tax treatment of corporate profits in order to allow them to be taxes only once. Talking about double taxation is silly not because it doesn't [and didn't] exist, but because the problem has been dealt with already - or, at least, anyone who continues to pay double taxes on C corp dividends is doing so voluntarily, in the sense that they aren't availing themselves of the different corporate structure that avoids that.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Sorry one more thing.

    by Dr Farragammo

    I also want to add Oompa is clearly a male republican because of her description : "For the record I'm a half jewish but athiest woman who is pro-choice, carries a concealed weapon, racially tolerant, gay friendly, educated but living paycheck to paycheck because I work from home while raising and educating my children." I'm sorry if you were any of those things you would understand more about the divide of our country and why Bush and Co don't want you in it. Sounds to me like your trying to cover all these bases to protect your argument. I ain't buying it.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 5 p.m. CST

    The McCain Myth

    by Dagan

    Here's your answer - the "evidence" used and ran with to back up these charges was gotten from ONE witness - a fourteen-year-old boy - surprisingly nobody else said they received these calls at all until media attention brought a few other copycat Dems out of the woodwork: "Byron York has debunked the other "McCain was smeared in South Carolina" charge. McCain mainly alleged that the Bush campaign was calling voters in a dirty "push poll" and telling them, "McCain is a cheat and a liar and a fraud." McCain's charge was based on the testimony of one 14-year-old boy. The Bush campaign released the script of the advocacy calls it was making, and the script said only, "Don't be misled by McCain's negative tactics." Asked by the Los Angeles Times to provide voters who had received the smear calls, the McCain campaign unearthed only six. According to the Times, of the voters it could reach, "three described questions that, while negative, appear to have been part of a legitimate poll. Another said she heard no negative information at all." McCain lost in South Carolina because he was too liberal for Republican primary voters and his campaign was considered too negative after he compared Bush's honesty to Bill Clinton's. A Washington Post columnist recently complained in outraged tones that the Bush campaign in South Carolina was "questioning the conservative credentials" of McCain. Horrors! That is at least an accurate depiction of what happened, but hardly an outrage."

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 5:44 p.m. CST

    promises, promises...

    by Super Person

    Cannibal, didn't you say earlier that you were leaving here for good? Why can't you make good on at least that one promise?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Dagan & cannibal Nun

    by Dr Farragammo

    1st off dagan , there are far more sources than those of 1 14 year old boy. That's just not correct and your cheney-ing the facts there in a way that sounds good but is not true. The correct thing to do is to own up that they did it and move on. This is more blaming the other side but take no accountability for Rove's tactits, and the lies of the swift boat crew. CANNIBAL NUN: I invited you down to texas, for put up or shut up time. You never responded. In fact you haven't responded to any of my posts on the debates. I thought you learned your lesson. You are all bark and no bite . You claim to be a MILLIONAIRE and a genius, yet all I see are empty threats and rhetoric representative of someone with severe mental illness. Just be warned if we were to ever meet that you would go home with a different view on liberals and their being weak. I'd show you for the coward you are and the bullshit you percieve to be true. You are as sick as any terrorist in your rhetoric, but your just one empty vessel with nothing to offer and even LESS to say. I'll never shut up , just knowing that it makes you crazy. Then you'll run and hide for a week or so, then open your asshole of a mouth again then , rinse and repeat. Your a coward, and a little bitch, and YOU WOULD NEVER SAY THIS STUFF to anyone's face, and you know that's true. Now go play your Toby Keith and learn how to work your opposable thumbs. dumbfuck.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Dagan & cannibal Nun

    by Dr Farragammo

    1st off dagan , there are far more sources than those of 1 14 year old boy. That's just not correct and your cheney-ing the facts there in a way that sounds good but is not true. The correct thing to do is to own up that they did it and move on. This is more blaming the other side but take no accountability for Rove's tactits, and the lies of the swift boat crew. CANNIBAL NUN: I invited you down to texas, for put up or shut up time. You never responded. In fact you haven't responded to any of my posts on the debates. I thought you learned your lesson. You are all bark and no bite . You claim to be a MILLIONAIRE and a genius, yet all I see are empty threats and rhetoric representative of someone with severe mental illness. Just be warned if we were to ever meet that you would go home with a different view on liberals and their being weak. I'd show you for the coward you are and the bullshit you percieve to be true. You are as sick as any terrorist in your rhetoric, but your just one empty vessel with nothing to offer and even LESS to say. I'll never shut up , just knowing that it makes you crazy. Then you'll run and hide for a week or so, then open your asshole of a mouth again then , rinse and repeat. Your a coward, and a little bitch, and YOU WOULD NEVER SAY THIS STUFF to anyone's face, and you know that's true. Now go play your Toby Keith and learn how to work your opposable thumbs. dumbfuck.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 6:45 p.m. CST

