much, much MOORE BAD NEWS

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by GUNSMOKE, Jun 30, 2004.

Loading...
  1. GUNSMOKE

    GUNSMOKE New Member

  2. ianmoseley

    ianmoseley New Member

    I have no knowledge of Mr Koch's political leanings, however the news page has several links and comments that suggest that it is somewhat right of centre (at least as far as the non-US world is concerned; a number of people in the USA seem to regard even a moderate central position as far-left marxism!)

    He also says that he does not accept the idea of 'my country right or wrong' and then goes on to imply that in some circumstances it is acceptable.
     
  3. Orson

    Orson New Member

    About six months after 9/11, a book on comparative risks appeared, receiving lots of attention among lefties. For instance, the authors(s) dismissied the threeat of terrorism based on historical precedents.
    It was as if to say, "You deluded worrywarts!"

    A friend of mine made this argument to me; a local lefty newspaper editor made it in his weekly column. I lept at both! If nothing else, asside from trivializing 9/11, it comforted us in our ignorance! As Bob Woodward's first Bush book showed, it was the discovery of Al Qaida's overt interest in WMDs and nuclear weapns that moved G.W. on to Iraq. A concordance of interests was at work.

    Could a president that failed to act to prevent a nuclear 9/11 remain president?

    Along with these people, Michael Moore had not thought that far!

    As Ed Koch reports (in the above link) that around September 2002 "Moore said [to me] something along the lines of 'I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.'"

    This dismissiness duly originated from The Nation and other far-left sources. As far as I can tell, they're still not thinking through the facts that 9/11 rubbed our collective minds in. Denial, as they say, is not a river in Egypt.

    --Orson
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2004
  4. Ike

    Ike New Member


    Edward Koch, New York's former mayor, supported George W. Bush four years ago. He is also supporting him this year. Mr. Koch is certainly not a liberal.
     
  5. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Yeah-Democrats used to embrace maveriks and tolerate diversity.

    Now it's the Republican's who embrace ethnic diversity (Colin Powell, Condi Rice, etc), and people infortunate enough to have had Nazi fathers...people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    --Orson

     
  6. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    What exactly is diverse about Powell and Rice? You're confusing skin color with ideas. Powell and Rice peddle the standard Republican fare; they do not represent mainstream blacks. Condy Rice has an oil tanker named after her for God's sake.

    This is standard right wing fare. They cite one black (or two) among their cohorts, and then jump up and down saying "look, look, we embrace black people." Absolute hogwash.

    Now, if Bush appoints someone like Barbara Lee, then I'll eat my words. Powell and Rice are essentially old white men dressed in black skin. End of discussion.

    I don't think Dems underestimate the threat of terrorism, rather we differ on how to go about eliminating it. Repubs seem to think that bombing the hell out of countries makes us safer. Many Dems think it makes us worse off. Only time will tell.

    Unfortunately, one more large-scale terrorist attack will have both sides saying "see, I told you so." The Repubs will claim we didn't drop enough bombs; and the Dems will claim that the bomb dropping engendered more hatred.
     
  7. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

  8. tlamora

    tlamora New Member

    Tom57

    To everything you stated. I could not have said it better!

    Tom
     
  9. Well state, Tom

    Bumper stickers that are right on:

    "Plant a Bush back in Texas"

    "When Clinton lied, nobody died."

    Image of Bush--"Weapon of Mass Destruction."


    A sidenote--The brother of one of my coworkers lives in Hawaii. They were subject to food shortages in the days immediately following 9/11 due to the no-fly rule. The Bush Administration is willing to let Americans go hungry but will allow family members of a known terrorist fly out of the country in order to avoid answering questions.
     
  10. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Re: Well state, Tom

    Say what you will, but "sympathetic-" has no -ear!

    1) No one died under Clinton? According to the 9/11 Comission (online), 35 Americans died in terror attacks under Clinton. Certainly many more could have died in 1993 had the first WTC attack been even marginally more successful.

    2) No one has credibly suggested the Bin Laden clan (who are in construction - not oil - by the way) then in the US had ties to Osama who the Saudi government had expelled in 1991. (It's a very large family, amounting to many hundreds more than the few in the US then.)

    3) All Bin Laden "persons of interest" who the FBI wanted to interview were - according to the bi-partisan 9/11 commission.

    4) Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism chief inder Clinton AND Bush - who becomes a focal point in Moore's fake-umentary - calls the central premise of Farenheit 9/11 "a mistake," accorinding to an AP interview (June 30th).

    On the one hand, as Clarke affirms: "After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. ***When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request."*** On the other hand, we could have behaved like certain Iranian mobs did in 1979, overwhelm diplomatic protocals, and hold Saudi citizens hostage as Americans once were! (Yeah! That's progressive T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G!)

    But no - we follow the rule of law, pass the Patriot Act, and then follow the statutes or argue them in court.

    5) Finally, Moore ends his film alledging that the Oregon coast lacks protection! The bimbo doesn't know the half of it! Think cargo containes! They flow in and out of the US by the millions every year and our economy depends upon it. But in the months after 9/11, an Egyptian Al Qaida operative en route to North America was discovered in one! His container had food, sat phones, computer, bed - and of course phony papers certifying him as an airplane mechanic! (He escaped Italy - they lacked the laws to hold him.) But Al Qaeda was never the total threat Islamist terror presents - only the most prominant and strategic voice.

    There are great threats to our way of life that lack simple solutions - which is why the US wants to see democratic rule in the Middle East: democracies don't attack other democracies because they are restrained by popular will.

    6) Matt Yglesias with the liberal American Prospect, when asked if "Farenheit 9/11" amounted to McCarthyite smears, said "yes." (www.hughhewitt.com June 30th)


    --Orson

    PS *Shortages do not constitute situations of hunger, i.e, famine:
    fortunately, humans are omnivores. (And mainlanders in tornado/blizzard/hurricane country do fine under the occasional EMERGENCY interruption of food stuffs! - Isn't there enough spam in the 50th state? "Wah!") Don't make your readers laugh if you wish to be read seriously!
     
  11. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Re: Re: much, much MOORE BAD NEWS

    Tom -

    Would you be good enough to be specific? Otherwise the Left IS certifiably going unhinged (on the board and off).

    (See my excerpt of the current John Leo column elsewhere, providing quantitative evidence for the latter assertion.)

    --Orson
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2004
  12. tlamora

    tlamora New Member

    And legitimate, intellectually honest, philosophical conservatives reject BUSH's dirty lies and dirtier tactics

    In the article I have linked to below, Patrick Buchanan (a legitimate, intellectually honest, philosophical conservative) is
    certainly rejecting Bush's lies!

    http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

    Tom
     

Share This Page