More Moore Lies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19320-2004Jun30?language=printer

.
Richard Cohen, a very liberal joutnalist who writes for the even more liberal Washington Post, says the following about Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" .

"....defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie."

"...the myth (that) the presidency was stolen from Al Gore."

"...not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that."

"For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush."

"......too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done."

"Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed."

"But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein."

"....prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission."

"It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope."

"I fear how it will play to the undecided."

For the whole article:

Another interesting article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/Bozell.asp

Thanks for you comments, Skipper. And welcome aboard TechRepublic.

by nd_it Jul 2, 2004

Let's not forget that Congress (both democrats and republican alike) voted for Bush to use force. I have seen a few liberals embrace MM in the simple fact of using hate speech against Bush. Same way some extreme right wing Republicans went after Clinton during the impeachment hearings. But for the most part I think liberals are keeping their distance from Micheal Moore, which is a good thing. Some of them would look pretty hypocritical if they support MM, but also supported Bush in his decision to go to war in Iraq.

by oz_media Jul 4, 2004

Well I thought that GWB was supposed to be the person America chose to be president. Wouldn't that in itself show that the Right wing speaks much louder than the left?

I know the left wing in America is an extreme left and it even pisses me off wuite often as they simply degrade thier opinions to the point that NOTHING is heard anymroe and it is simply chalked up as lefty ranting. I also see the exact same thing from the righ wing. An inability to accept any question raised by the left wing as they are known to over exaggerate the issues.

If the left understood the right and the right actually listened to the left, there may be a lot more MIDDLE ground found in America.

UNfortunately staunch left and staunch right wing supporters willalways simply deny the other of any truth and many things that should be addressed or question will go unseen through clouded glasses.

by skipperusn Jul 4, 2004

Let see - From the posts you have - you are from somewhere way far north in a little are call BC. So what do you know about american politics or the american political system.

From what I gather you get all your information about american politics and other stuff from watching TV (American Channels) - now that in and of itself speaks of your knowledge ... or lack there of.

Now I see why so many poster just ignore your rants about GWB - America and its Political system. It is so nice that you live in the great north of BC - maybe that cold weather has effected your brain - and killed part of it ...

.
For example. As you know, I consider myself to the right (but not extreme). And I also consider the money I earn to be mine. However, many (if not most) on the left, also consider the money I earn to be theirs.

Is my money mine, or is my money theirs? No, there is no middle ground in such cases.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
- Hillary Clinton (extreme left wing Socialist-Democrat.)

I don't trust Hillary Clinton, or any other left leaning collectivist thinker, to decide what the "common good" is. I'll decide for myself, thank you, as I think everyone should.

No, there is no middle ground.

by pgm554 Jul 2, 2004

You actually expect objectivity out of Hollywood?

Over the years the movie industry has made a point to let us know about what they perceive as injustice.

So every year there will be movies about racism, the Holocaust, women?s rights, gay rights(etc).
What ever the PC cause du jour is.

Taking words out of context has been a technique used by both sides(liberal and conservative),so why should Moore be any different.

It's a bit like listening to NPR and actually expecting objective middle of the road reporting.

It ain't gonna' happen.

.
I've actually been told, by apparently very intelligent people, by the way, that they believe NPR, on balance, is non-partisan and/or middle-of-the-road in its reporting and presentation.

Yea, right. And pigs can fly, too.

by pgm554 Jul 2, 2004

Yes, I fall into this demographic, but the stories that NPR covers (their Raison D'?tre), are ?hot button? causes that do not affect their demographic.

Do I own a gun? No.
Do I need an abortion? No.
Am I gay? No.
Am I an ethnic minority? No.
Am I a racial minority? No.
Does any of this affect me personally?No.

So why is it, that given that I am their typical listener, that I am constantly reminded by these clowns what an oppressive a**hole I am.

It appears to me that the folks running NPR have never had to struggle to get to where they are.

They paint with a broad brush and go out of their way to enforce their PC view of the world.

Terms of African American, Native American, and Asian American are so non-descriptive of physical and cultural anthropology, it makes you wonder if these clowns majored in guilt by association while in school.

May be they should have read Victor Barnouw, instead of using the Cliff notes.

Adults age 45 to 54 make up the largest subgroup of total listeners.
?Over half of NPR listeners attended college
?NPR listeners are affluent. More than 40% have incomes over $75,000.
?59% of NPR listeners live in homes valued over $100,000.
?Nearly 60% of NPR listeners report work as a career and not a job
.?NPR listeners are intellectually curious and enjoy learning about the world around them.?89% of NPR listeners enjoy leisure activities. From sports to gardening to theater performances, they participate at higher levels
.?72% of listeners traveled in the last year. 40% traveled abroad.
?NPR listeners rent videos. They are more likely to rent classics and foreign films.
?The NPR audience is 10% more likely to own a pet than the general public.
?Over 68% have been to the movies in the last six months.
?NPR listeners turn to the radio more than the average population.
?NPR listeners have an appreciation for the written word. Over 68% bought a book in the last year.
?74% own a home computer.
?NPR listeners buy more clothes than the average American. They are more likely to purchase business attire.
?52% are responsible for new vehicle purchase decisions.
?NPR audience orders flowers by phone more than the general public.
?NPR listeners are above average consumers of gourmet food items.
?NPR listeners pay attention to personal finances.
?59% hold some form of life insurance.

Source: Mediamark Research: Profile 2002October ?03

by skipperusn Jul 2, 2004

Over the last say 40 years Hollywood has been very anti-american. They have forgotten that their role in life is to "Entertain" - They are in the "Entertainmenet" Business... Not the Morality checker - not to preach to us about Right and Wrong as they see it...

I don't know about anyone else but I think its kind of stupid to beat the horse that is making you all those millions...

Granted there maybe things wrong with American - no government will please 100% of the people 100% of the time, nor will any government do everything correctly 100% of the time. But it is still the best place in the world if you want to "Be all You Can Be" - or make as much money as possible - or do whatever you want to do - from starting your own business to driving a cab - your choice - you go as far as you want.

At times you look at the media - and you wonder if they are worth my blood - then you remember - they are americans and are free to think and act any way they feel... and they are just like those that think the same as you. Its difficult - to want to protect those that disagree with your beliefs, values and morals - and slam the government and leaders of their country..

But that is exactly what is so great about America... The ability to disagree - to protest - to complain. Now - I don't like MM or his movies - I don't respect MM - but he has the right to shovel his lies to whomever is dumb enough to not research for the truth. And in the same breath, I have the right to not spend my money on his movie or those that support it..

I vote with my Dollars - same with the movies made by Hollywood - if you don't like it don't go - don't buy the DVD/Video - when those movies lose money, Hollywood will not make them. Remember - "Money talks and BS walks..."

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=5556125

.
Look at this story:

Filmmakers Want U.S. to Protect Their Jobs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. cinematographers and other film industry workers have asked the Bush administration to take action against Canadian, Australian and other government filmmaking subsidies that they say have lured away tens of thousands of jobs.......

The whole story:

That is just too much. Attack him on one hand, then ask for his help on the other.

by tomsal Jul 2, 2004

..and so are the idiots who line up to pay for his books and for tickets to his movies.

Nuff said.

by thechas Jul 2, 2004

Objectivity as well as bias is based on one's own views.

As far as US based mass media sources, NPR does indeed have the most even handed NEWS coverage.

Even I agree that the majority of editorial viewpoints on NPR have a decided bias to the left.

With the exception of a few items (abortion in particular) the reporting is fairly even by my judgment.

I consider myself to be a right leaning centrist.

I suspect that Max would place me a bit farther to the left.

There really is no mass market centrist media in the US.

The major commercial networks are all racing to the bottom looking to sensationalize the news.

Commercial talk radio is a heavily biased joke.

I have limited exposure to cable news.

CNN is not above the sensationalism of the commercial news outlets.

The week we had Fox news in place of CNN headline news turned many of our stomachs at work.
We had never experienced such biased reporting with leading questions that were telegraphed from 100 miles away!

The ONLY place I trust for factual reporting of the news is NPR.

Chas

by pgm554 Jul 2, 2004

I find it not so much how NPR covers stories factually,but what they cover with an underlying emphasis on PC.

They will cover in depth, supreme court rulings, on cases that they deem as important.And those not dealing with abortion,civil rights,free speech
and such ,are not given much airtime.

Negative rulings to any of the above are talked about ad nausem.

I studied constitutional law back in college,and to be constantly reminded of Brown vs Board of Education on it's annversary, is a political bias.

If they want to be constructive give me coverage of the educational systems in general.

If there is a negative remark by say Bill Cosby ,that is disparaging to a cause that they deem is sacred,it is not covered.

