He doesn't think the Naked Gun films are funny? Fail. He doesn't know there's already an actual movie (a very good one) called American Movie? Fail.

"while Mel Brooks was able to hit the target in BLAZING SADDLES and bitch slap bigots with no backtalk."

No, Richard Pryor's script was what did that. That is why it worked, combined with Brooks' sledgehammer (and very funny) direction.

"(Jimmy Carter is shown saying: “Higher taxes are good for you!” ROFL!)"

At least they didn't show him organising a helicopter rescue. That would have been outrageous!

"Zucker says with a straight face that he’s smarter than us and Big Brother Knows Best."

Horrible thought - maybe Zucker is actually smarter than you - who's the hit director with all the money, power, track record and babes? Zucker. You damnnnnn right.

Also, I find it well nigh impossible to believe that this guy became unfunny simply because he crossed some sort of artistically uncrossable line. Why does freedom of speech bother this reviewer so much?

I am increasingly wanting to not be a part of left due to rantings of failed college majors in Che's Film Theory 101 who believe the only way they could ever cop a feel is to pretend to be so hypersensitive that a dolphin exploding makes them cry, instead of laugh like the rest of us.

Still, watching the trailer it seems that Zucker has gone for broad, unsophisticated humor, which is a disappointment. There are certainly several over-the-top liberals who are long-overdue for an intelligent satire. Too bad this film probably isn't it. I hope someone in Hollywood tries harder next time.

And by the way, this liberal vs conservative, red vs blue state partisan horseshit is what's fucking up this country. Well it's ONE of the things fucking up this country. Is it possible to GASP think for one's self and be liberal about some things and conservative about others? No? Have to pick a team, huh? Fucking simpletons.

I repeat: these "neo-cons" are not real republicans much less conservatives.

I challenge any person reading this to name one single factual error or lie in a Michael Moore film. Just one. And don't bother with "You can't walk into a bank and get a gun." because I've already debunked it twice. It happened.

These binary thinkers, in either party, are a major part of the problem...dissent is treason, discussion is weakness, contemplation is indecisiveness, etc, etc, etc...

I don't know myself but I see people calling him a liar and if you lie about someone in a movie, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's grounds for a lawsuit over slander and defamation right?

Aside from Buckley's occasional foray into Hollywood, I think conservative thinkers have found that film is not their medium and tend to stick to the written word. In fact, sensible conservative thought is alive and well outside of film and television.

It's just the unfotunate fact that the American populace as a whole is stimulated heavily from visual medium, and the only conservatives they associate with are the colorful extremists and attention-seekers.

Just clearing it up for the reviewer. :)

Now, whether or not his opinions are true or not is debatable. Whether or not his views are realistic is debatable.

But characterizing the man as "Anti-American" does not contribute to a debate. Its purpose is to remove its target FROM the debate. After all, what place does someone who is "Anti-American" have in a debate about what's good for America? I would say that the Bush administration has been dead wrong on what's good for America, but I would never call anyone involved as "Anti-American".

I do not 100% approve of Michael Moore. I respect his compassion and determination in looking out for the working class and agree with his positions on most subjects. I also know that his methods are questionable and the facts in his movies and books are manipulated to drive home his points. Not manufactured, but manipulated.

That he manipulates his information and resorts to hyperbole all too often (asking Charlton Heston to apologize for the gun-death of a Flint girl is a bit much) makes him less credible.

If you're going to satirize Michael Moore, satirize his methods (I admit, it's ripe material). But to put his patriotism under question isn't satire. It's muckraking.

He also asked him if he wanted to apologize to the people of Columbine for staging a rally shortly after that tragedy as well, to which Heston indignantly and arrogantly replied "You want ME to apologize?"

The point of the scene was to illustrate the insensitivity of the NRA to the feelings of people affected by gun violence, and to question why it is that the NRA holds rallys in communities where these incidences have recently occurred. Could it be that they fear people will sour on guns in general and seek reasonable restrictions on them?

Okay, well, they don't really tolerate when I divert but...Nevermind. Carry on.