    The paid posters are working very hard to get AICN readers -- an

    by lettersoftransit

    Fluffy, I was responding to another poster by a paid poser who said that taxing a rich person on investment income was double taxation and the logic used was that because the money used for the original investment was (presumably) from income that had been taxed, then taxing money earned from subsequent investment was "double taxation" and that is absurd. Many apply similar logic to corporate income. First, shareholders are not one and the same with a corporation; they are separate legal entities. Secondly, the people who cry "double taxation:" often use the same logic cites above -- that it's double taxation even if the dividends (or the s corp salaries) are considered a writepff. And that is just plain silly. You hear the double taxation cry from self-defined conservatives who are simply looking to define all of their income as non-taxable so that they are not called upon for their share. So they foist the argument that any capital gains whatsoever should be free from taxes because the money used for the investment in the first place had been taxed. The logic of buying a sandwich for your kid somehow being equivalent to inheritance income is absurd because it simply cannot be applied universally without chaos. Take that same argument to its logical extension and every single person who receives money in any way whatsoever could say it's like being given a sandwich and therefore it was a gift and therefore on-taxable, so nobody pays taxes under any circumstances whatsoever. But you know perfectly well that is not what so-called conversatives want to do. They want every argument extended only so far as it needs to be to include them and (hopefully) to exclude everybody else. That way taxes get paid -- just not by them. People who work for money pay taxes and people who don't work for money don't pay taxes. That is counter-intiutive, unfair, and ridiculous, but the people who would benefit from that arrangement will keep pressing to make it happen to the fullest extent possible. Now, any posters who are bothering to follow these threads, I must go because I have a family to take care and, cannot stay on this forever -- unlike the people who are being paid to log onto sites like this and foist arguments in the hopes of getting you to vote against your own insterests. So, knowing that, expect a barrage of arguments to follow trying real hard to present arguments for why you should ignore all logic and vote for Bush. They have targeted this site and ones like it to try to sway votes. Read them if you must but then, simply THINK. If you THINK you will see through them. The goal of this Administration is not to serve the majority but to circumvent it. Not to come up with policies that are good for all, but to ram through policies that serve only a few and screw the rest. And that is only possible if they can get you to stop THINKING. If you are a person who is truly in the top echelons and you want more of Bush polices and you don't care whether the economy falters so long as you do okay, then at least you are being true to your own self-interests, however short-sighted I may feel they are. But don't be fooled into voting against your own interests. THINK. Listen to the notions presented and then think through the logical results. And then THINK some more. And then vote.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 6:46 p.m. CST

    No Islamic terrorist badguys since 9/11? I guess none of these g

    by Palmer Eldritch

    ...SEASON FUCKING TWO OF "24"! Keep those blinkers one good and tight guys.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Hey Cannibal_Nun

    by Palmer Eldritch

    Spounds like a "speech code" to me.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 7:01 p.m. CST

    And another thing...

    by Palmer Eldritch

    Didn't Shaun of the Dead come out about a week ago over there. Anyway, I guess Resident Evil Apocalypse kicked is arse.

  • When Government Runs Health Care, They Tell You When Your Child Should Die The Manchester Guardian reports on a family's struggle against Britain's National Health Service to keep their daughter alive. The NHS has decided that Charlotte Wyatt, an eleven-month-old preemie, will never be able to recover from the complications of her birth and want to force a do-not-resuscitate order onto her parents: The parents of baby Charlotte Wyatt are expected to hear this afternoon whether a high court judge has supported their case for their daughter's right to life. Darren and Debbie Wyatt from Portsmouth tried to convince Mr Justice Hedley that their 11-month-old child has a right to life. They argued their daughter should be provided with every aspect of medical care available. Charlotte was born three months premature, weighing only 1lb and measuring five inches. She has already stopped breathing three times due to serious heart and lung problems; she is fed through a tube because she cannot suck from a bottle and she needs a constant supply of oxygen. Portsmouth hospitals NHS trust argues that resuscitating Charlotte again would lead to further damage to her lungs and cause her further suffering. It has asked the court for an order allowing its doctors not to ventilate her again if she has life-threatening breathing difficulties. In the government-run health system that the British have used for decades, the choice between life and death doesn't belong to the patient or their family -- it lies with the government. In the case of the Wyatts, the government has decided that it has wasted enough resources on Charlotte and now wants to cut its losses. The only options the Wyatts have to save their daughter is to either sue the NHS to keep it from abandoning Charlotte, or to pay 100% of all medical costs out-of-pocket at the private treatment centers that wealthy British citizens can access. Just as in the case of viable kidneys being thrown away for the lack of transplant surgeons, the British experience with government-run health care reveals the strange and Orwellian experiences with single-payor systems that a vocal contingent here in America want to impose. A "health" care system that tells young parents that it refuses to keep their daughter alive because it's just too costly to do so, or one that routinely fails to perform transplants because the monopoly doesn't incentivize surgeons to learn the procedure, is not a system that maintains the health of its patients. It's a system that unnecessarily nationalizes a large segment of the economy and ensures that only the most mediocre care will be given to anyone not rich enough to buy better care outright, and completely out of pocket. In the US, important medical decisions are left to the patients and to their families. We should make sure it stays that way. UPDATE: The judge has ruled that the NHS can let the baby die: Doctors caring for a critically-ill premature baby, Charlotte Wyatt, were given permission by a British judge to allow her to die if her condition seriously deteriorates and her breathing stops. High Court Justice Sir Mark Hedley rendered his decision after parents Darren and Debbie Wyatt, who are expecting their third child, urged him not to give up on their 11-month-old daughter. I appreciate all of the comments that you have posted, a thoughtful and interesting commentary. Here's where I think those that say this case is not the one to indict single-payor systems are wrong. It is one thing to have a hospital say they will refuse to resuscitate the Wyatt's daughter, or for a private insurance company to refuse to pay for futher treatment. It is another issue entirely when the government forces the Wyatts to pay for the NHS and then usurps the decision for her medical care from the parents, without any realistic option of going anywhere else. Their money has already gone to the NHS. Let me put it another way. Charlotte Wyatt is a severely ill infant, but she is alive and her quality-of-life decisions belong with her family, not a government functionary. Under a market-based system, the government would never be in a situation to decree that her life wasn't worth the effort to save it; that decision would be made between her doctors and her family, along with whatever private insurance they had. If the Wyatts and their doctors disagreed, they would be free to get medical care elsewhere; the same is true for insurance. That isn't the case in Britain, where all of it is run by the government. In essence, Britain has a system where the government, not the patients or their families or caregivers, become the arbiters of whose life is worth saving and whose have no worth. And the only time that will be noticed is when the government decrees that the Charlotte Wyatts are to be abandoned regardless of the wishes of their families. Such a utilitarian view of the value of life recalls the slippery slopes that ultimately led to the horrors of the Nazi euthanasia programs and the death camps, the Soviet gulags, and trafficking in slavery that continues to this day.

