Topic: George W.Bush
Im an Australian. I used to do history at school and part of that was watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I was shocked by that, how could George be elected a second time if he really did all that stuff?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Im an Australian. I used to do history at school and part of that was watching Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I was shocked by that, how could George be elected a second time if he really did all that stuff?
Well, the true question is... how much of Moore's film was factual and how much of it was typical liberal BS?
well its strange.. Moore was interviewed and he said he wanted a one sided piece, but b4 he made it he interviewed both sides of the arguments, and decided Bush is a criminal, and to tell you the truth i agree. Its scary some of the things that were brought up in that documentary. He knocked black people of the vote in i think it was florida... And he couldnt be held for it because all the 12or so guys you americans have in parliament, are all friends of the bush family. He didnt send special forces into Afghanistan until 2 months after sept 11= How can you catch a guy when you give him that kind of head start?... The Saudis own 7% of American Share markets!!! They have a trillion dollars invested in American banks. I recomend watchen it, its not bad for a doco
well its strange.. Moore was interviewed and he said he wanted a one sided piece, but b4 he made it he interviewed both sides of the arguments, and decided Bush is a criminal, and to tell you the truth i agree. Its scary some of the things that were brought up in that documentary. He knocked black people of the vote in i think it was florida... And he couldnt be held for it because all the 12or so guys you americans have in parliament, are all friends of the bush family. He didnt send special forces into Afghanistan until 2 months after sept 11= How can you catch a guy when you give him that kind of head start?... The Saudis own 7% of American Share markets!!! They have a trillion dollars invested in American banks. I recomend watchen it, its not bad for a doco
Let me just say you are NOT American. You do not know what goes
on here. Michael Moore is a democrat. He will of course not like George
Bush. Now, Bush may have done some things wrong, most presidents
have, but it is not about what Bush is. It is about who we think would
do better. Many people like that Bush lowered taxed. Many people
like that Bush went to war.
Lastly, most people do not want a democrat when it comes to the
country being in debt. A democrat will likely spend more. You may
argue that a democrat would not be at war, but after the damage
we have done, democrat or republican, it is our duty to help them
now. So whoever is president, we can not pull out now. With a
democrat spending more comes a rise in taxes.
Just some things to think about for you.
My suggestion Shane, is that you don't even bother worrying about this kind of stuff. America's problems are SO much worse than that of what Moore said. And what Spectre said is partly right, although I will make a couple changes to what he said. Contrary to popular Republican belief, Michael Moore didn't just make a documentary and flat out lie about everything, however, him being a democrat, he did hold certain bias opinions in the film that could only be based on opinions by Moore himself. This was not lying, as in these parts Michael Moore never said anything about how his opinions were 100% truth. He always started out with a "maybe" or, "possibly."
P.S. You may also hear that Michael Moore hired actors. This is a lie. I don't know what these republicans or Moore haters are thinking but any documentary that is released and is this big, gets swarmed with hundreds and, possibly even, thousands of fact finders from Hollywood. A documentary is not allowed to have a script (although a written plan of what, and where you are going to go is acceptable) and have no paid actors, unless it is a part of the film that the director's make evident is based on fictional information. Believe me when I say this, I know far to much about the inner workings of Hollywood and movies production assemblies.
EDIT: By the way Lothar, our deficit was just recorded a couple months ago, and it is about twice as bad as it was under Clinton's term. The Republicans of today are anything but fiscally responsible.
This deficit obviously has nothing to do with the largest attack on american soil and the Iraq and Afghan war. Even if you don't agree with the war or do, you shouldn't be so ignorant about the other reasons.
Yeah, I had heard about the Big M using hired actors from an anti-F 9/11 documentary who had some of the people Moore had in F-9/11, saying they were paid by Moore.
I was commenting on how Lothar was trying to pin the fact that whenever there is a democrat President we end up paying more, when in fact now we are paying more so than if a normal Democrat president(not in a war) were in charge.
And yes, I assure you, bias' left aside, there were no actors in that film. There are certain catagories for films that must apply to it in order for it to be officially labelled what it is. For an example: an action movie cannot say it is going to be a comedy just so it can get more money from a crowd who likes comedies and from a crowd who likes action. I am not sure who established this law, whether it was the ESRB, or maybe even the production companies in an attempt to be more competitive. But regardless, every movie has to meet certain criteria for their labels to apply.