And Iron Man's story revolves around an arms dealer who realizes he's funding the same people he's fighting and tries to stop selling weapons while going around the world to clean up his own mess.

These aren't GOP stories, they're pretty much your typical gray-area real world liberal practical allegory using "converted" transitional figures: Rich, privileged men who evolve into responsible figures fighting not for security but against the excesses of society they themselves created.

http://tinyurl.com/6nd5h

You can defend the 'facts' in Moore's movies all you like, but you'd be completely full of shit if you didn't at least agree with this:

Regarding F911:

Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's "deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought.

http://tinyurl.com/3vnjxd

Yeah, Cuba as a paragon of medical care. WTF. I know he's a communist, but I can't believe Moore could film that segment with a straight face.

This is only on a purely fictional level of course.

I have always felt that analyzing a film in such a manner requires a degree of objectivity and to achieve that you have to distance yourself from the material. Which, in the case of a creative work, does what I believe is a disservice to the author/s of the material.

Factual error #1: The site identified as the Rocky Flats nuke weapons plant, NW of Denver, is not Rocky Flats.

Factual error #2: Moore states when talking about Canada that ,"13 % of the country is Non-White, so the Canadians are pretty much like us". He uses that figure while trying to figure why the deaths caused with guns is so high inthe US compared to other countries. Problem is the US, as of the last census (2000), was nearly 25% "Non-White". Now 13 and 25 percent don't seem that far away but not only is the US percentage almost double Canada's "non-White" population, but that 25% equates to over 70 million people in the US over two times the entire population of Canada (which as of their last census was 32 million).

Factual error #3: After the shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, Michael Moore says "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, [NRA President] Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally" When in fact Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting (Feb 29 vs Oct 17) In fact, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, then Vice-President Al Gore, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, and Moore himself all spoke at the rally.

Moore lie #2) This is the only movie where there has been a successful lawsuit against Michael Moore - filed by former friend Larry Stecco who successfully argued that his portrayal in the movie was not an accurate reflection of his character ("False light invasion of privacy" is the legal term) and won. Stecco was interviewed attending a society fund raising ball and was made out to be a high-society rich pig who partied while people where starving outside. He was actually a lawyer who worked pro-bono for the poorer residents of Flint.

"A headline from the Pantagraph (a newspaper in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois) dated 19 December 2001, is shown in big letters to read, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." In fact, the only time those words appeared in that newspaper was in a headline over a letter to the editor dated 5 December 2001.

Sorry, man, but that's what happens when you seek to defend someone like Moore. It should matter little whether his politics are in line with yours; the man is at best a deceptive teller of half-truths, giving only one side of an argument while omitting pertinent opposing data and viewpoints. At worst he is a lying, adipose-laden communist who lacks any credibilty or relevance as a documentarian.

when someone is right and you claim on tv that they are wrong in order to make out that they are a hypocrite, that is lying. Maybe moore didn't do any research. maybe he really thought he was right. but not doing research and showing a person up without giving them a relpy is still lying. i would call it either lying or willful ignorance, which is also lying. for example, either george bush lied about wmd in iraq or more likly he was willfully ignorant. they come to the same thing and are as bad as one another.

i am actually a fan of moore and largly agree with his politics. but he certainly twists the truth. and this is just something that i have picked up with my own personal knowledge, while watching a film maker i enjoy. i havn't gone through his stuff nit picking. I'm sure if someone did they would come up with more.

doesn't really answer it does it? george bush didn't do his research either. guess he also didn't lie. oh what? if you are going to say something you check if it is right first? clutching at straws i guess.

that was so funny, I thought I'd repeat it for all the people that missed it last time.

I don't know what a "Deceit" is according to Kopel, butit's not a lie or a factual inaccuracy. This link will provide you a break down of Kopel's proclaimed "deceits" and what Moore actually says in the film:

http://tinyurl.com/3urxzb

Anf you might want to provide a link to something that doesn't have a McCain/Palin banner at the top of it if you want to appear unbiased. Citing an article that refers to people giving positive response to Sicko as "enthusiast anti-American Europeans and followers of evil Stalinist snake Fidel Castro" is pretty offensive. not to mention that article once again does not provide any lies or factual inaccuracies by Moore but only criticizes what he doesn't show in the film. This would be a legitimate claim if the movie was about Cuban healthcare, but it's not, it's about ours and how it can be improved.