  • Lettersoftransit - I'm a "paid poster"? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Or is it simply because I present my views rationally and clearly with facts to back them up, instead of rabidly barking nonsense and baseless insults like many talkbackers? If you think my posts are good enough that I'm being "paid" by somebody, then I guess I should take that as a compliment - but I would hope the Bush campaign and the RNC have a lot better places to put their money than to pay some guy to spend a good chunk of his time posting on an Aintitcoolnews talkback, which features some of the most liberal boards on the internet this side of DU, and where the tenor of conversation is at such a level that indicates there are actually very few open-minded people here that may be willing to change their minds on any given issue. It would be a monumental waste of resources to "pay" somebody to post things here, rather than have them working on the million other actually productive things that could be going on in a campaign. But I'd like to hear why you labelled me a "paid poster" - really. What did I do to make you think such a thing?

  • Get back to me with what you think.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Dr. Farragammo

    by Zauriel

    What I think, dear sir, is that just like a good handful of the liberals here, you are a hypocrite when it comes to blaming others of being bigoted, and it shows quite clearly. As the saying goes, take the log out of your own eye before removing the splinter in someone else's. Go over all of the talkback posts listed here, count how many are anti-Bush/anti-Republican/anti-conservative posts, and how many are anti-Kerry/anti-Democrat/anti-liberal posts. Now, count how many of those liberal posts use CAPS multiple times in connection with name-calling, swearing, and generally spiteful comments towards/about people that they don't even know. Compare it to the number of the same from the other side, and you'll see how incredibly lopsided it is. Look, I make no qualms about the fact that I'm a conservative Republican. I've got Democratic friends and co-workers, people that I can reasonably discuss and debate with. I don't think they're morons because they vote for Democrats ... I just think they're misguided. I don't call them bullshit names, and they don't call me bullshit names. When you resort to stupid CAPS FILLED NAME-CALLING RANTS you look like a rabid nut and people are going to call you on it. I know nobody's here to change minds but damn, chill the fuck out.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Dagan... you seem to be confused.

    by Palmer Eldritch

    There is a difference between the government and the judiciary in the UK. The government and the law courts are NOT the same thing. (Like in the US, you remember how it WASN'T the senate or the House Of Representatives who got to decide who won the 2000 election) While governments havce influence and may try to interfere (and get slapped down in the press for it) they are distinct. Anyway, reading your horror at a familie's choice regarding the life of their child being taken away by the judiciary, I assume then that you're pro choice.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Dagan...no no no no no

    by Pumpkinsboy

    I think the parents should be able to make that decision. It's a flaw in the NHS. But to say the NHS provides `mediocre` treatment is pure insanity. The issue of the NHS is a centrepiece of Blair's government policies. Less than 10% of the population in the UK uses private health options. It provides free health care for all. It is expanding under a Labour government yearly, and neglecting it would be a electoral disaster for any party who chose such an option. Check the BBC articles on their website concerning Charlotte Wyatt: Quote `At a preliminary hearing, the parents stressed that they maintained a good relationship with the trust.` (NHS Trust).` In the UK, the decision is being taken as a specific case right now: you will NEVER hear ANYONE in the UK publicly say they want to dismantle the NHS. Conservatives (who would most likely prefer such a public service to be wholly privatised), timidly skirt around the issue, suggesting part-privatisation; but no Conservative party, since the NHS was founded by Bevan's post-war left-wing Government in 1945, has ever tried to trackback the basic priciples of the National Health Service. `Routinely fails to perform transplants`. `Not a system that maintains the health of its patients`. These are EXTREMELY questionable statements; sweeping and vague. BBC Web Site: `The government has pledged to spend billions more on the NHS. Total investment by 2007/8 will be

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Zauriel , that answers a bit too pat and dry

    by Dr Farragammo

    Your entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But your side never seems to wonder why we feel the way we do, and the fact that by Bush deliberately ignoring half of the country, that we have a right to be angry. You call me a Bigot? i am : against BIGOTRY, that is. But you do the old , "there's nuts on both sides, and your just as bad" rhetoric precisely because you don't like my viewpoint, otherwise you would encourage it, because you never keep your own loose cannons in line. When I DO ALL CAPS , it is strictly to highlight the points I would like people to think about. And to the likes of Cannibal Nun, it's the only way to shut them up. I'm sorry but I don't feel I'm a bigot if I'm fighting for the greater good. If my decrying of Huge Corporations that are destroying our environment and outsourcing our jobs makes me a bigot, then the term has changed. If my calling bullshit on hate mongers like Limbaugh who demonize drug addicts and says they should go to jail while he gets to sit his ass in his mansion makes me a bigot then the term has changed. If my anger at the Republican party for disenfranchising Black Voters, and for using race as away to sabotage McCain (one of the good guys I might add) makes me a bigot then we are living in a backwards society. But then again we are. I have said over and over there are plenty of decent republicans out there. But they're calling bullshit on Bush and trying to get their party back. I have republican friends and we disagree on many things but we agree on 2 : (a)Bush is bad for both of us and (b) The Relgious Right is worse. That's how I feel and that's how I call it, and that's my right to do so, until Bush & Co decide to write that into their patriot act. Just be glad we have this site to dish out in a safe haven.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Dagan - Truce!

    by Pumpkinsboy

    We could go back and forth for eternity. You've definitely opened my eyes about certain economic issues. I hope I've done the same about that misleading article on the NHS (surely when you saw it compared to `Nazism` and `death camps` you knew it wasn't a credible piece of work?). Anyway, was nice discussing, but let's call it a day, my brain is melting!