Stuff like this:

www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14441,00.html

NPR is full of sacred cow causes and any negativity is seldom reported.

As for my stance politically,I am a bit of a Berkeley radical and midwest small town boy(strange mix). Give me less government and their social engineering agenda.

To make my point again ,it is what they cover,not how they cover.

by thechas Jul 2, 2004

Max,

It's like I've said numerous times, in the US media market, sensationalism sells.

With the US public, it is not the content but the packaging that sells.

Hollywood supports a liberal point of view because they need to keep speech from being restricted in any manner.

With each succeeding generation, it takes a lower level of speech to shock and titillate.

Further, people of our age group have been "off the radar" as far as Hollywood marketing is concerned for years.
Our dollars and views do not matter since we don't go out and watch a movie in a theater 3 or more times per week.

Hollywood's main market is 15 to 25 year olds.
If a film draws in a few older people it's extra profit.
If a film won't draw in the 15 to 25 year olds, it's a dud before it is even released.

I had a startling realization the other day.
The US is no longer a "true" "free market economy".
Our choices of goods and services are no longer based on what we want and buy.
Our choices are based on what the focus groups choose from what the corporations offer to them.

Take a look at clothing and food items.
The manufactures regularly remove old brands and models from the shelves. Not because they did not sell, but because they took away from the sales volume of the new higher margin products.
In the case of a merger, it is usually the prominent partners brand that stays. Even if the other product was more popular.

My point, Hollywood is only going to offer films and shows that they believe will make a large profit. Even if they have to force it down our throats with major advertising campaigns.

Chas

by garion11 Jul 2, 2004

"My point, Hollywood is only going to offer films and shows that they believe will make a large profit. Even if they have to force it down our throats with major advertising campaigns."

First of all you still have the power to NOT go to these movies. I mean, they can't come and force us to go see their movies.

Second, I think Hollywood will get more conservative as the demographics shift in the US. By what 2010-2015 the baby boomer generation is retiring...and older people tend to be more conservative. There will more OLDER people than younger people in US. So it would be interesting to see what kind of movies come out.

by thechas Jul 2, 2004

Your neglecting 2 points:

Older people are not a major market for the movie industry.
The issue is NOT that Hollywood does not make movies they want to see, it's that they do not go out and spend money on movies period.

When Hollywood does produce a movie with broad appeal, it's not the wide audience that makes it a big money maker. It's the teens who pay to see the same movie 3 and 4 times that create the big profits.

Hollywood's major profit model is based on a low budget, 'R' rated, gutter humor, teen targeted movies.

Scenes are added to otherwise "decent" movies specifically to get an 'R' rating.

I expect that Hollywood will continue a drive to the bottom.
Rather than change their marketing model to attempt to attract older viewers, movies will continue on the trend of shorter release times and lower cost.
It will become common for movies to be in theaters for only 1 week.

And no, they don't force me to go to a movie.
However, if they decide they want to push a movie that may not draw a large enough audience, they run a major advertising blitz to build that opening weekend audience.

Again, that core "teen" audience responds to major advertising hype and turns out to watch a movie. Then, after that, people who otherwise might not choose to watch a particular movie will choose a top 3 movie over a "better' but lesser watched movie.

Chas

by hal 9000 Jul 3, 2004

What your forgetting is the most valuable real estate in any country is move theater seats after all you pay your $ for at best a couple of hours so called entertainment with paid for product placements in the vain hope of seeing something that might entertain you for a short time.

Well us "Oldies" are beyond that and aren't all that interested in how any film goes unless of course we have shares in the company who made it and I'm willing to bet that the majority of us "Oldies" would prefer to wait for it to come out on DVD or Video and watch it at our leisure in a comfortable place like our living room where we already have what we want in surround sound entertainment systems.

So if anything there will be greater pressures on the young people to attend these silly time wasters with far more aggressive advertising pushing these films and so much the better if a movie company can create controversy about an upcoming release as it is all free advertising for them that they could never hope to get if they where paying for it.

[Second, I think Hollywood will get more conservative as the demographics shift in the US. By what 2010-2015 the baby boomer generation is retiring...and older people tend to be more conservative. There will more OLDER people than younger people in US. So it would be interesting to see what kind of movies come out.]

I honestly do not know which planet you live on but on this one we "Old Farts" are just not important enough to warrant any kind of thought from this type of company. Just have a look at the music industry and you'll see exactly what I mean with a whole bunch of "Manufactured Bands/Groups/People" being sold as the latest greatest talent that was ever to arise and the stuff that we like is shelved on the back on the discount racks "Thank You Very Much" as it saves me money to buy the music that I really like instead of the manufactured junk that could never be reproduced onstage in any "Live Performance."

Incidental most of us are already exerting our power in not attending these movies but they are still being mass produced regardless. Have a think on that for a while before you start making predictions that are just a waste of space.

Col

by entright Jul 2, 2004

I guess it is OK for the ones you agree with to "lie", but not for the ones you don't agree with... Lies can be found for anyone... it's just easier to focus on the lies of the ones you don't like than the ones you do. Its pathetic really...

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://www.bushlies.com/topten.php

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031013&s=corn

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

by pctech Jul 2, 2004

I agree with what you are saying, EntRight. American politics pretty much boils down to which lying politician do you want to side with. Not that it should matter to anyone here, but I am an Independant that takes Carl Sagan's approach towards what is offered as "evidence". Scrutinize everything and have no preconceived ideas as to how something will test out to be. I have no " blind faith " ideologies towards politics or politicians.
I just saw the MM movie and really was not swayed one one or the other. I already knew that Bush is an idiot and did not need MM to point this out to me. By the same token, MM did not offer any tested proof to his statements than did Bush about our reasons to attack Iraq. MM used a lot of hearsay and personal opinions in his movie, much as Bush did on reasons to attack Iraq.
I do have some suggested good reading for the members here. I suggest Carl Sagan's book, " The Demon-Haunted World ". I think it should be required reading for all juniorhigh school students. A word of warning. Those that wish to cling to false beliefs will not like this book but, they will have to admire Carl's honesty in his words. I think we all should take a scientific approach towards politics and life in general.

.
....that Michael Moore is a liar.

Thank you for your support.

by pctech Jul 3, 2004

..... that anything concerning politics will most likely be laced with lies.
I did not say that MM is a liar, or anyone else for that matter. I did say that I have long known ( I live in Texas ) that Bush is an idiot. That is not calling him a liar, ..... just an idiot. What I said is we need to take a scientific approach towards information given us at face value. Scrutinize the details and see if it tests out. That applies to MM, Bush, or anyone that give political statements. Just as with computers, a little research will usually set you on the right path towards the truth of the problem.

by oz_media Jul 4, 2004

I agree wholly that MM fabricates and elaborates to make his point. His POINT however is quite valid in many ways.

I don't think EVERYTHING he shows ia complete fabrication, nor is it all truth, we need to take it all as just another side of the story to weigh against the Right and centered views. No single view can be seen as credible or accurate, including GWB's, to whom I give as much or as little credit as I do MM.

What I see is many people that see MM movies will agree that he does bend and stretch the truth and they are able to view his movies with some form of scrutiny and simply look for the underlying message. With staunch Republicans or GWB followers, I cannot say the same. It seems people on the Right of the fence will see only the right as correct and will hardly ever question the information put forth.

The same objectivity for both Right and Left needs to be in all voters minds in order to make an educated and somewhat accurate opinion based on both viepoints.

I see neither Right or Left as telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, therefore I cannot accept those that are so hardened to one party that they refuse to question it's motives even when concerns are raised.

by entright Jul 4, 2004

If I am agreeing with you, it means you must obviously be agreeing with me.... that George Bush is a liar too...

glad we are in agreement

by thechas Jul 5, 2004

EntRight,

If I read your posts correctly, you trust neither Michael Moore, or George W. Bush.

Same here.

Both have hidden agendas that they are following.

Over several years of posting in these forums, I have a lot of respect for, and trust in Maxwell Edison. Max is perhaps the most honest peer here, and is very firm and consistent in his beliefs.

There is one specific area where Max and I agree to disagree.
Max trusts George W. Bush, and believes that history will show him to be one of the 10 best Presidents.
I on the other hand do not trust anything that George W. Bush says, and believe that history will judge him as one of the 10 worst Presidents.

Why am I sharing this with you?

Max is an excellent researcher.
Given time and desire, he can find evidence to refute the claims against George W. Bush from the web sites you posted.

There is no sense in trying to play logic games with my friend Max.
He will find any holes in your arguments and shoot them down.

I have to admit that I enjoy watching Max shoot down even my own failed attempts at a logical argument.

So, hold your views, but back them up with solid facts.

Chas

.
And I must also say, that the "debates" and differences that I've had with you have always been most civil and enlightening.