Not even close.

Not that the US health care system isn't a cluster fuck, but damn...If I'm Dr. Phil I don't go to Brittany Spears for advice on how to straighten out my life.

Factual error #1: The site identified as the Rocky Flats nuke weapons plant, NW of Denver, is not Rocky Flats.

Oh boohoo. I can't verify if this is accurate or not but I can verify what Moore says about Rocky Flats in the film, whether the pictures he showed were a mistake or not. Moore says Rocky Flats "is the largest plutonium weapon making factory in the world, and now a massive radioactive dump" which was true at the time the film was made.

Factual error #2: Moore states when talking about Canada that ,"13 % of the country is Non-White, so the Canadians are pretty much like us". He uses that figure while trying to figure why the deaths caused with guns is so high inthe US compared to other countries. Problem is the US, as of the last census (2000), was nearly 25% "Non-White". Now 13 and 25 percent don't seem that far away but not only is the US percentage almost double Canada's "non-White" population, but that 25% equates to over 70 million people in the US over two times the entire population of Canada (which as of their last census was 32 million).

I don't see a lie. He said "pretty much like us." Hardly a measurable figure and trivial anyway.

Factual error #3: After the shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, Michael Moore says "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, [NRA President] Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally" When in fact Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting (Feb 29 vs Oct 17) In fact, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, then Vice-President Al Gore, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, and Moore himself all spoke at the rally.

Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what was recounted in the film. From the end of the narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with Moore's words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." You can read the transcript.

We are all free to be the best or worst we can be and will reap the consequences as such.

It may be a rather nuanced view or too subtle for you to grasp. With liberty comes great responsibilty

Regarding the Smith interview, however, the confrontation that MD cites was not recorded by Moore for the film but by someone else, and before Moore turned to filmmaking. MD also claimed that Moore conducted an interview with Smith in the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York in January 1988 but Smith himself said in a 1990 interview with the LA Times that "I've never stayed at the Waldorf." And how come GM (or MD for that matter) didn't expose Moore at the time and provide video of that interview if it existed? Baseless accusation.

However, this is not the case if the owner sells or rents with the services of a real estate agent - there, the rules governing discrimination are concrete and stringent - as they should be.

Like someone once said..."You think ealth care is expensive now?...Wait unitl it's 'free'. "

Cool name btw.

Congrats Skinjob! You got me. I have to give you credit. This was a factual inaccuracy. Well that's ONE. It makes no difference to the editorial point of the film whatsoever, and many other newspapers took the stance Moore portrays the Pantagraph did, but it was inaccurate and most likely an unintentional mistake, so let's fry Moore!

Keep in mind that Wright is a former Marine, and has arguably done more to have his views heard.

Barack Obama has repudiated Wright. Throughout Obama's career in Chicago, his goal was to help the poor, and apparently Wright's church was one of the biggest and most influential in the destitute Chicago neighborhoods Obama sought to uplift. His being entrenched in the religious community (Wright's church and Catholic organizations) enabled him to garner their support in helping poor people.

Was his participation in Wright's church partly a political move to achieve his goal of helping the poor? That's surely what it seems to be. I think that is justifiable. If Wright laid hands on Obama and talked to God, would I be more than a little freaked? Most assuredly.

Who has Sarah Palin ever helped? What communities of poor people has she helped? What make Palin so great? What real achievements can she boast about?

It's clear that her religious beliefs inform her policies (reducing aid to teen mothers, charging rape victims for rape kits), and are detrimental to the community. Where earmarks amount to a handful of dollars per capita in Illinois, earmarks in Alaska amount to thousands of dollars per person.

There's not been one argument in favor of Palin that has ever stood up to scrutiny. Not one.

Please explain to me and everyone here how you "legislate decency "? Your heading down a slippery slope my friend.