Thank you Gothic for shining a ray of sense and logic into this mess of rhetoric. My god, Democrats spend more? It's true that the general population does believe this, which is testament enough to how effective repeating a lie is. If you believed John kerry would have taxed you more, then I would like to piont ou that he promised not to raise taxes. And if you think a Democrat would have spent more, I'd like to laugh in your face. Whether or not you believe preemptively attacking a nation based on falsehoods is a good idea or not, this fact stands alone: it is ridiculously expensive. Would a Democrat have gone into war? No, therefore we would have more money. It's simple math. Also, if you are already sitting on bags of gold, then you recieved some mighty large Tax cuts from this adiministration. Wonderful for you, but it's another example of throwing money out the door. I have never been a Republican, but there was a time when I respected their budget managment. They were good businessmen, and spent far less money. If nothing else, they were at least a fiscally responsible lot. Not anymore. We have a failed businessman running our country, who was born with a silver spoon in his hand, and still fucked over the companies that fell in his lap. Now there is nothing the leaders of that party are doing right. Democrats now, along with social issues, are now easily the more logical party when it comes to economic expenses. Good riddance.
Gothic, the fact is Democrats sponsor more programs than
republicans. They are more into helping everyone, where
a republican is more into the idea that people are to help
themselves. Also, to say it is worse than other countries
believe, is WRONG. Many other countries, how they hear
it we are poor. This is not the case, we are individuals
are doing just fine.
Gothic I would love to know where you got your information.
Clinton had surpluss, Bush has a deficit, a pretty large one.
What this means is, your "twice as bas as it was under
clinton..." must be wrong, right? Bush has spent Clintons
surpluss, and more. However, you blame this on republicans
not knowing how to spend money? I would disagree. We have
gone to war, shipping troops, and tanks etc, is not cheap.
It could be argues that a democrat would not have gone to
war and therefore would not have us at a deficit, but, we
did go to war, I do not know a democrat that can set time
back, do you? My point? Well, not that we have started,
we have to finish. We have to get them going. Why? Because
if we back out now, they will ALL hate us. They will then most
likely attack us, and we will spend MORE money. So democrat
or republican, we are forced to help them rebuild now. Though,
a democrat would want to do even more, and spend even more
money.
I am not democratic, or republican. But, I believe that right now
with a deficit, spending less money is a good thing. It is known
that democrats sponsor more programs that give away money.
A republican therefore would be better for the economy right
now. I will not say that BUSH is the best choice for republican,
but he is what we have. If you want a new republican, maybe
when Arnold gets the constitution ammended, you can vote
him, I will.
Edit:
Mold, I agree with you quite a bit. Though the following statement
from Gothic I do not agree with in the least bit.
America's problems are SO much worse than that of what Moore said.
Gothic, the fact is Democrats sponsor more programs than
republicans. They are more into helping everyone, where
a republican is more into the idea that people are to help
themselves. Also, to say it is worse than other countries
believe, is WRONG. Many other countries, how they hear
it we are poor. This is not the case, we are individuals
are doing just fine.Gothic I would love to know where you got your information.
Clinton had surpluss, Bush has a deficit, a pretty large one.
What this means is, your "twice as bas as it was under
clinton..." must be wrong, right? Bush has spent Clintons
surpluss, and more. However, you blame this on republicans
not knowing how to spend money? I would disagree. We have
gone to war, shipping troops, and tanks etc, is not cheap.
It could be argues that a democrat would not have gone to
war and therefore would not have us at a deficit, but, we
did go to war, I do not know a democrat that can set time
back, do you? My point? Well, not that we have started,
we have to finish. We have to get them going. Why? Because
if we back out now, they will ALL hate us. They will then most
likely attack us, and we will spend MORE money. So democrat
or republican, we are forced to help them rebuild now. Though,
a democrat would want to do even more, and spend even more
money.I am not democratic, or republican. But, I believe that right now
with a deficit, spending less money is a good thing. It is known
that democrats sponsor more programs that give away money.
A republican therefore would be better for the economy right
now. I will not say that BUSH is the best choice for republican,
but he is what we have. If you want a new republican, maybe
when Arnold gets the constitution ammended, you can vote
him, I will.Edit:
Mold, I agree with you quite a bit. Though the following statement
from Gothic I do not agree with in the least bit.America's problems are SO much worse than that of what Moore said.