Yes, I do trust GWB, as I think he's an honest and honorable man. However, even though you are correct in reminding us that I believe history will be kind to him, and I did indeed say what you said I did, I do believe that much - if not all - of his future legacy rests in the middle-east. If his attempts at planting the seeds of liberty in Iraq are successful, I will be right. If they end up being a dismal failure, I will be wrong.

Thank you, my friend.

.
Most of my political views, as you probably realize, have a basis in domestic issues. When it comes to foreign policy, I tend to place a fair amount of trust in the current administration, regardless of the policy issue or the person or party in power. I will suggest, however, that the "trust" could be violated, and the scars of the Vietnam era make that very clear. (I, like many of my generation, still have those scars) President Johnson violated the "trust" that the American people placed in him - and it's probably the reason he decided not to seek reelection in 1968.

I was never critical of President Clinton, for example, when it came to his policies and actions in eastern Europe, even though the U.S. still has troops there - even after President Clinton stated that they'd be in and out in a year's time. I believe that much of our foreign policy is already a big machine set in motion, and the "non-elected" government behind the scenes has a lot to do with it. I've even suggested that I believe a "President Gore" would have also forced a regime change in Iraq, as those "wheels" were set in motion by the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which, by the way, passed unanimously in the Senate, receiving only a handful of dissenting votes in the House, and was signed by President Clinton. (People need to see past the political rhetoric and consider ALL the facts.)

There's no way we unequivocally know for certain what goes on behind the walls of foreign embassies, and we don't have access to intelligence information that guides our foreign policy. And as long as American sovereignty is protected, and as long as American interests are placed before the interests of other nations, I'll tent to trust. But once we "cave in" to tyrants OR the United Nations, once we put American interests in a subordinate position, all bets are off, and my "trust" has been violated.

Some foreign policy debacles:

Vietnam - I blame President Kennedy, who sent the first combat troops, and especially President Johnson, who escalated the war into what it became. (Truman and Eisenhower were the first to send "advisors", but no combat troops to speak of.)

Iran - The 1980 Time Magazine cover "Debacle in the Desert" says it all. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers President Carter's dismal failure in this regard.

Lebanon - President Reagan should have reacted differently to the bombing of the Marine barracks that killed several hundred US Marines. He did, however, keep Libya a little scared, and Reagan's primary focus was on destroying communism once and for all in eastern Europe, not on world-wide terrorism. But I still consider this a failure.

Somalia - This was perhaps the watershed event that gave the message to Osama bin Laden that America was a "paper tiger". President Clinton's "cut and run" strategy, after American Army Rangers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, was one of the biggest embarrassments in recent history. Some might even suggest that this was the event that convinced Osama bin Laden that we would stick our heads in the sand - AGAIN - if he struck the twin towers. (After we are all dead and gone, President Clinton, I am certain, will be judged as one of the 10 worst, for this - and other - reasons.)

Iraq today??????? Time will tell, and it will place President Bush in either the top ten, as I suggested, or the bottom ten, as Chas suggested. However, Iraq is only one piece of a bigger war on world-wide terrorism. After being ignored all too long by all too many administrations (of both parties), and ignored by the United Nations, it's about time, in my opinion, that someone is FINALLY willing to stand up and take them on. The fanatic lunatics of the middle-east, the ones who want to see the proliferation of world-wide terrorism and/or the total destruction of Israel, are a force that MUST be dealt with. And history has shown that negotiating with them is an effort in futility. They must be defeated, pure and simple. But it's too soon to judge this as either a success or a failure. Ask me in ten or twenty years.

But people like Michael Moore WANT to see failure in Iraq. They DON'T WANT democracy to take hold in the middle-east. Michael Moore was against sending troops into Afghanistan. If people like Michael Moore had their way, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan pandering to Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, and America's head would still be stuck firmly into the sand "hoping" another 9-11 won't happen. I just can't comprehend such thoughts.

.
.....no desire. And it's not worth the time.

by pctech Jul 2, 2004

Well, Chas, you are right on the mark again. Your observation skills go beyond just PCs. They just don't make many family movies anymore. "Spartacus", "The Great Escape", "Gone With the Wind", and "Scary Movie" are classics that any age could appreciate. OK, "Scary Movie" is a joke but, the others are not.
I did just see the MM movie and the audience was nearly entirely over 30, most were over 40. It was competing with "Spiderman2" and this may have had something to do with it. These days it is hard to tell.

by thechas Jul 3, 2004

You have 2 different sets of people in Hollywood.

The businessmen and financiers who run and fund the workings of the movie business.

Then you have the "creative" people. The directors and actors.

It may just be a personal perception, but it appears to me that the "artists" in our society have a much greater tendency to be liberals. Often far to the left of society in general.

While businessmen generally tend to be more conservative.

So you have the businessmen and local politicians working with the administration to promote American jobs.
While the artists rally against the status quo.

Chas

by garion11 Jul 3, 2004

What? My statement was a prediction/guesstimation of the path that Hollywood/Entertainment industry might take after the Baby boomer generation retires.

The manufactured boy/girl bands is aiming for the younger crowd which of course I never disputed. They will always be there. Its just that they will find their audience not as abundant as they used to be, so as a good capitalist, they will learn to gear their product toward a more populus demographic (the older generation/semi-retired/retired). And in order for them to appeal to this particular crowd, they will market a much more conservative entertainment (because IMO older people tend to be more conservative), so then we come to my final point, which is, it will be interesting to see what kind of entertainment comes out.

Do I have to repeat?? or you get it?

by hal 9000 Jul 4, 2004

You should read the whole posting.

The Movie Mongrels will never be dedicated to no matter what they will make whatever they like and to hell with everyone else. They hold the purse strings and a long time ago all the good movies stopped being made like "Gone With The Wind" we'll never see their like again and so it should be as all things change and not necessarily for the better but change is inevitable.

I was only using the music industry as an illustration as they have already gone through this change without and real difference other than the now total lack of talent and lots of glam that is used to suck in the young crowd who will always have the money to waste rather that us "Oldies" who know better and are not as fooled by the advertising companies who insist that we just "Must Have" this item or see this movie or whatever it is that they are currently pushing.

Anyway all the free "Advertising" that that silly movie is making is only showing my point that Sensationalism Sells and there is a very old Media Maxim thats goes something like "Never Let the truth Get In The Road of a Goos Story" like that silly letter that was circulated by a supposed National Guardsman from Iraq who was extolling the virtues of the Invasion and just how much better off Iraq actually was. While the person did exist he certainly did not write the letter and even a cursory check with the current administrations Web Site would have shown just how inaccurate the letter was but it did make good reading and never mind the fact that things like females now being educated was nothing more that a fabrication by someone who thought that Iraq was Afghanistan as they are both predominately Muslim countries so they just must be the same. Unfortunately if anyone had taken the time to actually have a look see instead of just jumping on the "Band Wagon" shouting just look what good we have done they would have discovered that in Iraq females had to attend school and where involved in most daily life unlike Afghanistan who was run by Fundilmensists and as it looks like now so will Iraq. The only good thing that could be said about Saddam Hussein was he did control these fools which is a lot more than can be said now.

Col

by oz_media Jul 4, 2004

I actually live in the southernmost part of British Columbia, we didn't have ANY snow last winter and it has been hot as hell since early spring (March/April). Sounds like someone's been watching too much TV.

I actually conduct a LOT of business in the US, probably 40% of my CD sales are in the US, I have run branches of my business in the USA. It is (was) a mere 15 minute drive to the border from my last house, I spent MUCH of my time in the US, have toured the US with my bands, have been on sales and promotional ventures in the US since the late 80's. So I am actually quite in touch with the USA, more so apparently than you are of Canada.

The other thing that has opened my eyes and I shown me first hand knowledge of how the world views you is the fact that I have been in many countries that ALL see America through the same eyes and the people have the same thoughts about the people and habits of Americans. I study psychology and human nature so I have an excellent idea of exactly what makes Americans different than the rest of the world.

As for my knowledge of American politics, how can you think for even one second that YOU have ANY more knowledge of your president than anyone else on the globe does? You make your business into the world's business therefore ANYONE outside America is 100% entitled to an opinion and as your constitution outlines is completely free to say so. If your country had it own political interests that were kept inside your country, like Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, Swededen, Australia et al., then nobody would give a toss who you picked to drag America through the mud.

When you FORCE your business upon others and plaster their lives with YOUR political issues, then everyone is involbed, not just America.

So before you start thinking people are sticking their nose in your business, look from the outside in and see our country through new eyes.

I haven't met a soul in any country that would not say that Americans ONLY look inward, from Amercan eyes looking at America. Try thinking about how others see you.

You think it doesn't matter?

Then shut the hell up when they pass judgement.