And no we don't " let people do whatever the fuck the wanted to do all of the time". We have these things called LAWS and you get in trouble if you violate them.

If you want the governmant to FORCE people to do what YOU think is "decent" then your going to have to reconcile everything YOU do and say with that same authority.

Obama spent 20 years with Wright. This is his mentor. He says he NEVER heard Wright give those kinds of sermons before. You think that's possible??

Obama AND his wife shares Wrights views. Being in Wrights church for 20 YEARS was not "a political move to achieve his goal of helping the poor". For someone like yourself who claims to strive to see thru the bullshit, you sure are willfully overlooking the obvious. The only political advantageous move WAS to repudiate Wright...throw him and their 20 yr relationship under the bus in pursuit of the Brass Ring.

"I don't know what a 'Deceit' is according to Kopel, but it's not a lie or a factual inaccuracy." Tell me that's not a semantic argument. (I'll agree that your "big pro-gun rally vs get-out-the-vote rally" argument isn't semantic, but more of an obfuscation.)

You're alone in seeking to place guilt on Obama by association.

What are Palin's accomplishments?

Look at good old Chicago right now too. Senator Obama and Dick Durbin's state. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN in charge from Mayor on up...$44 billion state pension fund in debt.WORST in nation. 10.25% sales tax WORST in nation. Chicago school system WORST in nation

I ask the same question: "How come the African-American community overwhelmingly votes Democtrat? Not just in this election, but in every one for the last 40 years?"

Also, Fact Check are wrong about both the book banning thing and creationism as well.

Republicans seem to be hung up on this false list (and I'm yet to see anyone claim that the list was true), and think the existance of it discounts the central point. It doesn't.

And as for their creationism argument- they're arguing semantics.

As for Palin...she has spent a decade as a city council member and mayor of a small town. Don’t underestimate the enormous benefit this provides the governor in the campaign and beyond as she takes up the duties of a vice president. Local government experience means an immersion in the real problems of real people as well as with a myriad of issues from the details of budgets for road maintenance and police and fire forces, to land use, to parks and recreation and school construction issue issues. It also means appearing at thousands of the events that define small town life, from the Rotary to the start of the local fund-raising 5K, and the hiring and firing of staff that has to make the traffic lights work and oversee the trash collection. And mostly it means being able to connect with people who look to the local government to get the big things in small towns right. But by a very large measure these mayors, council members and commissioners are genuine public servants –and they get very smart, very fast about the communities they serve and the real successes and failures that define American life, whether in Wasilla or wherever. Spend a decade doing this work and you will have made tens of thousands of decisions –and votes—and seen the consequences of public policy decisions play out in a large way even though the stage is relatively small. And you will have developed style and insight into people and bureaucracy. And you will be skilled in performing in public.

Obama has no such real world every day experience. Fund raisers and voter registration in the Saul Alinsky mode are his forte

We're talking about Sarah Palin.

What are her specific accomplishments?

This aside, you seem to me to be the kind of person who considers both sides of a story. Have you seen Michael & Me, Fahrenhype 9/11 or Michael Moore Hates America, just to get a little balance?

I simply illustate that the duties of even a small town mayor out weigh any 'community organizing or 'get out the vote' programs

As usual I'm not too suprised at your over reaction. can see how this might be disturbing to some. However, it is nothing strange in certain church circles. They are merely praying for her. It seems that the gentleman praying is a visiting pastor or evangelist, and he is offering a prayer for her. Praying like this is typical in some churches. It can be an uncomfortable experience as the person being prayed for may or may not agree with the prayer, but you want to be polite. I see nothing wrong, per se. Just awkward.

Should she have jumped up and ran out? When you receive a blessing like that you take it in the spirit that it was intended.

She was on stage with him for what?...5-7 minutes? Glad she hasn't been associated with him for 20 years...she would have to throw him under the bus.

Incidentally, does anyone know what the situation on rape kits in Chicago has been?

Back to the original point. What are Sarah Palin's political accomplishments?

And you? Did I miss the roster of Obamas achievements?