I didn't say that our country was worse off than what other people in different countries believe, Lothar. How would I even know what they believe in the first place? I said, and I quote, "America's problems are SO much worse than that of what Moore said," as in what he stated in F-911. I never once said anything about how it was worse than any other country could imagine.
Next, Democratic Senator Lieberman(sp?) was where I got my information on the deficit as of now. He announced it to the media last night.
So Lothar, Republicans today are fiscally responsible then right? So tell me...who paid the 12 million dollars in security solely for Bush last night during the inauguration? Was it you, me, mold, Fireborn in taxes? No. The entire bill went straight to Washington D.C.'s citizens, which cost them many proggrams they they desperately needed being one of the cities with the most crime. That sure does sound responsible to me. Forgive me but I think they would rather be paying for some "programs" which would help them rather than $12,000,000 for one man's security AND lets not forget his, his families, and his friends living arrangements for the night which was about $150,000 each.
Finally, yes I know that the deficit is mostly because of Bush's war, however, I believe that had any other person(democrat, or republican) been elected in 2000 rather than Bush, there wouldn't even be a war. My arguement was under that impression, as I see he is the only one ignorant and arrogant enough to drag an already bleeding nation into a war with a country which was not a threat. I could see more logic if he had waited, repaired our societies problems, and the national debt, and then decided to wage his little war. I could see more logic in that, although I would still loath and disagree with it, but what he did just was not smart.
My suggestion Shane, is that you don't even bother worrying about this kind of stuff. America's problems are SO much worse than that of what Moore said. And what Spectre said is partly right, although I will make a couple changes to what he said. Contrary to popular Republican belief, Michael Moore didn't just make a documentary and flat out lie about everything, however, him being a democrat, he did hold certain bias opinions in the film that could only be based on opinions by Moore himself. This was not lying, as in these parts Michael Moore never said anything about how his opinions were 100% truth. He always started out with a "maybe" or, "possibly."
P.S. You may also hear that Michael Moore hired actors. This is a lie. I don't know what these republicans or Moore haters are thinking but any documentary that is released and is this big, gets swarmed with hundreds and, possibly even, thousands of fact finders from Hollywood. A documentary is not allowed to have a script (although a written plan of what, and where you are going to go is acceptable) and have no paid actors, unless it is a part of the film that the director's make evident is based on fictional information. Believe me when I say this, I know far to much about the inner workings of Hollywood and movies production assemblies.
EDIT: By the way Lothar, our deficit was just recorded a couple months ago, and it is about twice as bad as it was under Clinton's term. The Republicans of today are anything but fiscally responsible.
So well put bro...you can room with me in Canada if they kick ya out or you want out.
Like a war in Iraq was wrong. Theres no argument to say it was right. The people of Iraq suffer now more than they ever did under suddam. The Governement of Iraq has already lost rights to their oil as contracts have all been sold to American companies. Sunni Muslims(10% of the population is Sunni, Suddam was a sunni) will be forced to hide from the majority Shiite Muslims (Iran has a 100% Shiite population,) How will Sunni's ever be free when only Shiite clerics will be elected, pursicuting them forever. I dont blame them for guerilla fighting! their future prospects look grim. Iraq had nothing to do with sept 11, The majority where saudi's. Isnt it strange they own a large portion of America. Donald Rumsfeld made a statement when Bush was first elected, "Iraq has no weapone of mass destruction, and is incapable of producing them. They pose no threat to America." A few months later when Afghanistan was invaded, "Iraq has weapons." And the Taliban? Like in moores doc "They got away!"... Well while America enjoys cheaper fuel ill be paying shit loads a litre. And let me just say, The Shiites are the most extremist Muslims in the world. Muslims are good people. How long will Democracy last in Iraq? If a Cleric says jump his followers will ask how high. Thus overiding any form of government installed. And If America attempts to invade Iran they will fail. My government sucks bush off at every outting, which makes it hard. Our Labour party will win again one day, then Soldiers will be happy they dont have to fight for no reason!
I applaud your willingness to learn of the dire situation in the world Shane. With more and more people like you learning this kind of stuff everyday maybe we can finally stop the U.S. from meddling in every single countries business and elt them lead how they want to. I mean forgive me, but I see the revolutionary stage as a VERY important stage in a countries developement, but we take that away from them in the name of "peace" . Oh well...keep up the good work.
I would love to leave for Canada, P-Dawg, unfortunately I am stuck here for a looong time, perhaps one day though.