.
Oz knows everything. He's an expert on everything. He's done everything there is to do. He knows more about everything than everybody. He's the smartest person alive, and he's never wrong. And all by the time he turned 35.

Amazing, isn't it?

Is that after such a relaxing time out, you have come back to this forum with you usual bitter inacceptance of any opinion that differs from your own.

Several members had mentioned how much more fun ut was to actualy have discussions/debates without your input being negative toward everyone who didn't wholly agree with you. Well I see you're back and up to your old tricks as usual.

First you defame whoever posts that doesn't wholly agree with your statements. Then you immediately grab anyone who does agree with you and pulll them into your corner by slagging the opponent in a very childish third party fashion.

You have proven your inability to accept a difference of opinion and this is justified (by yourself anyway) by saying the other person is always right. Would you be able to show me where in this thread I have claimed to always be right? Or does it just bother you that I don't think YOU are always right?

Step up to the plate and be a real man for a change. Your comments are redundant and old to say the leat, we all know that you cannot accept a difference in opinion, thus making YOU the one who simply must always be right (or considered right) or you thorw a toddlers tantrum.

Get over it and grow up.

There are millions of Americans that share my views of America,I actually receive what you could consider 'fan mail' from TR peers who have stopped participating LONG befoe rI turned up because you must always put down your opponent in order to make your own point. One such message I got about a week ago stated that the person thought it was futile as long as people such as yourself were here (yes you were specifically mentioned). Is there a reason that anyone who sticks to his convictions and stands behind their point is considered 'always right' in a sarcastic way if they aren't agreeing with you? Would that not then make YOU the person who must ALWAYS BE RIGHT? Here's a thought, what the hell makes YOUR opinion so right? You've been proven wrong more than once here, it's not a pissing contest, it's a discussion. If you can't hold a conversation without everyone agreeing with you(and those that don't are considered domineering a-holes) why even bother? Must you always be right or you get into a hissy fit? Is Maxwell just here to preach to the masses that he is a Republican American and every other party is wrong because HE is Repubican and therefore he is correct because he couldn't possibly be wrong in his choices?

Why don't you take your little bitching elsewhere and leave this discussion to those that are able to debate and hash out these matters without personal predjudices being a part of it?

Give the world a break, have a nap, a perpetual nap if you just can't take it. You wonder why I would consider you a conformist? You have only EVER seen one side to the political debates here. I have agreed with points from both sides, I like to open up the channels and get the information flowing, the disagreements aired, have both sides speak their peace. If it turns into a political debate then so be it, that's why we have a democracy, so people with differing opinions can speak them freely. If it was your way, strap on the boots and goosestep into the dictatorship you always dream of.

Get a life, then get a brain, you're a VERY tiring and grumpy old man when his opinion is contested. Too much time dictating to small children who are afraid to share their thoughts around you?

.
Is that when you first made an appearance on these threads, you admittedly didn't know anything about politics, you couldn't explain the difference between left and right or Democrats and Republicans or liberal and conservative, you admitted to not reading newspapers, you admitted to not being interested in government, and so on. However, in one short year - mostly in debating issues with me - you now come across as being an expert on such things. That's really quite amazing for a person who also does all the other "worldly" things you do.

Quite frankly, you're about the most intolerant and judgmental individual I've ever come across.

But I guess you're right. I guess this "grumpy old man" (old at 50???????) doesn't have a clue. (By the way, is everyone "old" at 50, or only me?)

.
Oz knows everything. He's an expert on everything. He's done everything there is to do. He knows more about everything than everybody. He's the smartest person alive, and he's never wrong. And all by the time he turned 35.

Amazing, isn't it?

.
However, I said that MM was a liar. I never did say that GWB was. You said they both were. So it is possible for you to agree with everything I said, while I only agree with some of what you said, as is the case here.

But it was a funny reply.

.
Senator Clinton's use of the term "common good" was very telling - and very disturbing - as it evoked the language of Karl Marx. Both Clinton and Marx - and John Kerry - envision a society that distributes wealth "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (another Marxism).

There is NO middle ground with such collectivist thinking.

by garion11 Jul 4, 2004

The wizard of OZ is a few fries short of a happy meal, he is NOT, I REPEAT NOT playing with a full deck. Since my last report, he has reached rock bottom and has started to dig, he's a few Cokes short of a six-pack, He's a little too tall for his blood supply, He's all foam, no beer, Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GIT THE PICTURE!!!???

Guess WHAT?? BUSH MADE ME SAY ALL THAT!!! AIN'T I SHMART??

If you can prove it.

You made a lot of accusations without anything to support them.

Garion is an old woman with too many kids biting at her ankles to make a sane decision. Garion is a complete nutter that belongs in a nut house.

What the hell kind of comments are those?!?!?
The are invalid, unproven and just don't hold any water, yet alone make any sense. Just as you did in your post above.

It doesn't take much of a brain for people to see first hand that the people who are on Maxwell's bandwagon (such as yourself) are Republicans who simply cannot accept an alternate opinion.

I RARELY see such comment from other members here, just MAX and his minions. Kinda like the Mickey Mouse club, except more immature.

Oz Media, you are a wise man indeed! There are issues that I take a very conservative stance on and vote accordingly. What amazes me is that is not good enough for those with more conservatives values than I and thus I am a liberal in their eyes. The far right will view anyone with less conservative values as either "liberal leaning" or a liberal. To this I can only tell them one thing. It must truly be lonely for the most conservative person for, surely, everyone else must appear to be a liberal in their eyes. Even with this as part of my knowledge base, I know there are some very good ideas coming from both the far right and the far left. Their failing, in my beleif, is their radical approaches to an ideology tends to lead them towards radical implimentations towards their desired goals. "Hey! If it has some flaws, just kill it!", seems to be their approach instead of correcting the flaws. It is not the moderates that will wreak havoc on this nation, it is the extremists that wish to start a new government based solely on their own values. I am an independant and this is how I prefer to be. Being an independant REQUIRES that I give thought and research to the issues presented me. Being partisan requires no thought process from the individual other than which side they prefer and then just follow whatever the party says is good for you. ............. Not my style. God gave me a brain and I will use it to make my own decissions.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The question that I ask is, At what point does it become FAR RIGHT or FAR LEFT? lol.

How do you fight a FAR RIGHT OR FAR LEFT? Meaning, lets take the terrorists for example and since they are Fundamentalists (and have exposed themselves to be) and Fundamentalism is a FAR RIGHT ...eh..lets call it ideology, How does US fight them? Do you fight a FAR RIGHT with a FAR LEFT? (which can work) or do you fight a FAR RIGHT with a FAR RIGHT of your own (aka fire with fire)??

Then I come to the further point of the political/ideological spectrum. IMO this is what the political spectrum is please add to it...and when you comment don't just concentrate on this, answer the questions above. Based on the following list, I define what a FAR LEFT OR RIGHT IS. Again Please feel free to add. Here are a few links for self analysis.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

LEFT WING
1) Communism
2) Nazism
3) Socialism
4) Democrats

A) Democracy }moderation
B) Republic }moderation

RIGHT WING
5) Republicans
6) Fundamentalism
7) Facism
8) Anarchy

Obviously there are other things I didn't list to keep it short and simple, such as is Depostism, Monarchy, Dictatorship, that falls pretty much on both sides, like Hitler was a Dictator but he allowed private ownership (Volkswagon is an excellent example) although only to a select few. Stalin didn't or he would say that everything belonged to the State.

I see you sides are well separated to show what you support and what you don't.

Was Hitler not an Anarchist or a Fascist?

You must understand that what YOU consider LEFT other countries deem as centered or even right wing. What you see as centered others may see as Right wing or even Left wing.

America's description of left and right is going to differ from other countries. I am often said to be left wing, yet I do not support most aspects of socialism, Nazism, and communism.

Others see what YOU consider to be Left Wing as actually being Right wing also.

Again, you see America through American eyes, you simply need to step outside your country and look inward from a different perspective in order to see a different side of America.

Many people that are more worldly, journalists, actors and musicians, etc. Will be more democratically focused or LEFT wing, because they see America from an outside perspective instead of the inside looking inward.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Communist

.
I'm curious.

You said that there are "very good ideas coming from both the far right and the far left."

What are some of those "very good ideas"? Would you mind posting just what those are, perhaps a few from each camp?

Thanks.

(And you're right about people seeing things from their own point of reference. For the true Libertarian or the extreme right-wing conservative, for example, even President Bush is too liberal.)

Stand up and be counted!

I will say it once again (ok will probably say it many more times) I see MANY Americans as conformists out of fear of separation. I think that Americans place an extremely high importance on what political party you support, almost more important than you age, sex, race, etc. It seems your name is secondary when meeting Americans (I guess they'll say I am unqualified to say that, as if I haven't met any Americans?!?)to which political party you support. "Hi I am a Republican, Joe the Republican that is."