And which is worse: Wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and RETURN the question of abotion back to the states for the people to VOTE on?...OR... Voting AGAINST a bill to NOT KILL babies who somehow make it out of the womb and survive botched abortiions? That's just a freak show man!

Well that cinches it: Devil worshiping whore. Glad you cleared that up for me.

It's a documented fact that Muthee drove a woman from her village by accusing her of being a witch, and turning the village against her.

You support that? What's wrong with you?

Now, if she befriended him and was mentored by him for say 20 years or so...then I could see her judgement was not sound and that she associated with less than desireable people.

I posted this theory in a nationally syndicated blog where the writer suggested that the primary reason Republicans won't cross party lines to vote for Obama given the current GOP candidates, is that they are simply racists. While I do think there are people who will absolutely vote along racial lines (for and against) I don't think all Republicans fed up with McCain/Palin/neocons who also cannot stomach voting Democratic are doing so only because of racism. He mentioned Alan Keyes and how no one voted for him but that's intra-party and far more worthy of his argument but almost every republican I know would never fucking EVER vote democratic. NEVER EVER. Did i say "NEVER"? NEVER! Anymore than a typical and traditional Democrat would consider voting across party lines.

YES, there are those who have...hell they're the ones all the politicians pander to typically but it is by far not the majority...enough to determine the winner, "tip the balance" yes, but not the majority meaning the person you are speaking with is not likely to be someone who would vote for "them". People of course said I was making excuses or "in denial" but I'm sorry, all of my Republican friends say the exact same thing: "Obama wants to tax the shit out of the middle class. He's a socialist, extreme-left liberal who wants to take my hard-earned money and give it to people who haven't earned shit. Some of the people he wants to give my money to aren't even US citizens!!".

Granted, that might be them masking their own prejudices or even racist views but I believe they are sincere because they've bought the talking point that ALL Dems are socialists who want to "keep your entire paycheck and dole out a shitty 7% to 9% for you and give the rest to lazy poor people and lazy people in this country illegally". These are the same people who think the entire health-care issue comes down to nothing but greedy lawyers and "ubiquitous" malpractice suits. They think global warming is a socialist coup because Al Gore travels around in a jet instead of in a horse and buggy. And they took Sheryl Crow seriously when she joked that she only uses one square of toilet paper in the crappa. It doesn't make them unmovable loyalist-obsessives but it does mean that their source of news is biased...like most of us in here. And if justifies their beliefs and thus their vote. The same thing happens with Dems too, it's a human thing not a right/left thing I think. But a country half filled with racists? I doubt that very much.

and her accepting gifts...http://www.washingtonp ost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2 008/09/25/ST2008092504011.html

Later.

Why be opposed to the PEOPLE of each state voting on wheteher to ban abortion? In California abortion is actually a right written into their state constitution.

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" --Sarah Palin, interview with CNBC's "Kudlow & Co", July 2008

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

"I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric to cite specific examples of how John McCain has pushed for more regulation in his 26 years in the Senate, CBS interview, Sept. 24, 2008

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." –Sarah Palin, interview with Alaska Business Monthly, March 2007

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." –Sarah Palin, on the $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state, speaking to students the Wasilla Assembly of God, June 2008

"I watched with the volume all the way down. I thought it was hilarious. I thought she was spot on. ... It was hilarious. Again, didn't hear a word she said, but the visual, spot on." --Sarah Palin, on Tina Fey's "SNL" skit interview on FOX News's "Hannity & Colmes," Sept. 17, 2008

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

On Tranlators:“We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. GRANTED: Palin wouldn't know this either. But then again, she's not running for president.

Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." TYPICAL WHITE PERSON?? I like you Obama, but go fuck yourself with that nonsense.

Don't get me wrong...I don't buy into creationism at all. I'm just not scared of someone who is. What are you afraid of? That her OPINION is that both should be taught in school? Allow me to calm the hysterics out there: THERE'S NO WAY SHE COULD MAKE THAT A REALITY EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN AMILLION YEARS.

Shhesh...the leaps of logic you guys make from one quote all the way to living under a brutal, tyranical thoecracy is amazing.