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Palmer and Pumkinsboy

    by Dagan

    Palmer - Yes, I am pro-choice. Pumkinsboy - Gotcha, and agree. You're a good guy and it was a pleasure doing the old back and forth with you. And yes, I mean chatting about something, not rogering, all you AICN pervs. :-)

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Doc F

    by Zauriel

    Oh yes, Doctor, it's a good thing you have AICN talkback as a refuge, because we all know Ashcroft has every other place wiretapped. Your paranoia becomes you, a common trait among hard-core libs. That aside, of course you're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe I told you to shut up, just to chill out. You can be angry and make your points without yelling (like it or not that's what CAPS is) and calling people stupid and what-not. I find biting sarcasm works well. And try to belittle it all you want, but it's true that there are nuts on both sides -- however, I never called you one, I just said you appeared like one with your rants. I don't do talkback at AICN regularly, and didn't read all the posts in this particular talkback, I usually scroll towards the end, and yours stuck out. I don't find Cannibal Nun's posts of any particular high moral fiber. You're not a bigot because you fight for the greater good? What do you think everybody does? Everybody's opinion (except for fucked up people like murderers) is based on going for the greater good. What, do you think I'm a conservative Republican because I always dreamed of being an old, fat, white oil tycoon, greedy as can be, a racist anti-Robin Hood out to screw the minorities and the poor, in the oh-so-faux world you created in your head? I'm a conservative Republican because I hear the liberal Democrat message and to me it offers nothing of value to this nation. It's completely inane to say that the only real Republicans out there are are ones who agree with you. If you're not open enough to not chastise personally (note: I said personally) those who have different politics than you do, then yes, you are a bigot. If I don't like a guy who's black, that doesn't mean I'm bigoted against black people. You seem to generalize people who support Bush as being idiots, but hate to break the news to you, but I'm not one. You can't use the excuse that you're simply angry and fighting for the greater good. Hell, the KKK and the Black Panthers could both use that argument, would you agree that neither of those groups are bigoted? I doubt so.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Want to Kill for Peace-so why are you standing around???

    by Mars1

    My Brother-in-Law is in Iraq, my cousin is in Afghanistan, my best friend Hal is in Fort Rosencrans Military Cemetery-they don't get to go to film festivals (esp. not Hal, at least not that I know of...).So, when are YOU going to sign up?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Mars 1

    by Zauriel

    So one cannot support the action(s) of the military unless one is enlisted in the military?

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:02 p.m. CST

    zauriel there is no way to break even here

    by Dr Farragammo

    We can agree to disagree. You have your views, I have mine. I think the Bush doctrine is dangerous and those who support him either (a) subscribe to his view of pre-emption over what was a false prediction of weapons of mass destruction , over reckless fiscal spending that oudoes any you claim on the other side, a succession from goodwill with the rest of the wordl, etc or (b) have been ruled by fear and are voting strictly in thinking that we won't be attacked again. Wouldn't have been nice for Bush to have used preemption as a tactic to stop the terrorists from striking us in the 1st place? the fact that the only thing to have a gate attached to it in the past 4 years is Rathergate is mindblowing. Clinton was impeached for such trivial matters, and Nixon wouldn't even had been this remiss. You claim we are sold on paranoia, well what about Cheney's final speech in the VP debate? fear fear and more fear. That's because he knows the power of fear and what it does to people. It takes your eye off the ball into believing they're keeping us safe, while everything else we hold dear slowly fades away. So I know not all Republicans are evil, and not Bush supporters are evil. But they are misinformed, afraid and misguided. But hey, we're not going to agree on this, but I would feel remiss if I didn't do my part to help my cause, by getting other's registered and not being afraid to speak out. You do yours and history will judge which side did the wiser thing.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Hey, he's the one who said he'd do it!

    by Mars1

    Of course you can support the troops without being in service, that's why I'm baking brownies by the cubic ton (I make the best dark chocolate espresso brownies in the entire Middle East, according to the feedback I'm getting on the care packages). But so many people give their "support" from a nice safe distance-meanwhile my brother in law is on his *second* 15 month rotation through the sandbox...supporting something in theory is one thing. Really being in front of live fire is another. Too many people don't seem to understand the difference.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Palmer and Pumpkinsboy II

    by Dagan

    Hey guys - noticed the site did that weird thing again - I posted replies to both of you under "Palmer and Pumpkinsboy", but when I posted it the site dumped it up near the top for some reason. Scroll up to read it, if you'd like.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:34 p.m. CST

    And Z.....

    by Mars1

    Do check this out http://www.operationmilitarypride.org/ Please adopt a troop member. Heck, please, everybody on AICN adopt one (or two or more )Don't send twizzlers till later in the year, they turn into red goo.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Angry liberals and conservatives

    by Ben Dobyns

    I just can't believe how angry all of you are with each other. (Well, I guess I can, but it's still depressing.) How's this for an idea or two? -- There are good people with all different kinds of beliefs. There aren't simple answers to complex problems. Anybody can make a mistake. And most important, "Divided we fall" doesn't mean people must submit to the thought police to insure uniformity. -- I disagree with Republicans on a lot of issues and with Democrats on a lot of issues. That doesn't mean that I hate them. There's already too much hate, distrust, and bile flying around for me to add more to the mix. -- Having said that, I do think that the people from 'both' sides who are spreading the hate and lies around are doing major, irreparable harm to this country. I refer to the Ann Coulters and the Michael Moores, to the Republican echo chamber and the Democratic spin machine. And I take the media to task for not calling exposing all of the lies and distortions from both camps. Aren't we supposed to be the land of opportunity, not the land of recriminations? The land of free speech, not eliminating the opposition's perspective? -- I am a diehard liberal and I will defend to my last breath the right of all people to speak their beliefs, to advocate for them, and to work as they see fit to improve the world, within the limits of constitutional law. No exceptions. -- But you know what? Acting from a position of hate isn't going to win the hearts and minds of the opposition. You may win a short term victory, but in the long run, all that will be remembered is the hate, not the message.

  • Oct. 7, 2004, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Mori, you are the COOL in Aint-It-Cool. Thank you for working on

    by Blacklist

    ...but because you got to see Team America before the rest of us commoners, I'm afraid I'm going to have to question your patriotism. Sneak preview Saturday!