Once each side understands that the other is not retarded but must be heard all the same, you have a chane at actually demonstrating to the world that you live with a democracy. Instead it is a comp[lete dictatorship in the sense that if Republicans are in office, nothing else is accepted, if Democrats are in office, nothing else is accepted. It seems tha only time democracy is shown is at the voting booths where people can silently and secretly vote against one another. After that, whoever is in office has the dictatorship for the next four years.

The funniest part, even those that CAN see this, will not agree with it if their party is in office.

Keep you independant thought, keep your rationalizations, keep your pride. You are what makes others see SOME hope for America.

EntRight,
Is George Bush a politician? Then he will surely lie to garner votes.

by entright Jul 5, 2004

Sorry, are you saying that because he is a politician, it is his right to lie in order to get votes? Or are you just stating the fact that policians lie. Just not sure if you mean that politicians have an excuse to lie and we should forgive them for it.

A lie is a lie, is a lie. Politicians do it to garner votes for themself. This is not their right to do so, it is their practice to do so. I do NOT consider lieing a justification to gain votes or legislative considerations. I do consider that politicians are not above blatant lies or misleading "facts" to get their way. I would love to see politicians hold their hand to the Bible and swear that all they are about to say is the truth. Politicians would fall speechless.

by thechas Jul 5, 2004

Now, I have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11, nor do I plan to. I don't believe in supporting highly biased political rhetoric.

That said, I have read and listened to a number of commentaries on the movie. Yes Max, I did click on your links.

From my point of view, Michael Moore is no less biased, and selective in the information he chooses to reveal than Rush Limbaugh is.

Mr Moores's biases look to be about the same distance to the left as Mr Limbaugh's bias is to the right.

Both engage in telling only 1 part, or side of the story.
Both tailer their message for an intended audience.

Chas

Max,

The contempt show towards the US whether deserved or not, stems from most peoples dislike towards success. Let me give you an example... When a company forms that has a truly innovative product that for the most part is grass roots in the marketplace people cheer. But once the product becomes mainstream and popular critics begin accusing them of being sell outs. The same can be said about the US. I know that I do not agree with most of the US foreign policies, but I can recognize that some of the hatred and dislike aimed at the US comes from people with skewed views and a general dislike for any country that is debatably the most powerful nation on earth.

As far as the average person not understanding the AVERAGE American, that is just not true. Most people outside of the US are barraged with what being American is, it's everywhere. TV, Movies, Print, Radio everywhere you turn you are being influenced by what it means to be American. Take the latest Disney flick MIRACLE - That movie positions the Olympic Hockey Tournament in Lake Placid as the "GREATEST SPORT STORY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD". Did you know that they only make mention of the ( debatable ) greatest hockey nation in the world ( Canada ) once!! Not one mention of Canada in the tournament, except at the very beginning when the coach says "...modified Canadian/Russian style of hockey ". When you travel throughout the US everything is the WORLDS ------ ( fill in the blank ) best, longest, shortest, highest, champions etc.... In most cases it's just plain BS and not even close to fact. I actually had a 2 hour long discussion with a university professor who had been teaching his students that the highest and most drastic tide changes were in Daytona Beach, because a sign there said so. Which is a total fabrication, since the BAY OF FUNDY has the largest and most drastic tide changes in the world.

People throughout the world learn to dislike the US, because the US constantly promotes itself as #1. In some cases it's true, some cases it's not.

Now, we have had some disagreements and on one occasion I think I even agreed with you. But, to say when America was formed most of the world lived without freedom or individual liberty is just plain wrong. Democracy, and liberty were concepts practiced and developed before the first Viking even stepped foot on the shores of North America. America was not founded on Freedom and Liberty, it was built on violence and war ( like most nations on earth ). Hundreds of thousands of natives were slaughter and thousands of Mexicans murdered and slayed in the name of Freedom and Liberty. Don't forget how the US was founded, or when, or by whom - just stand beside the rest of us beside the pedestal and not on it!!

Did not want to discrace the Happy Birthday piece Happy birthday Lady Liberty - cause after all it's her birthday

Max,

The contempt show towards the US whether deserved or not, stems from most peoples dislike towards success. Let me give you an example... When a company forms that has a truly innovative product that for the most part is grass roots in the marketplace people cheer. But once the product becomes mainstream and popular critics begin accusing them of being sell outs. The same can be said about the US. I know that I do not agree with most of the US foreign policies, but I can recognize that some of the hatred and dislike aimed at the US comes from people with skewed views and a general dislike for any country that is debatably the most powerful nation on earth.

As far as the average person not understanding the AVERAGE American, that is just not true. Most people outside of the US are barraged with what being American is, it's everywhere. TV, Movies, Print, Radio everywhere you turn you are being influenced by what it means to be American. Take the latest Disney flick MIRACLE - That movie positions the Olympic Hockey Tournament in Lake Placid as the "GREATEST SPORT STORY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD". Did you know that they only make mention of the ( debatable ) greatest hockey nation in the world ( Canada ) once!! Not one mention of Canada in the tournament, except at the very beginning when the coach says "...modified Canadian/Russian style of hockey ". When you travel throughout the US everything is the WORLDS ------ ( fill in the blank ) best, longest, shortest, highest, champions etc.... In most cases it's just plain BS and not even close to fact. I actually had a 2 hour long discussion with a university professor who had been teaching his students that the highest and most drastic tide changes were in Daytona Beach, because a sign there said so. Which is a total fabrication, since the BAY OF FUNDY has the largest and most drastic tide changes in the world.

People throughout the world learn to dislike the US, because the US constantly promotes itself as #1. In some cases it's true, some cases it's not.

Now, we have had some disagreements and on one occasion I think I even agreed with you. But, to say when America was formed most of the world lived without freedom or individual liberty is just plain wrong. Democracy, and liberty were concepts practiced and developed before the first Viking even stepped foot on the shores of North America. America was not founded on Freedom and Liberty, it was built on violence and war ( like most nations on earth ). Hundreds of thousands of natives were slaughter and thousands of Mexicans murdered and slayed in the name of Freedom and Liberty. Don't forget how the US was founded, or when, or by whom - just stand beside the rest of us beside the pedestal and not on it!!

.
Thanks for the reply.

That's an absolutely great analogy about the business growing from nothing but a great idea, when it is admired, to a success in its endeavor, when it suddenly becomes evil.

I never did say, however, that America was the first nation/civilization to have a democratic (or republic) form of government, or anything even close to that. What I said was that when the idea that became America was born (in 1776), much, if not most of the world lived under systems that did not recognize individual liberty as tantamount (or something like that). What nations of the world - in 1776 - were "democracy-like" and valued individual liberty? And from that point forward, do you not agree that America was the standard-bearer of such lofty ideals? You see, I'm of the opinion that America, as we know it, didn't even come into existence until this time, perhaps not even until 1783 when the treaty of Paris was signed. So when people say, for example, that there was "slavery in the United States for 300 years, I simply laugh at them. Anything before 1783 was the doings of the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and so on. It ONLY took, for example, the United States about twenty years to outlaw the slave trade, and only about 75 to totally outlaw slavery throughout the land. And since states' rights were more prevalent at that time, one could argue that at least half of the United States (or more) NEVER condoned slavery, and was ALWAYS against it. But I digress.

And I suppose I agree with you that the "best of everything" sentiment that permeates into almost everything is enough to make a person want to throw-up. But what can you and I do about that? From the example you cited, it's the advertisers who are doing it. Maybe we are the best at tooting our own horn, but it is, after all, our horn, and no one else will toot it if we don't.

On your Indians and Mexicans reminder, I'll concede the point, but remind you that I feel no guilt whatsoever for the sins of my father or my father's father, or their fathers before them. We are all born into a world with the deck stacked a certain way, and there's nothing we can do about it except move on and, hopefully, try not to repeat the sins of those who came before us. However, even though it's easy to point out the discretions of past generations, we can't forget the seeds of change for the good that were planted.

How about trying to answer one question. If you could do ONE thing that would best serve the interests of the United States of America, what would that be? My answer is to accept individual freedom and liberty as a gift from the Creator (whomever/whatever you'd like that to be), and subsequently accept the self-responsibility that comes along with it. And on the Fourth of July, the birth of the idea that became America, I think it's worth a little reminder.

Welcome back, Sullyman. Don't be a stranger.

It was a war Max and Europeans had a bigger hand in it than America did (except the Mexican war).

One question, why would they need (or be expected)to toot your horn for you?

DO you realy NEED to toot your own horn in order to convince yourselves of your acoomplishments?

I see just as much power and pride from citizens in other countries but nobody is tooting a horn, why? Should they or why shouldn't they?

There seems to be an issue with pride becoming arrogance.

