By the way, Simon, two things. First – check your email.
Second – love what you’ve done with the blog. Great links!
Third – if you haven’t read Collunsbury’s latest diatribe on the WP series of reconstruction articles, tottle on over there and do so. They’re a blast!
Fourth – wasn’t this supposed to be a thread about Michael Moore?
Fifth – well, I never could count.
It’s a load of unedited mis-linked crap.
I’ll get them all pointed where they belong at some point.
I’ve really been neglecting the whole affair recently.
My life’ll settle down here in just a few weeks.
First, though, I’ll be completely offline for a week or so starting at the end of the month.
That’s so hinayana.
It’s mahayana for me, baby.
btw, The Light shines from the right-handed path.
Starving Artist
All your talk about people attacking you for being conservative reminded me that you mentioned somewhere that you agree with Milum a lot. I’ve seen a large sample of his posts and not only are they filled with inaccuracies, logical fallacies etc, they almost always insult the so-called liberals. If you are indeed attacked merely for being a conservative (a claim I take at face value) isn’t it hypocritical of you to not see the same thing happening from your side?
And, I agree with a poster who remarked that you do freely use the word “liberal” and berate the whole group repeatedly. That’s what Rush Limbaughs and the Hannitys in the media do. In fact, I distinctly recall a quote from Rush that you keep mentioning… something about “liberals” and “facts”. Can you see how this sort of blanket generalizations might hurt your message?
No, I’m not stalking you on this board ;)… just reporting whatever I’ve seen in your posts thus far. FTR, I identify myself as an “independent”.
Rush says that means you’re a liberal yet just too ashamed to admit it.
It looks like F9/11 will become the highest grossing documentary in its first weekend. This is just too damn funny.
Oh, and Mr. Moore has a big hearty thank you for all you folks who have generously helped out:
You guys are just too nice…
That’s not what he said. He said only one member of congress had a child serving in Iraq.
One thing I should probably make clearis that first of all when I speak of being attacked I’m not complaining, I’m merely stating a fact and illustrating the reason for my posting style which some seem to find too aggressive and hard-hitting. This is even more amusing since those doing the complaining about me are the same ones who dish out the most abuse to me, and almost invariably it is the case that their abuse is more harsh and liberally (sorry) used than mine. They appear to be a particularly thin-skinned lot.
Having said that, you may have noticed I’m relatively new to the board, and it’s probably because I’ve noticed the how easily and frequently the conservative label is applied that I’ve adopted a similar readiness to use the liberal label. I don’t necessarily mean it as an insult, though, and if it is perceived that way I’ll try to be more careful in my use of it.
Regarding **Milum **and his posting accuracy or lack thereof, I only became aware of him three or four days before he was banned and I haven’t seen any of his posts other than the ones in the one or two threads you’re probably familiar with.
Yes, I can. But I must point out that while I’d *like *to see a higher posting style amoung the posters here, I haven’t seen much of it so far with the exception of the people I mentioned above, and many of my postings are of a giving-as-good-as-I-get nature. I know the quote you mention, and I’ve been surprised that everyone has just let it lie. When I’ve used though, I’ve used it judiciously and to illustrate a point, mostly in regard to Michael Moore, and I’ve deliberately used phrasing in my posts in such a way as to try to make Rush’s comment illustrative without making it seem that I necessarily agree.
No problem. You are certainly welcome to say whatever you like to me and I’ll try to return it in kind. (Your independent status is duly noted:) )
Thank you for your post.
And Simon, I’m off for a night of fun and mirth. I’ll try to address your post to me later tonight or tomorrow.
No hurry.
I wuill be away from anything resembling the 'net for at least the first week of Iraqi sovereignty.
How amusing that the only civilized thread I’ve been involved in this week has been in the Pit!
“I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.”
The Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol
The neocons are a bunch of liberal bugfuckers who’ve scammed the pro-life vote.
IMHO.
ymmv.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I thought I read that Moore states Bush spent more time on vacation before 9/11 than any other president this century.
While we all understand that a presidential vacation isn’t the same as yours or mine, the point was that he was still on vacation more than anyone of the other presidents. More vacation – relatively – which was just made more damning given that 9/11 happened while he was in office.
Still, Moore understands the effect that the statement “he was on vacatiuon 42% of the time” will have on your average dolt.
(good posts, MHendo. Just what this thread needed.)
You know, I’m sick of this little line of arguement/discussion/whatever. It’s not like one’s children are little clones that do what the parent demands. My kids are free to grow up and do what they want to do. If they want to go serve in the military, all power to them, but I’m not going to force my kids into doing something they don’t want to do just for some political message.