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Ah Cannibal Nun still a chickenshit

    by Dr Farragammo

    To G. gordon Liddies illegitimate child : Must we keep up with the Al Quaeda/Sadam Fallacies that Bush himself was forced to clarify today? There was never a connection and never will be. And you seem to be on here just as much as me, so that argument is bullshit as well. You've spent countless posts threatening others and dreaming of a world conquest that will never happen. I was saying I would love to hear you say this to my face, because you are the personality type who wouldn't. You just crack a lame joke that wouldn't even cut it in the Borcsht Belt days. Dude you make Henny Youngman look hip compared to your lame ass retorts. I'm still waiting for the day when I find out that Cannibal Nun was actually a high school kid involved in a school shooting. You are immature in your views, and probably enjoy torturing small animals because you have no control over anything else in your life. And you could be 100% correct in the grammar and punctuation and still have the philosophy and worldview of a chickpea. I'm just calling you out for the coward you are and always will be. Now quit assaulting the rest of the world with your delusions of power and wealth. It only reinforces the fact you are mortified at the size of your penis, and couldn't please a woman if you had a detailed map of the female anatomy and a personal assistant yelling into your ear what to do.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Question Ginger...

    by DoctorWho?

    Hi. Do you think 9/11 was the terrorists final message for us?

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:34 a.m. CST

    1 last thing Cannibal , go fight for this war you endorse

    by Dr Farragammo

    Since you are a TRUE believer in a war based on anything but truth, you really should be taking the burden off the armed forces. I know you probably consider it beneath you, but they're dying for a premise that you endorse. Please put up or shut up and get your miserable ass into the army where you could learn a outlet for your warped aggression. They need all the help they can get, and if you believe it's the right thing to do, and you enjoy forcing your will on the world, you should go. You say Fuck The UN, let USA do as we please. Well since we are short on allies because of your type of America 1st zealoutry, I nominate you to serve. American Solider's loved ones are burying their sons and daughters for a war they have no say in. You are all for it, so go fight for it, and die for it if need be. If you think it's okay for our troops to die for this , the you should be right beside them and share the burden. coward.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:43 a.m. CST

    A few points

    by Zauriel

    **"I think the Bush doctrine is dangerous and those who support him either (a) subscribe to his view of pre-emption over what was a false prediction of weapons of mass destruction ..."** -- Oh, you mean the same prediction made by the U.N., by our allies over the past decade and a half, by both Clintons, a vast number of Dems, by John Kerry and John Edwards themselves? You call Bush a liar, but you step to no such stoops against the Democrats who made such statements, who voted resoundingly for authorization to go to war, and resoundingly for the Patriot Act. **"...(b) have been ruled by fear and are voting strictly in thinking that we won't be attacked again. Wouldn't have been nice for Bush to have used preemption as a tactic to stop the terrorists from striking us in the 1st place?"** -- If Gore had been elected president and was the man in charge during 9/11, would you be saying the same things about him? After all, it was his and Clinton's administration that passed up Osama bin Laden when they had the chance. As for not being attacked, one can't speculate about the future. The Bush administration has said many times after 9/11 that another attack on our soil will happen, and we have to be prepared to deal with that. Given the fact we've had no attacks of Islamic extremism of any kind here in the U.S. since 9/11, how do you prove that someone else can "do better" at keeping us safe? Better than what? **"You claim we are sold on paranoia, well what about Cheney's final speech in the VP debate? fear fear and more fear."** -- I watched the debate, I read the transcript afterwards, and overall his last two minutes were quite positive. The only remark that you would find negative is his mention that it's a possibility that in the future terrorists may smuggle biological or nuclear weapons into one of our cities. He didn't say "under a John Kerry administration, this will happen." He stated it matter-of-factly because it is a real threat, even under their watch. Dems always complain that Bush/Cheney aren't being straight with the American people. So do you find their assertion to be false? Do you not think that Al Qaida wouldn't set one of those off here if they had one? Should we instead be "protecting" the American people through censorship of information? It's not like it's a far stretch for any American to come to that conclusion themselves after witnessing the horror of 9/11. **"That's because he knows the power of fear and what it does to people."** -- Nobody's been more gloom-and-doom this election season than Kerry/Edwards. If you listen to them, we have no friends in the world, the body count in Iraq is somehow on par with the countless lives lost in Vietnam, we have a horrible economy, etc., etc., and it's just all not true. **"So I know not all Republicans are evil, and not Bush supporters are evil. But they are misinformed, afraid and misguided."** -- Ah, at least you've made progress. ;) **"But hey, we're not going to agree on this, but I would feel remiss if I didn't do my part to help my cause, by getting other's registered and not being afraid to speak out. You do yours and history will judge which side did the wiser thing."** -- Hey, something I can agree with you on! Indeed, history will tell.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Right on!

    by DoctorWho?

    The Bush Doctrine is simple: If you are a nation with WMD or an ambition to have WMD, and you have a relationship with terrorists, you have the Saddam option or the Qaddafi option. Pick one. We don't need to invade Qaddafi's Libya because he has gone Full Monty on the WMDs he had and which we have now destroyed or taken possession of. Saddam would not go Full Monty, so he had to go. John Kerry is saying --as clearly as he can-- that he will never use force to preemptively remove threats of the combination of terrorists and nations with WMD. He will respond only if attacked, as he said at his acceptance speech.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Bigot? You goddamn right

    by Reverendz

    That's right, I am a "bigot". I can't abide by jackasses and fools who don't bother to find out the facts. If you aren't angry at this administration, you haven't been fucking paying attention. BUSH AND CHENEY ADMITTED TODAY THAT THERE WERE NO WMD'S. Today. They tried to now shift the cause for war to be that Iraq was abusing the oil for food program. Jesus, if you don't get pissed about this, then you are an ignoramous, plain and simple. I've never been nor pretended to be a PC, bleeding heart liberal. I'm an American and I call bullshit when I see it. The Bush administration is full of bullshit. And if you believe that Republicans are oppressed in Hollywood then you are an idiot, an ass, and a fool. Stop your incessant whining about being oppressed and go work at a soup kitchen for a while. Then come talk to me about how bad you have it.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 1:19 a.m. CST

    Totally wrong Bouffant!

    by DoctorWho?