I have said before, when in England, people are DAMN proud of what they have done to build and rebuild the nation. It is an inner pride, a sense of accomplishment and a feeling of victory. Making it through the blitz was no small affair, yet these men and women who fought for Europe are actually quite humble.

In America I see the same, the men and women who fought in WWII are quite humbled and retain their inner pride - segue- a friend who is a former US paratrooper in WWII says that he cringes when he sees people whining about the little things. People who strike for 50 vents more pay wher they are already in a high paying union job, Union people who bitch about no being paid if they work 5 minutes overtime each day for locking up etc. This is NOT what he fought for, he fought for equality and freedom.

Back on track, I think the abuse of freedom is being shown as arrogance. If America really is a super power that's great, I have never been imrpessed with power but if it keeps you safe then so be it, if it gives you a sense of worth, then so be it.

To flaunt thyis power is not acceptable though, nobody cares but you do. Just like tha guy who's a bad loser, you are seen as bad winners and therefore people don't want to see you win.

It's not that you have accomplished something that people are ruffled by, it's the fact that you feel a need to reiterate it and stretch it in to a yarn.

Look at WWII, you were the last participants of ALL allied nations to come to the aid of the party. America did not WIN WWII though, they were a welcomed, FRESH ally, who's factories and resources were still available. Your men and women fought bravely and are respected by the world for what they did to help Europe defeat Hitler.

I have seen it too many times when (usually kids and teens) will say America won WWI and the world should be thankful, or that XYZ country is ungrateful and should be diminished for not being forever greatful to America.

THIS is when many countries started to see American's as arrogant. Americans fly more flags in other countries than any other nation on Earth! How many Canadian flags are in your town, on your city hall, your hotles etc.?

In Canada the US flag is everywhere! MOst hotels display it, most pubs, golf course etc. If they don't Americans will not spend their money there as it is considered un-American to not fly America's flag. (I have this first hand from a pub and hotel owner, and a resort owner that insist on the US flag on their websites as it hurts business not to).

America is fine, a little too loud and proud but not a bad place. To see yet another president flaunt America globally just makes me puke. If you had done soething, I would understand but to just stand on the rooftops and scream we are the best just doen't fly with most.

The world is to act out in disgrace of what these people did on 911, the world must act immediately or be shunned by the USA. Two planes desoyed the WTC and wreaked havoc in the city of New York (God rest the sould of those lost). THis was to be IMMEDIATELY addressed by all the allied countries and anyone that doesn't act immediately is seen as the enemy.
TIMELINE+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_7th September 1940 - over 300 bombers escorted by more than 600 fighter planes started bombing the East End before they carried on to bomb the City and Central London.
This raid caused more than 1000 fires
430 people were killed and 1600 badly injured.
Damage was caused to two major power stations, homes and factories along the Thames and three major London railway stations.

17th September 1940 - a bomb hit Marble Arch Underground station killing 17 people.

18th September 1940 - the Lambeth Walk was destroyed as was the John Lewis department store in Oxford Street.

15th October 1940 - 430 people were killed in the bombing, five major railway stations were badly damaged, the City of London's watermain was also damaged as was the major Fleet sewer.

By mid October there were around 250,000 people made homeless by the Blitz.

14th November 1940 - this dated signalled the end of the nightly raids on London. German bombers raided Coventry instead.

15th November 1940 - the Luftwaffe returns to London hitting almost every borough. It uses a new bomb nicknamed Satan - it was huge - 1800 megatons of high explosive and it was a delayed action bomb.
The main Post Office sorting depot at Mount Pleasant was hit as was the National Portrait Gallery, Westminster Abbey and Euston Station.

November 1940 - about 3000 unexploded bombs were waiting to be defused around London by the end of the month.

29th December 1940 - incendiaries dropped on the City of London caused over 1400 fires including six that were classed as conflagrations, one of which covered half a square mile
The Guildhall was damaged, only its walls stood, eight churches designed by Sir Christopher Wren were destroyed as was Paternoster Row, a major telephone exchange, the Central Telegraph Office and guild company halls.
Also damaged that night were five mainline stations, nine hospitals, sixteen Underground stations and St Paul's was hit by incendiaries.

11th January 1941 - 117 people were killed in Bank Underground station when it took a direct hit.

19th March 1941 - a 500 bomber raid on the docks and East End of London killed 750 people and injured over a 1000 people seriously.

16th April 1941 - a 685 bomber raid caused more than 2000 fires and killed well over 1000 people. This raid also damaged or destroyed irreplaceable historic churches and other buildings.

19th April 1941 - This was the biggest bombing raid of the Blitz so far with more high explosive and incendiaries dropped than any other night previously.

10th May 1941 - a 550 bomber raid dropped more than 700 tons of bombs and thousands of incendiaries. This was probably the worst raid of the Blitz.
Nearly 1500 people were killed and around 1800 seriously injured.
The Chamber of the House of Commons (Parliament) was destroyed.
The House of Lords, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Hall, St James's Palace and Lambeth Palace were amongst the many buildings damaged. Almost all the major mainline railway stations were also damaged as were 14 hospitals, the British Museum and the Old Bailey.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JUNE 1941- America STARTS to prepare troops to join WWII.

Yet, others oucntries repect the US efforts (even if they were late to the party) and appreciate those who fought in WWII. They didn't boycot American products.

Why is it that when America needs support, it demands action or it boycotts those that did't jump in line?

Why is it that anyone not wholly FOR America must therefore be America's enemy? Why is it that you MUST be the most highky esteemed nation in the world? Why can't you keep it to yourselves and just be proud of your country without the rest of the world being expected to recognize your accomplishments too?

.
Of all the people who bring up the events of the second world war, it is you, Oz, who brings it up more than anyone else in these threads. (I don't think I've ever said the things that you claim "we" always say.) Moreover, when you do it (to further your criticism of the USA, of course) you do so in a way that applies the standards and circumstances of today's world to the times and political reality that existed 70 years ago. It's obvious that you don't understand the political events that led up to the war, or else you wouldn't suggest the things that you do, and you could (and would) draw the parallels between what Winston Churchill warned about Hitler and what George Bush warned about Saddam. For example, in the mid 1930s, Winston Churchill vehemently warned about the Germans desire to acquire weapons that were in violation of the treaty of Versailles, and later about the dangers of appeasing Hitler. But his pleas all fell upon deaf European ears. The Americans, however, listened and helped.

Even though the US Congress had passed a neutrality act, the US was still sending weapons to Canada, who, in turn was sending them to England (kinda' an end-around the neutrality act.), until the act was amended to permit the shipment of weapons directly to Britain and France. Moreover, American troops, although not officially "at war", were stationed in England as early as 1940, well before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, building naval and air bases, not to mention the lend-lease agreements. And the USA and England maintained joint planning personnel in both London and Washington, and in reality, the USA was right there with England every step of the way. Besides, there was a rising sun in the west that threatened American interests in the Pacific, something the English understood all too well, and joint contingencies were being made, and plans were being established to deal with both threats.

But where you really tear reality into shreds is when you try to apply the standards and circumstances of today to the political and logistical realities of yesteryear. That dog, my Canadian friend, simply won't hunt. You need much more of a lesson in the realities of history and politics than simply a time-line of who did what and when.

"It's not that you have accomplished something that people are ruffled by, it's the fact that you feel a need to reiterate it and stretch it in to a yarn."

"THIS is when many countries started to see American's as arrogant. Americans fly more flags in other countries than any other nation on Earth! How many Canadian flags are in your town, on your city hall, your hotles etc.?"

"In Canada the US flag is everywhere! MOst hotels display it, most pubs, golf course etc. If they don't Americans will not spend their money there as it is considered un-American to not fly America's flag. (I have this first hand from a pub and hotel owner, and a resort owner that insist on the US flag on their websites as it hurts business not to)."

WOW. I traveled to Canada, to Europe, India, England, and Kuwait. I have never nor do I know of anyone person in US who traveled abroad that refused to do business which didn't have American flag displayed. Are you f*^%king crazy or something? Where are you getting your delusions about how American people think or act??

As far as the issue of other countries' flags...you have NOT been around, you obviously don't know anything despite the claims that you think you do. There are TONS, TONS of other countries' flags that are displayed in here. Italy, France, England, India, Japan, Australia, Russia, Poland, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, even frigging Cuba flags I found in bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels.

You are a wacko dude. A completly delusional, lying, truth spinner. Its a shame you represent England, because I know a lot of British people who are LIVING here that are PROUD to be American and English, I can't imagine the rest of England is like you. What do you think American means?? You have any frigging clue??
Where did the original "Americans" come from? They were all European you know, European conquerers and colonists. Then other people from Asia, Africa, South America started to come here and continue to come here and make a living here. There are more nationalities, races, and cultures living in US than anywhere else. Thats what USA means.