Moore’s main point was not that children should be “little clones,” or do exactly what their parents want for a career. Nor, i believe, did he seriously expect any congressperson to take up his offer and try to sign up a son or daughter for the military. And he’s fully aware that no-one can be signed up without their own consent.
His point was simply that, of the 500+ members currently serving in Congress, only one has a child currently servinbg in Iraq, and that perhaps politicians would be a little less gung-ho about authorizing military action if it might put their own family in harm’s way.
It was also part of his examination of class and economic opportunity in America, in which he points out that the military is frequently an option (sometimes, it seems, the only option) for young people from poor communities who otherwise would have no chance to go to college, or perhaps even to have a decent job.
For what it’s worth, i basically agree with the rhetorical point he’s making. I think that there are plenty of Americans–congresscritters included–who might be less supportive of the war if their own family was in the firing line.
At the same time, however, i think that the point is a little too simplistic. For better or worse (mostly worse), we elect politicians to make certain decisions on our behalf. We know that we do this when we walk into the voting booth, and we also accept that the politicians may have to make decisions that are controversial and affect people in detrimental ways.
[quote]
For better or worse (mostly worse), we elect politicians to make certain decisions on our behalf. We know that we do this when we walk into the voting booth, and we also accept that the politicians may have to make decisions that are controversial and affect people in detrimental ways.[/uqote]
Sure, and I think Moore’s unspoken point is, “Let’s make sure our politicians can remember what the price is for each of us, individually, when these decisions are made.” He raked Clinton over his support of NAFTA for similar reasons, IIRC.
excerpted from the Gwen Ifill’s piece cited by Liberal
Like what? I saw the film on Friday and didn’t see one thing that stands out as a lie big enough to render the whole movie as “inaccurate”.
Moore did a fantastic job of showing just how bad of an idea it was to put an oil tycoon in office. The movie is not saying that Bush conspired with the Saudis to cause a terrorist attack. But it does get the viewer to ask a very important question–one that should have been asked waaaay before November 1999, let alone post 9-11. That question deals with conflict of interest. How in the hell can we trust the President to assess situations fair and honestly, without regard to personal gain, when he and his family have sat and continue to sit rather comfortably in the Saudis’ ass cracks? If you look at everything from the censored information in his military records to his counter-intuitive actions post 9/11, everything comes back to Saudi Arabia and his connections to SA.
I’m sorry (no I’m not) but Bush can not be trusted to run this country with the best interests of the citizenry in mind, not when billions of dollars are being funneled into his pockets by, for all intents and purposes, another country’s government. We can not just take it on faith that his business priorities won’t spill over into his oligations as POTUS. Shit, at the USDA it is agency policy that meat inspectors are not allowed to have romantic relationships with employees of the plant at which they inspect, because of a little thing called conflict of interest. Funny how we will fire a GS-5 for getting cozy with someone but we give the prez a pass on this, when much more than the bacterial content of a hamburger patty is at stake and when much more lovin’ is going on.
It doesn’t take a leftist conspiracy propagandist to understand it. Connect the dots and a picture will emerge that is clear enough that no squinting is necessary. I highly recommend F9/11 to everyone, even if you can hate Moore with the fire of five suns. If you find truth in a least half of the material, you won’t want to vote for Bush. At least if you have conscience.
BTW, I loved the last bit. “Shame me once…” The expression on his face!!
I think you’re right that that is how he was thinking, but it’s just a bizarre thing to think. Quite many Congressmen themselves have served in the military during times of war. And the fact that there was a counter-example shot down his theory. Incidentally, did he chase down Senator Clinton to get Chelsea to join up? Clinton was a firm believer that Saddam posed a threat to the United States.
And that’s even more bizarre, considering the fact that he bills himself as “working class” (per interview on 60 Minutes). He clearly did have options, as he was never in the military and he is now a millionaire. His representation of the armed forces as some sort of Vietnam era social garbage dump is yet another of his lies. There are many high-quality employment opportunities with the military, including non-combattant roles. (See the Board of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm.) Plus, as a former employer, I almost always prefered people with military backgrounds, as they were far more mature, focused, and disciplined than their slacker counterparts who partied their way through school.
I’m sure you do not realize just whom you are criticizing. Ms. Ifill is a PBS icon. She is among they who provide you your talking points.
Thanks, Lib. I forgot for a minute that we’re supposed to respond to statements with either criticism or credulity, determinate entirely on their source, without pretense to objectivity.