    The story you sight is by Scott Linlaw....and Lo and behold...Scott Lindlaw is an Associated Press reporter who has told fellow members of the White House press corps that his "mission is to see that George Bush is not re-elected." He is the reporter who wrote falsely that a Republican crowd at a Bush rally in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed the news of President Clinton's hospitalization, and "Bush did nothing to stop them." ----The following is what Lindlaw knew and didn't report-----The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away. So Lindlaw grossly mischaracterizes President Bush's statement. Bush did not invent a "new" rationale for toppling Saddam, or suggest that we went to war simply because Saddam was abusing the oil for food program. The point of Bush's reference to the oil for food program was that Saddam was abusing it for the specific purpose of regaining his WMD capabilities

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Something else useful AICN'ers could do

    by Mars1

    I mean, besides argue politics-try Operation TV. Its where you tape shows for the troops. And yes, some of them do want to see Sponge Bob. Go here for details http://messageboards.operationmilitarypride.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=217

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 1:53 a.m. CST

    Jeez Cannibal....

    by DoctorWho?

    Deep cleansing breaths now...in(thru nose)...and out(thru mouth)...thats good :) Now please don't refer to your self as conservative, your just off the hook whaked! We still love you, just back away from the Nazi shtick.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Allright Cannibal hits a new low!!

    by Dr Farragammo

    Well cannibal you certainly prove my point again and again. First off, what woman wants to please a man when she gets nothing in return? Just the fact I HAVE to point this out to you, shows me your off the charts in the clueless department. Just further proof your first and only love is Mother Fist. And on the issue of War, you again dodge the point. First what rankles many people about Bush and Cheney and their lack of service is that they speak of democrats lack of strength on defense, yet they've never seen the dangers they're sending soldiers into firsthand. Thus the positioning of Kerry as someone who does. No Clinton didn't serve and the republicans tried to bite his head off with that fact. That reeks of hypocrisy since they don't mind that Cheney & Bush took the easy way out. It's a simple concept, that a WARTIME president would be better suited if he had actually been in one. My POINT to you, was that you are 100% for this war, therefore you should be doing some sort of sacrifice on it. NONE of us have a say in it, but you are a big supporter , and you do nothing for the cause. If there was a war I thought was important and morally right , I would be serving in some capacity, because it is the decent thing to do. but fuck it man, your going to have everyone on here tear you a new one because of your stupid comments about women. Now kiss your girfriend good night, and don't forget to deflate her in the morning. You can always buy one of those expensive sex dolls like you see on Nip/Tuck!

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 2:28 a.m. CST

    Gotta love ya cannibal , ya big douche

    by Dr Farragammo

    your my arch-enemy, like Supes and Luthor, Bats and Joker. keep on playing that one man game of RISK cannibal. And while you smoke your cigar don't forget your meds. Don't have any? BUY SOME!! You need an IV drip of thorazine and a 1 way trip to Iraq. I could SO SEE you on the abu ghraib prison photos. You would be having a BLAST. Calling BELLEVUE, your patient has escaped, CALLING BELLEVUE!!!

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Tsk tsk Nun...

    by DoctorWho?

    One day my friend, something beautiful will happen in your life, and you just might wonder why you thought so bitterly about life. Damn, someone must have fucked you over Big Time bro! And I thought I was a cynic.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Re: Cannibal Nun

    by gg

    My bet he is trolling y

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 8:51 a.m. CST

    GEARING UP FOR ELEPHANT HUNTING SEASON

    by bushsux

    Nicole21 may be an idiot but Cannibalnun is a far better poster child for what happens to you when you become a republican. Yes, you are a republican. You, like Bill O'Reilly, can try to deny it but you are. As someone who is actually over here participating in your war I have to find your justification for not coming over here amusing. Did it make sense? Not really. But I have to give you kudos for at least answering the question and not copping out like the other conservative shills on this site. Yesterday, me and a bunch of soldiers and Marines filled out our absentee ballots for the election. In the column where it said "President/Vice-President" We all wrote "John Kerry/John Edwards".

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 10:55 a.m. CST

    BUSHSUX - interesting you bring up the solders

    by Dagan

    Because a recent poll with a very large sample of over 4000 soldiers from Iraq have them supporting Kerry Edward with 19% of their vote, and Bush/Cheney with 73% of their vote - about a 4 to 1 ratio. Are you really sure you want to get into the "who the military supports" game? Really?

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 2:17 p.m. CST

    If you think THAT's a Republican you're an

    by DoctorWho?

    idiot beyond belief! Its astonishing. Thats the most BIGOTED generalazation I've ever heard(oh...but wait! I thought only Republicans were bigoted). Let me guess...you probably think all black people are lazy, and Jews drink the blood of children too. LOL, this crude sledgehammer type thinking may help you explain the world to yourself in asimplistic way you can understand, but it's the unuanced thinking of simpletons. I thought Republicans always think everything is black and white? Don't emulate something you protest to despise so much.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST

    a shoutout to Bushsux, a response to Dagan ,& Cannibal nun I bel

    by Dr Farragammo

    Ok dagan, this is the kinda shit that pisses me off about many republicans. Bushsux serves in the military. he has a better idea of what's going on there then you dont'cha think?? This is why a lot of you DON'T GET IT, because you don't see it from their side. I live about a half hour from a army base (in texas , mind you) and I've seen about equal Kerry /Edwards bumper stickers to Bush/Cheney ones. That is a big deal considering the region and the profession, and like it or not a lot of military personnel are angry at this admin. Why do you think generals like Zinni and others have voiced their opinion at the incompetence of this admin? Why do you think a general spoke at the DNC? The militray is as split as the rest of the country. Fahrenheit 911 is playing Iraq now because it was requested, and it has gained a strong following over there. You can look at the polls all you want but don't speak for those in harm's way who might have a little more insight than you. I certainly can't but i can vouch and support those who are and who do feel bush has betrayed the military. Why he only lobbied to cut their benefits. Real support from a Commander In Chief. I kind of picture Cannibal Nun like Michael Douglas in "Falling Down". A geeky insular sort, who goes through each day being treated like a doormat , then comes home and vents all his feelings of powerlessness into dreams of megalomania on the boards. In other words he's harmless now, but when he pops , be forewarned. Cannibal, do you work at the post office?? may I suggest counseling? You need it man, your carrying around a lot of grief that is going to kill you sonner rather than later. Some community service might give you a bigger picture that there is more than just you in this world, and you might learn a thing or two about helping others. Otherwise expect to die alone in a bitter cocoon of your own hate. cheerio to you ya miserable bastard.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 3:28 p.m. CST