Eve n if I was the most die-hard neo-con conservative, I'd balk at voting for someone who would take a blessing from a "real" witch-hunter, or someone who claims to be one. Hate America if you want, my guess is you only see the negative, even if that is quite a bit in your life...but there IS positive otherwise what the fuck are any of us doing in this TB? But being anointed by a pastor who claims to have hunted down and banished a "witch" in Africa scares me and makes me sad at the same time. It scares me that an adult in the 21st century would hear that statement and think it not completely batshit fucking nuts. It makes me sad to think that apparently it is a big deal in Africa with these small minded misogynist frauds running around and beating women and chasing them out of their homes and probably killing them as well in the 21st century!!! (no, I don't know that for sure).

The fact that anyone can condemn Obama for his petulant loud-mouthed preacher and not Palin for her batshit fucking nuts preacher speaks far more than your simple opinions about policy. A guy who hates America is just misinformed or seeing through narrowed eyes. A man who "banishes" witchs is batshit crazy. WITCHCRAFT for the love of edible panties!!! God damn witchcraft! In the freakin 21sst century!

can see how this might be disturbing to some. However, it is nothing strange in certain church circles. They are merely praying for her. It seems that the gentleman praying is a visiting pastor or evangelist, and he is offering a prayer for her. Praying like this is typical in some churches. It can be an uncomfortable experience as the person being prayed for may or may not agree with the prayer, but you want to be polite. I see nothing wrong, per se. Just awkward. Should she have jumped up and ran out? When you receive a blessing like that you take it in the spirit that it was intended. She was on stage with him for what?...5-7 minutes? Glad she hasn't been associated with him for 20 years...she would have to throw him under the bus.

Personally, I'm not an atheist but anyone talking about the more esoteric aspects of religion and also is in command of the world's most powerful military makes me concerned. I would hope it would also make you concerned. Concerned about the maturity of an adult who claims to believe in witches or keep company with those who claim to battle them. I have friends who condemn America, they're assholes. I don't think I'd want to be friends with someone who thinks we should be hunting down and banishing "witches".

I don't think Obama is Wright (who was a Marine) anymore than Palin is Muthee but let's pretend they are; a semi-anti-American petulant president would be horrible, maybe even catastrophic but a "believer in witchcraft" president might get us all killed in their own personal 'end of days'. Neither is going to happen of course....but if I had to answer as honestly as i can I'd say I can understand but completely disagree with anti-American sentiment but I cannot respond to a claim of actually hunting witches as being remotely credible or not superstitious claptrap. It's one thing to claim faith in the unknown...it is quite another to point to a woman, call her a witch and then attack her in any way, shape, or form.

My take is this: It doesn't matter who is in the White House; a Mormon, a Jew...I will most likely be at odds with their personal beliefs. But our system and constitution safeguard us from any ONE person dictating this stuff. You don't think Obama's personal beliefs don't affect his thinking or choices? It's impossible not to. This country and our laws are all extensions of personal belifs and values. Look at the personal belifs and values of the ass clowns who run the show in Iran. Now THAT'S a clusterfuck.

But I digress. I wouldn't balnket both "anti-same-sex-couple and anti-abortion legislation" as being against people's well being. No one is "anti-same-sex-couple"...rathe r against redefining marriage. And surely you can see a pro life view being a positive one that DOES focus on the well being of an unborn human. They are alive you know.

And no one is banning people from living a free fullfilling life and engaging in relationships with any sex they choose. But it comes to the very specific case of REDIFINING marriage (which has NEVER been done in ANY civilization EVER) that becomes contentious. How about letting men have 2 or 3 wives. Or let a man marry his sister. Why not if they truly LOVE each other? Who are we to say? These a perfect examples of redifining marriage too. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

And don't oversimplify these abortion issues. This isn't th 1800's when there was good possibilty of complications during child birth. That percentage is virtually nil.

it certainly has been done. plenty of societies have allowed marriage between siblings (ancient egyptians) and plenty have gone back and forth between polygamy and monogamy. Hell, the old testament allows polygamy.