I noticed a big flaw in Gothics statement about the inaugural.. Actually all the money for that ENTIRE thing was donated. Im surprised you didnt know that, as they had a huge dinner for everyone who donated 200k or more for it. And trust me there were about 300+ people there... And this money paid for the inagural and the pre-innuagural events and the post events also.
We may have not gone to Iraq with a Democrat president though I actually doubt that. However 9/11 would have still happened and I presume we would have still went into Afghanistan for Osama. It costs us half a trillion dollars a year to run our Military.. Money well spent in my opinion, but sadly democrats even during this time of war want to cut military spending.. Which is why we see Soldiers not being paid at all or have there pay checks backed up for weeks.
As for if Moore used actors or not in his documentary.. I really don't know, all I know is a few people that were in Moore's film said Moore paid them. I cant remember the name of it(I think it was the Celcius one or the one where the guy stood outside of Moore's office trying to get moore to make a comment in his film).. I will try and find it soon.. but They talk about it in the book Michael Moore is a fat dumb white man(Im not lying about the title of the book)..
I don't know where you get the Iraqi's are suffering more under the US than under Saddam.. Except that these so called Freedom Fighters( Mr. Gothic would yell at me if I said terrorist) keeps atatcking the Iraqi people to prevent any progress.. but of course we are wrong. Why? because we are the US and all of our decisions are wrong.. WWI.. boy were we wrong on that one.. WWII.. Wow.. we made a mistake on this one.. should have never fought Germany.. just Japan.. First Iraq War.. Should have let Saddam take quwait and sell us Oil super cheap.. damn americans!!! War on Terror.. Wow.. we were wrong on this one.. lets just let terrorist slam planes into our buildings without any retaliation because we don't want to anger our so called allies..
Now one interesting thing MSNBC had reported about the Iraq war that I hadn't heard before is that even the Iraqi commanders in the field thought they had WMD and once the word broke that they infact had none is when the Iraqis started fleeing. Thats about around the time we started getting chatter about WMD and the media started reporting that Iraqi troops could start firing Chemical Weapons at us.
I still feel with all the intelligence agencies around the world giving us information about Saddam having WMD that we made the right decision. O well with all the shit that happens atleast we uncovered the Oil for Food scandal.. which for some reason you guys completely ignore.. or have no problem with..
Who ever would have been elected in 2000 i have no doubt they would be facing the same exact problems Bush is facing now.
Since this topic is about President Bush.. i would also like to say.. I for one hope Bush gets his SS Reform passed.. your thoughts on that? <---(Question is meant for Gothic and Mold.. but if anyone else pays attention to American politics and knows exactly what Bush is trying to pass.. go ahead and comment..)
Fireborn The Iraqi people are daily harrassed by soldiers searching their houses, in the bombings before the land invasion thousands of people where killed. (Let me just say no one was a terroist/ Guerilla at this point, Suddam had order over his people at this time) It was when The Us took over Guerilla groups began fighting the only way they could. Hey whats this new bill bush is getting passed? Our news doesnt report much interesting...
The soldiers might search their homes, but at least the soldiers don't come, take your son, and put him in a room that drips sulfuric acid... but there was order!
I like Bush's idea. I think that people should be able to withdraw money
from their SS for the purposes of a private account. However, it is true
Americans (a lot of them) can not handle their own money, I believe it
is better they get a chance, than all of our money go to other people.
I do not like the idea of my earned money going to help someone
else, when the plan was for it to help me...
Gothic, you're right you didn't say that it is worse than other countries
think. But, when they already think we are doing so horribly, and
they see a movie, making us look worse, and you tell them it is
even worse than that... It is wrong, cause we are fine. Also, it
appears over half the voting public like bush. He won both the
popular vote, and the election.
Then, Gothic, argue with me as you will. Republicans spend less
money. Maybe certain ones don't, but republicans do. That is
the difference between a republican and democrat. Democrats
are the ones who feel everyone needs help, and helps them.
And, yes, I know there are other differences...
As for the rest, I beleive FireBorn has said enough. (not meant
in an offensive way, just mean there is no reason for me to
repeat)
I noticed a big flaw in Gothics statement about the inaugural.. Actually all the money for that ENTIRE thing was donated. Im surprised you didnt know that, as they had a huge dinner for everyone who donated 200k or more for it. And trust me there were about 300+ people there... And this money paid for the inagural and the pre-innuagural events and the post events also.