    From one Doctor to another...

    by DoctorWho?

    F9/11 was also endorsed by Hammas. They wanted to distribute it, but I believe Moore never responded. Moore means nothing to me, but what does it say when you find yourself in these peoples good graces? BTW, he consideres Hammas,Zarqawi et al "freedom fighters". I dont recall hearing stories about Paul Revere shooting a pregnant woman in the belly in front of her 2 daughters...and then mowing THEM down. Maybe I was absent that day. Ive said it before. ..Hate Bush all you want, but these fuckers are are far more deserving of your wrath. A little perspective people!

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 3:45 p.m. CST

    One other thing...

    by DoctorWho?

    I fail to understand the liberal tendency to argue no link between Saddam and terrorism. The implication is that of defending Saddam, his regime and the terror wreaked on his people. I don't think it is logical to assert it is okay for Saddam to wreak terror on his own people as long as he limits such terror to his own people. People who enjoy terror will wreak it on as many people as they possibly can, given the opportunity. Evil is simply evil. It needs to be destroyed. That means death to evil-doers and even death by those with enough courage to kill them. I could care less about those concerned over U.S. imperialism or its exertion of force throughout the world. There are only a few nations with the moral fabric to know the difference between right and wrong and even fewer with the fortitude to defend what is right. What is the alternative? Recoil and run? Apologize for defending morality and liberty? If you do this you've only apologized for your own morality and liberty...in which case, what else is there?

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Dr Who. stop with the false analogies

    by Dr Farragammo

    okay, I'm talking about the american military requesting to see F/911. that's it. HAMMAS are assholes and should be done away with, but your confusing the issue and just trying to put up a smoke screen. Many of the military are angry with Bush, case closed. If you support them, you would listen to ALL of them, and not just what you hear from any of the corporate news networks. And come off the Iraq soapbox, about doing away with a madman who gassed his own people. It's an excuse for no WMD's and a poorly thought out war. If you felt that way, you'd be for ALL countries who are doing vilolations of human rights to their people. Here goes the laundry list, shortly followed by your party line and completely ignoring the facts. (1)North Korea- why they do have WMD's. When will you process this info? They make Saddam look like Santa. DID YOU KNOW that most women in N. Korea are so malnourished they can't even have their periods? That most N. Koreans have no clean water or power? That Lil Kim sent a empty aluminum tube into Alaska last year to see if he could hit us?!? (2)Sudan. I know you don't give a fuck about Africa, and wish they would vanish, but they could use our help. Are we going to? Well we didn't in Liberia so don't hold your breath. (3) Saudi Arabia. Yup, they have human rights violations equal to Iraq. I know they're your buddies but it's true. They still have beheadings , and the Saudi citizen lives in fear of the royal family. Plus, LOOK WHERE THE 9/!11 terrorists came from. I know, it's al a crazy , kooky, conspiracy theory to you, but it's true. Unlike Iraq, which was never a threat to us. Iran has weapons and are far more dangerous but we do nothing. In fact Cheney did business with them in halliburton which doesn't seem to concern you. NOW I KNOW you will dispute these facts and find a way to compartmentalize your logic in a way that suits you, but you are fooling yourself. Dick Cheney says freedom should be for anybody, so go tell that to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese, the Chinese, Iranians, those in Afgahanistan who still live under the boot of the taliban because w haven't finished our job there, etc. FINALLY: when will you admit that we create all our enemies? Hussein, Bin Laden, Noriega, the list goes on and on. We set them up, they turn against us, and the cycle continues. Want to stop terrorism? Quit consorting with them!! If I heard one admission of these facts I could at least be happy that reason is setting in. but you never will, you will whine about Clinton, because that's the one thing you'll never get over. A poor kid from Arkanasas blew through you Republican Hate machine, won two terms and had a blowjob. So you had a crooked election and have the spent the past 4 years dismantling the good things this country stands for. There is nothing more to say on this, but I'm sure you will say plenty.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 4:23 p.m. CST

    just to clarify

    by Dr Farragammo

    First off Lil Kim was a humorous turn of phrase, but Kim Jong-ill is a sick little fuck. Also when I said you would be for all countries with human rights violations, I meant you would be for helping all the people who are trapped under a dictatorship. Just wanted to make my statement clear so there is no wasted energy on your part, trying to put the screws to me. Now go after the facts and see where they lead you. THE FACTS!!

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Hello Doc...

    by DoctorWho?

    First of all relax dude, I'm not puttin' the screws to you:) But the "go after everybody or nobody at all approach" just isn't logical. I know you don't like the analogies,but they do illustrate the point. Should we stop researching a cure for lung cancer because we cant perfectley solve prostate cancer and brain cancer simultaneously? I'm not trying to change your mind on positions, I just like clarity.Where does this idea of "if we cant fight them all we shouldnt do anything and hide" come from? Many on the Left are angry at America for being imperfect and therefore disappointing them.And one feature of adolescent psychology is anger at a parent who claims very high ideals and turns out to be flawed. Let's not be psychology adolescent.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Dagan

    by Homer Sexual

    Well I went home last night and checked my tax records and my effective tax rate hadn't changed, but my income, number and amount of deductions had changed. So I must say that though the amount of taxes I paid went up, the percentage of my income didn't. I stand corrected. OTOH, don't you think this election is all about two issues: Iraq and the war on terrorism, and everything else is totally secondary? Just wondering. I don't think anyone is really voting about anything else except the (large) groups that always vote the party line, period.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 5:59 p.m. CST

    I agree Homer...

    by DoctorWho?