"It's not that you have accomplished something that people are ruffled by, it's the fact that you feel a need to reiterate it and stretch it in to a yarn."

"THIS is when many countries started to see American's as arrogant. Americans fly more flags in other countries than any other nation on Earth! How many Canadian flags are in your town, on your city hall, your hotles etc.?"

"In Canada the US flag is everywhere! MOst hotels display it, most pubs, golf course etc. If they don't Americans will not spend their money there as it is considered un-American to not fly America's flag. (I have this first hand from a pub and hotel owner, and a resort owner that insist on the US flag on their websites as it hurts business not to)."

WOW. I traveled to Canada, to Europe, India, England, and Kuwait. I have never nor do I know of anyone person in US who traveled abroad that refused to do business which didn't have American flag displayed. Are you f*^%king crazy or something? Where are you getting your delusions about how American people think or act??

As far as the issue of other countries' flags...you have NOT been around, you obviously don't know anything despite the claims that you think you do. There are TONS, TONS of other countries' flags that are displayed in here. Italy, France, England, India, Japan, Australia, Russia, Poland, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, even frigging Cuba flags I found in bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels.

You are a wacko dude. A completly delusional, lying, truth spinner. Its a shame you represent England, because I know a lot of British people who are LIVING here that are PROUD to be American and English, I can't imagine the rest of England is like you. What do you think American means?? You have any frigging clue??
Where did the original "Americans" come from? They were all European you know, European conquerers and colonists. Then other people from Asia, Africa, South America started to come here and continue to come here and make a living here. There are more nationalities, races, and cultures living in US than anywhere else. Thats what USA means.

SNIP - we don't have access to intelligence information that guides our foreign policy. And as long as American sovereignty is protected, and as long as American interests are placed before the interests of other nations, I'll tent to trust...- SNIP

I am hoping that you made an error here with the statement " as long as American interests are placed before the interests of other nations ". If you did, phew. If not what gives you the right!!! You have the right to protect yourself internally from foreign interests, but you do not as a a nations have free reign to put your interests above other nations in this world. That is not democracy, that is being a bully.....If you think that you as an AMERICAN has the right to bomb,nuke, or put the lives of innocent people from other nations in jeopardy because of an American cause you are sadly mistaken......

.
Personally, I put my interests before yours. I put the interests of my family before your family. And I'm sure that you put your interests, and your family's interest before mine. That's how it should be, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, if in my desire to advance my own self interest, I somehow infringe on your personal liberty, or civil rights, or whatever, then we have some issues, and I've gone too far.

In the case of America's war on terrorism (and Iraq is indeed a part of it), it's in our best interest to fight it. If France, for example, doesn't agree with it, then that's just too bad. Turn the tables and conclude that NOT fighting the war on terrorism (in Iraq) was in France's best interest, but as a result it infringes on the best interests of the USA, then we have an issue. In that case, we can't put the best interest of France before ours, and we're not infringing on any rights the French may have to live however they please. It's not being a "bully", it's just putting my family before yours.

If anything, America is not the "bully", but rather is standing up to the real "bully" (the real "bully" being fanatical extremists) who stole our airplanes and crashed them into our buildings, killing members of our "family". It's not in our "best interest" to let it go unchecked.

I was reading without interest in posting but you descibed to me what I see as Capitalism (or Capitalism gone bad).

"...if in my desire to advance my own self interest, I somehow infringe on your personal liberty, or civil rights, or whatever, then we have some issues, and I've gone too far."

Is his not what those that take advantage of capitalism do? They exploit workers and American consumres to advance their own interests and increase their own profits, at the expense of consumers and workers?

To answer that, I have sat in on the appolication by one such KNOWN company that tried to use Capitalism as a defence for it's actions. They were quickly denied a business licence based on their proven business practices.

This is also America's largest and fondest retail outlet.

How is it that a company can make it through zoning laws in so many states and be given business licences without this all being aired to the US public too? Are they being supported in their abuse of capitalism at the expense of Americans? Do the US judges actually accept the capitalism defense and allow these people to have their civil liberties trampled on?

Other nations do the same thing. You don't hear about it. They don't necessarily affect American interests but UNDERSTAND SOMETHING VERY CLEARLY, other nations have interests, some conflicting with and some partnering (and America isn't in the middle of all of them).

And second of all, We are not obligated to put OTHER NATIONS interests above America unless it serves US (the same RULE other nations follow) it doesn't matter how much you scream and yell.

What country are you from that you keep talking like you are the most powerful nation on this planet? Also understand something, 2 Democracies WILL NEVER goto War. So if you are from a Democracy then YOUR INTERESTS are America's interests and America's INTERESTS SHOULD BE your interests as well.

What Micheal Moore is doing is VERY serious and dangerous! Certainly he is entitled to his opinion and he has the freedom of expression in the United States.

Micheal Moore should not call his movies documentaries but rather political commentaries. I recall in the 1970's the Soviets coming here to make a documentary. They filmed only in the Ghetto's, slum's, and even in the New York Stock Exchange. They showed American's poor and destitute sleeping on park bench's while a few fight oner pennies on the stock exchange floor. They commented that this was capitalism. I think most of us realize that they only showed extremes misrepresenting most people like you and I. Is Micheal Moore much different?

His movies should be caveated with credibility, integrity, and responsibility disclaimers. Freedoms are not free and we pay for them everyday. Sometimes it involves going to a foreign land (carrying the fight to the enemy) and shedding blood. Other times you may pay the price for stating your opinion or incorrectly presenting the facts. Unfortunately, Micheal Moore has lined his pockets with money to advance his unusual viewpoints and unduly influence people with misinformation. Can any of you tell when the information was accurate or inaccurate?

As a IT professional the idea of misinformation is abhorrant to me. Somehow in the IT industry there needs to be a method of 'underwriting' information regarding its legitimacy. It is a difficult task given the credible information that forms this Universe is greater than the entire universe itself. Now we have the yellow information mixed in.

.
Did you know that Michael Moore's film is the FIRST AND ONLY imported documentary to be shown in Communist China?

Not America. They have potentially the world's largest Army. I see trouble brewing in the south china seas, the situation with Taiwan etc.

It bothers me when people living in America, earning money from Americans, and voting in our elections abbed, influence, and support offshore opposing political factions. We have seen this increasing since the late 1940's although there has been even earlier instances such as Margaret Sanger, American Citizen, who wrote about genetic cleansing of inferior strains about 1932.

1. Jane Fonda
2. Bill Clinton
3. Micheal Moore
4. Dixie Chix
5. Ted Turner
6. Host of misguided others

Coincidentally, Madonna is opposed to the United States but realized she stood to loose millions of dollars and yanked her videos and opposition stuff off the air. Money means more to the 'Material Girl' than anything else.

The United States greatest weakness is from within - freedom. We are beginning to see our enemies (Yes Micheal Moore is an enemy equivalent to a JIHADIST) exploit this vulnerability.

When does his freedom of expression encroach upon other peoples rights - ie our right to a secure existence? When his film is used to train and increase morale in JIHADIST? When his film raises cash for the enemy to buy weapons against us? Or when his film incites entire leftist societies against the U.S.? It seems he already encroaches upon our right to bear arms and is influencing leftist wing gun control idealogies.

BY THE WAY FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT LEFTIST IS - TO VERY FAR LEFT IS TOTALITARIANISM/MARXIST COMMUNISN; TO FAR LEFT IS SOCIALISM; JUST LEFT IS DEMOCRATS; SLIGHT LEFT IS LIBERALS; MODERATES ARE CLOSELY BALANCED BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT.

There is a warfighting doctrine that a way to defeat an enemey is from within. That is to influence his culture and society to make him more like the one imposing that doctrine. Who does Micheal Moore sound like? Is it a government you care to live under?

I agree wholly, so does Michael Moore. He doesn't call ihs films documentaries, the media does that.

Michael Moore states there is FACT mixed with personal opinion but I have NEVER seen nor heard him refer to his films as documentaries. Perhaps that is a way of the media;
1) creating a stir and some controversy to increase interest
2) explaining that this is not an action movie and is not really suited for kiddies that would rather watch an action film

Did he not call it a documentary on Letterman?

In the film attributes he listed the 'Genre' are Documentary/War.

"I didn't write an Oscar speech because I never thought we'd win. The last documentary that was a box office success and won the Oscar was 'Woodstock,"' Moore said.

You can find his quote at http://www.rense.com/general36/mel.htm

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04

.
Oz said, "He (Michael Moore) doesn't call ihs (sic) films documentaries..."

He doesn't?????

"Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever."
- Michael Moore

"This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time."
- Michael Moore

Do your homework before you post mistruths.