http://tinyurl.com/4k74vn http://www.thenation.com/doc/2 0081020/ames_berman

Videos for all to enjoy ... and yes, he brought up his POW status in a question about healthcare. Surprise, surprise.

http://www.desmoinesregister.c om/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20080930/NEWS09/80930049

Please, lets be left wing. The rise of the left in the first world was both a reaction to, and an integral part of greatest increase in prosperity the world has ever seen. There is a massive link between our economic prosperity and free education and free health care, there is a massive link between our ability to secure our boarders against two separate totalitarian threats (three really) in the 20th century and universal suffrage. Healthy people fight better and pay more tax. Smart people fight better and pay more tax. Enfranshed members of society fight like rabid dogs to defend their way of life, and pay more tax. But please, let us remain within the sensible left. The charm of a conspiracy is the seduction into the belief that no matter what you do, a sinister all powerful organisation will prevent you from achieving. This charm is most appealing to those at the low end of society and lead to apathy and hostility toward the system. This apathy, this hostility is something that we in left can not afford. The tools one would use for social change lie in our very hands. Are you are aware that a major reason that the united states is the most right wing western democracy is a combination of the facts that it is one of the few with non compulsory voting and that a vastly greater percentage of the wealthy vote than the poor. This is due simply to apathy and hostility toward the system. It does not liberate you, it holds you back. Rather than say there is nothing that I can do, the powers that be will never allow change, take hold of your government, vote! No one would say that it is not easier to achieve for the rich than for the poor but this is not be against self improvement. It will be harder for you, no doubt, but study, work, invest and you will achieve. The insidiously sinister element of a conspiracy theory is that it playing into the hands of right, of the very people it opposes. It does this by creating an apathy based on impotence. This apathy and feeling of disenfranchisement has pushed the us govt to the right not the left. As soon as an individual realises that it is they thought their own choices who control their fate, they state to make better choices. Stop believing in your own lack of consequence and take hold of your life. You have nothing to lose but your chains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KTkqosRiyYo

Bush tried his best to suppress American protests but goddamn if there aren't some outspoken and determined citizens here taking their rights seriously.

And you wouldn't find a forum like the Great Harry Knowles gives us here in China. Those damn commies would've shut Harry down a long time ago for promoting free speech.

God bless you lady!!!

i went on an army trip to nz at the start of the year. it is very diff to us. big similarities in atitutes, but also huge local rivalries. phyiscally it reminded me of scotland. my country would be most simular to california. but make no mistake it is a hard country, barren over most of it, which is why my country out marches most others. we train in the stifling heat.

Apathy is actually a reaction to the lower/ middle classes being disenfranchised. When you feel that your vote makes no difference, and you are cut out from the process as badly as we (in britain- I don't know about America) are- to the extent that you see the same fuckers representing both the right and the left- then the natural reaction is one of "fuck it".

APathy is a symptom not the cause of the current failures of democracy.

Have you ever seen 4 such piss poor candidates standing in the US elections? I haven't.

The sad fact is that it would take something seismic to disrupt the ruling class and get parties in that actually represented what they were supposed to. And we both know this is never going to happen

Thats what we have in the US. Neither I (and yes I am male) nor a gay person can enter into marriage with a member of the same sex. The fact that I wouldn't because I'm a flamming hetrosexual is irrelavent. Our RIGHTS are the SAME.

But I do hear where you're coming from. Your arguements are both thoughtful and compassionate. I mean, at first reaction one has to think "Hey, who am I to tell these people THEY can't marry their loved one?" But the idea is no to RESTRICT people from doing something so much as it is to PRESERVE the INSTITUTION of marriage.

Is it "fair". No, perhaps not. But life is and never was "fair". The institution of marriage is NOT broken. But some people want to "modify" it to fit THEIR situation. It's the "all about ME" syndrome.

I've said it before I'd fight to the death to defend anyones right to love who they choose and yes "some of my best friends are gay"...but redefining a centuries old institution which works fine (even with the best intentions)smacks of narccisism.

Some years ago a family was trying to sue the Boy Scouts to permit their daughter to join. It's that kind of vibe.