    I disagree with W. on alot of things, but it

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 7:13 p.m. CST

    doesn't make sense

    by Dr Farragammo

    Doctor Who I am upset at our government for many things, but I hardly expect it to be perfect. But I do expect us to have a better average of rights vs. wrongs than we do now. Your right this is a religious war. And any war founded on religion is doomed to failure. I'm sorry but if we're going to go after the terrorists and countries that harbors them and those that threaten us with WMD's. You have to start at the top: North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Iraq isn't even a distant third. Now we all know this from the 9/11 commission reports right on down to public informantion. I'm all for military action when it's needed. This wasn't it. We're not hitting the proper target and we've gotten ourselves into a quagmire it will take years to get out of. And it's going to cost ALL OF US.

  • Oct. 8, 2004, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I can respect that.

    by DoctorWho?

  • Oct. 9, 2004, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Cannibal nun. So much for yor fantasies.

    by Palmer Eldritch

    I can guarantee you and everyone else here that nobody who really thrives, and dominates, and drives a fucking Jaguar XJ8 or humvee or rolls or whatever the fuck he want---screws the girl he want, and upgrades her when he's tired of her---lives in a 7000 square foot pad etc etc spends his time psting on AINC! I've no doubt such people exist, but they don't waste their precious predatory time posting to news groups/chatrooms/talkbacks. If you even have a girlfriend, I'll pay real money if you can prove she's on the couch right now, watching TV and pissed off that you're on the internet all the time.

  • Oct. 9, 2004, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Not a woman, eh?

    by Oompa_Radar

    To the poster who said if I were a woman I'd understand the divide in this country?!?! So, let me get this straight. You know everything, you are right in your politics, and I am wrong, thus I couldn't be a woman. Well, I suppose Harry himself could look at my account and verify that my email address has my first name which is clearly a woman's, and he could even verify I'm quite a curvy woman AND a mother, since he spent a good deal of time with my husband and I in Seattle at Melanie's screening and at Scarecrow the next day. (Despite a huge disagreement in politics, I found Harry to be one of the nicest people I've ever met--how can that be??? Could that make me a decent and rational woman?! Say it isn't so!) I suppose I could go into great detail about what natural childbirth with a midwife at a birthing center is like, or perhaps you'd like a container of my breast milk shipped to you to prove I can lactate? This kind of assumption you made is just stupid. But then again, stupid people are the ones who talk very loud and very often. For the record it's not your politics that make you stupid, it's your once again bigotted assumptions about how the world works. Should I infer that you are one of the posters who frequently uses the word "fat" in posts that disagree with Harry's reviews? Let me guess, Matrix sequel and Later Star Wars fan?

  • Oct. 10, 2004, 1:10 a.m. CST

    oompa

    by Dr Farragammo

    Oompa, I'm sorry but the quote: "For the record I'm a half jewish but athiest woman who is pro-choice, carries a concealed weapon, racially tolerant, gay friendly, educated but living paycheck to paycheck because I work from home while raising and educating my children." " sounds very contrived, and I've seen tons of liberal baiting posts by people trying to form arguments by putting two opposite views together, and trying to prove a point, and I'm going to question it if it feels shaky to me. If any of what you said is true (and it could indeed be), the fact that you don't understand why anyone could be upset at Bush baffles me. Why aren't you? I'm sorry but if your gay friendly you wind find Cheney's double talk about gay rights and his daughter hypocritical and shameful. Hey I'm not hung up on the gay marriage thing (I'm cool with it, but I think we have better things to worry about) but he should at least be an advocate for civil unions. You can't call Kerry a flip flopper and have the name of Dick Cheney because he is flop flopper supreme. If your educated and living paycheck to paycheck (something many of us can relate too), how can you not be concerned about Bush's tax cuts for the rich and horrible rate of job creation. They brag about all the jobs they've added but ask most people (excluding military) what they're most concerned about in this election and it's not Iraq, it's the economy. Don't you find it worse now than it was 4 years ago? I sure do. So hey if you think Bush is great, then you aren't investing much thought or effort into what he and his cronies have been up to the past 4 years. If you were you would be angry as the people you call bigots. We get yelled at plenty by the other side, if you lived in Texas you might feel differently about who's more obnoxious. It's W's home state and to question him , you get a lot of shit, and can be treated like a traitor , so I have a different grasp on the whole bigot issue. I've never referred to Harry's weight in a post. I'm Austin, and I've seen him face to face and no unpleasantries were exchanged. Matrix sequel, Star wars what? Yes I hate the Matrix Sequels, thought Episode 1 was shite, and thought Episode II was marginally better, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?!?!? your posts aren't too civil either and calling people bigots right out of the gates won't win you any friends ok? But you certainly seem to favor Bush, so I can see why you don't like the other side bad mouthing him.

  • Oct. 10, 2004, 1:38 a.m. CST

    Bravo Palmer!!

    by DoctorWho?

    LMAO.Count me in on that bet!.SNL is spoofing the debate right now. Damn funny,skewers em both.

  • Oct. 10, 2004, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Oompa_Radar

    by Mars1

    somehow, I think offering Talkbackers breast milk is a bad idea...

  • Oct. 11, 2004, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Dearie me

    by Heleno

    Well, it seems that a lot has been going on over the weekend on this thread, and on the off-chance that anyone is still reading it, I'd like to say a couple of things. Some of the right-wingers on this forum seem to be under the impression that liberals have some sort of duty to tolerate everyone's point of view without complaint or outrage. That is simply not the case. Being liberal doesn