That is a flat out lie! They interviewed D.C. citizens and even the mayor who was extremely pissed off. The money that went into his dinner may have been for donations for one cause or another but D.C. still paid the bill of $12,000,000. I sat there and watched the interview myself with their mayor.
I won't be commenting about the rest as I see no point in getting to yet another debate about the war with you.
Gothic, you're right you didn't say that it is worse than other countries think. But, when they already think we are doing so horribly, and they see a movie, making us look worse, and you tell them it is even worse than that... It is wrong, cause we are fine.
It is not wrong to state the true nature of things of our situation to somebody who is curious and willing to learn. I don't care what he or any other person already believes about the current U.S. situation. I will still tell it how it is. Lying to people outside our country to make us seem like the perfect society when we are not is wrong.
The DC mayor.. lol what a joke.. thats the same guy who not only backed Dean but when Dean lost the Primaries claimed that it was Kerry who he actually endorsed. However if he did say this then he was lying.. Jimmy Carter is the guy who started the tradition of collecting donations to pay for the inauguration parade/events.
It is not wrong to state the truth. BUT, when they think we
are doing so badly, and see a movie saying our president
sucks, you may want to explain to them. So, rather than
just say IT IS WORSE! tell them what it is like.
Shane:
My everyday life has not had any significant changes since
I was 5 years old. The world is still the same, money issues
have not become a problem. The only real changes in my
life are those that come with growing up. I had to get a job,
I am out of school, my parents divorced. Nothing I would
blame on any president.
The country may be in debt, but we are fine. The president
is obviously not so terrible either. More people voted for
him than against him.
The DC mayor.. lol what a joke.. thats the same guy who not only backed Dean but when Dean lost the Primaries claimed that it was Kerry who he actually endorsed. However if he did say this then he was lying.. Jimmy Carter is the guy who started the tradition of collecting donations to pay for the inauguration parade/events.
There were no donations for the $12,000,000 for Bush's security. There was only a bill which fell upon the city where the inauguration was being held. The D.C. citizens didn't stand up and say "oh please Mr. Great Wonderful President, take our money which could be better spent in our own security and instead use it on your very own." The $200,000 a plate dinner may very well have been for a donation for a different cause but it was not spent on Bush's security.
By the way...I don't know what youa re talking about but if I was a democrat and I endorsed Dean who then later fell out of the primaries naturally I would continue on endorsing the alternative Democratic candidates. I fail to see what the problem is in switching who you endorse when you former drops from the race completely.
No, Gothic is completely right. The 40m or whatever he spent on the parties was donated, the security that DC provided came from their pockets, not to mention put that entire city in danger. But who cares, they all vote for liberals, right?
Spectre, who told you that the Iraqi people were being tortured? The American governement of course, and why would they say that? They want to invade and need some public support. Now im not saying it didnt happen, it very well could have, but the point is there is no solid evidence. And what about that terroism chart, now i know my country and most others in the world get information from that terroist chart. Thats bullshit, like moore said they played games by putting the chart higher than what the threat actually was. Now a country has been invaded because of a belief that the people were suffering, if they hated their governement so much why do they spit on American soldiers... Their not stupid they know they have fallen victim to the American war machine, and now they are owned by the all mighty Corporation. Indonesia is Australia's biggest threat but they are also one of our closest friend. We gave 1 billion dollars to Indonesia to heal the Tsunami, they wont give it to victims they will spend it on armoury to crush rebels. 120 rebels where killed yesterday in Banda aceh for no reason. We fought Indonesian backed fighterswho were slaughtering east timorise, we saved their people and never once did we attack West timor. And now we are friends with Indonesia like nothing happened, Politics is a dirty game!
If George felt so strongly about helping the Iraqi people, you cant expect them to pay you back for it(with their oil), they didnt ask for help! And Suddam punishing his people was justified, they helped foreign invaders, thats TREASON! most Islamic Regimes do not tolerate crime, especially not treason. Suddam's people saw a chance to overthrow their Sunni leader (Installed by the Americans in the first place)... They had to be made examples off... Whether the punishment be death, its the way of Islam, in America what the punishment for treason? Life in prisonment? And yes i agree the only way to give a country their freedom is by Revolution. You cant invade a country and say "Heres your freedom, were just going to stay here and fight your enemies for you!"
There was a documentary on either Discovery Channel or History Channel about the way Saddam had people tortured. One such way was to put them in a room that dripped acid.
Currently installed 5 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.