Max,
Here, we do have some ideological understanding. I am a fiscal conservative. Where we differ seems to be that you view taxation as an evil process of the left. I view taxation as a necessary process to maintain and progress the infrastruction of our nation. We spend according as to how we wish to live. In a luxury condo or in the slums? To live in the greatest nation the world has ever known, I am willing to spend my money to do so. Obviously you think this should be free and of no cost to you. While your way of thinking may place you in a luxury condo for yourself, it would reside in a slum nation. In my opinion, this makes you extremely selfish. "Give me everything I want, just don't let it cost me anything". How would you like to be the richest man in Mexico? By monetary standards, that wouldn't take much, ruling out drug lords and corrupt politicians.
The "spending" side of taxation is where I am a staunch conservative. I abhor the practice of both major political parties attaching pork barrel spending to an otherwise viable bill just to get their spending passed. I am of the mind that if any legislative considerations lack the support to pass on its own merits then it should not be attached to anything other than the "circular filing cabinet" - a trash can. "Riders" should be unconstitutional. Kill the riders and so kill the vast majority of pork barrel spending. Since the Supreme Court Justices deemed "Line Item Veto" powers for the president unconstitutional, for it detracts from the separations of power outlined in our Constitution, we should ammend our Constitution to allow for presidential line item vetos. ..... BTW, I completely disagree with the Supreme Court's decission concerning line item vetos for it had the same process of power as any presidential veto. The Congress still maintained its powers to over turn a line item veto the same way it can over turn a veto now. A 2/3 majority vote, by the Congress, can place any vetoed legislation into law. Should there have been any considerations for line item vetos that differed from current veto powers, then the Supreme Court would have had a valid argument. There was no difference. BTW, I feel that if Senator Bob Dole would have won the presidential race for 1996, then the Supreme Court's ruling probably would have been for line item vetos. The conservative Supreme Court was not going to give line item vetos to Bill Clinton even though a republican controlled congress passed the legislation to give him line item veto power. Congress, on this matter, showed much more foresight and intelligence than did the Supreme Court. EVERY president should have line item veto powers, without fail. BTW, Bush, as yet, has failed to veto ANY legislation brought before him. It would be fair to say that Bush is responsible for ALL of the spending under his administration for he yet to veto ANY of it. A fiscal conservative? Hardly!!!!!

.
.....when we speak out against unfair taxation, being called mean-spirited and selfish.

To the contrary, I believe in the old proverb that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

I believe we should have two tiers of taxation in the USA. Tier one will pay for the necessary infrastructure of which you speak. Of course we need taxation to pay for national defense, fire and police protection, roads and highways, airports and air traffic control, and on and on and on. These are necessary, and I have no problem with it.

However, it's the transfer of income programs that I have a problem with. Not only is it seizing the personal property of the person who earned it for the sole purpose of giving it to the person who didn't earn it, but it's doing a grave disservice to many in America who have literally become a dependent class. Sure, if a person truly has no place to turn, then we should help. But I would only put about 10 percent of money transfer recipients into that category (just a wild guess at the number - nothing to back it up). To "help people" might sound like a noble gesture, but to help a person help themselves is much more nobler. Moreover, at one time, the government "stepped in" when charities fell short. Today, it seems like the roles have been reversed, and that's not right.

If you want to discover something interesting, do some research and find the "poverty" numbers, as a percentage of the population, from 1900 to 1960. You will find that those who lived in poverty decreased EVERY decade. Pick up at President Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty". From that point forward, the number of people living in poverty INCREASED. The war on poverty PUT people in poverty, because it created a dependent class. Moreover, do some more research and find out which group of people are more successful, those who were born in America into one of the "dependent classes", or those who immigrate to the USA with absolutely nothing but the shirt on their back. You'll discover the answer to be the latter.

I believe that the liberal transfer of income programs that keep people dependent on government are more selfish and more cruel than teaching and encouraging self-responsibility. Kinda' like the "tough-love" sentiment when dealing with drug abusers. We've become a nation of financial enablers, and we have a nation of financial abusers who continually live a self-destructive existence, an existence purely dependent on government.

Like I asked in another message. If you could do ONE thing that would best serve the interests of the United States of America, what would that be? My answer is to accept individual freedom and liberty as a gift from the Creator (whomever/whatever you'd like that to be), and subsequently accept the self-responsibility that comes along with it. Would the same not apply to you? Would the same not apply to everyone?

And like I said in yet another message, to some Libertarians and Conservatives, even GWB is too liberal. So on that point, as well as the need for a line-item veto, I certainly agree. (Didn't the Supreme Court strike down the line-item veto bill? 6-3, I believe.)

Did you know the Bible predicts the rise of the East? Did you know Bill Clinton provided ballistic missile technology to the Chinese? It was for the peaceful exploration of space. They shot one rocket into space but now there are 600 ballistic missles pointed at Tiawan. Read the unclassified China Report by the Pentagon. Hey Bill was a genius at least that is what the women say.

Did you know that Clinton's failed company Global Crossings was bought by the Chinese? I heard that the technology given to Sadam to network air defense stations. It sounds like a cover story to me to get the Chinese the technology. Clinton was a genius!

Hey did you know the under Clinton the Department of Energy released classified documents on how to build biological and radiological weapons for $15. Nearly every US enemy got those documents. That is it. Clinton is a genius. I hear it all the time. He even tried to dup Wein Ho Lee with his attrocities.

Did you know that the world most advanced bio-chemical lab is just North of Tora Bora and Al Quaeda had access to it according to some news reports. I wonder if they had those $15 documents? Gosh if you look at a map - The Soviet Union, China, and Afghanistan all come together nicely there.

Dude we are in for a ride because of Clinton and his circus of munchkins (Reisch) and fat women (Albright) among other clowns.

YEs here we see yet another example of Americans turning against Americans. Democrats will fight Republicans (and vice versa) until the death.
Then they will fight someone else.
When that's over, they will once again fight the last administration, then go fight someone else, then......

You almost NEED a dictatorship in the USA. One government is supported, four years later an alternate government reminds America what the last did and strives to rectify the issues (by going to war in Iraq, China or wherever). the next (if not a Republican government) will try and rectify Republican mistakes, perhaps by going to war again, and so on and so on and so on.

I have but one question, when are you all going to start living instead of worrying about living?

If you had your interests inside your own country and it's development, education, hospitals, slums, the poor etc. Perhaps you wouldn't have so many overseas deals go bad. You certainly wouldn't be kept in the spotlight and targeted all the time. But I am beginning to think you like it that way, press is press whether good or bad (at least for the president it is) maybe not so great for those who just want to get on with their lives.

OH!!!! DOH!!! Well how about it pal?

As I recall, Bin Laden attack the WTC more than once.

As I recall, Sadam Hussein used WMD against the Kurds gases and biologically attacked them.

As I recall, Sadam Hussein invaded kuwait.

As I recall, Sadam Hussien ignored 10 years of UN resolutions.

As I recall, Sadam Hussien paid Arab families $25,000 for each homocide bomber.

As I recall, the French interfered with the US foreign policy and provided Sadam with a Mirage fighter rigged to spray bioweapons, a safehaven before the war started, and now legal defense to Sadam. I do not know what we have in common with the French. But if there is a war that needs to be fought let's visit Normandy again!

Just as a RAP artists requires a posse to show his acheivements, a politician needs the same. Of course there are MANY members needed in an Administration for it to be run properly but many seem to be just avid supporters with a big voice.

Just what would all the speech writers and trasncript editors do if the politicians didn't lie? I think that by misleading people, these politicians are actually creating employment for White House editors and lawyers who are hired to defend statements, carefully write speeches that insinuate yet don't point a direct finger and rewrite transcripts to retain some sense of literacy within the cabinet.

I think if GWb is reelected, we'll see him on his podium wit ha big clock around his kneck that is smothered by all the bling bling while his minions stand behind him showing off gold rings, watches, knecklaces etc. Making the hand and district gestures of The Washington District 'hood.

Well not too far off anyhow.

.
...take one little thing and stretch it so far out of its intended proportions as to make your silly points. Nice job, you did it again.

Someone else nitpicking at fine details is not acceptable?

I seem to remember YOU being the person who takes all posts and runs them through a fine tooth comb in order to find some miniscule point you can argue. If not personal opinions would be acceptable without the need to post endless numbers of links to support any comment made in order to satisfy Maxwell. You started and insisted on this form of nitpicking, not me.

As for my post above, as I said, I didn't want to jump into the discussion but I noticed upi had epitomized exactly what separates Americans from the rest of the world. This is WHY people sy you are arrogant, yet many Americans including yourself see this as quite natural. Therefore by NATURE Americans are rightly seen as arrogant and righteous.

Again you simply cannot accept that anyone would possibly see things differently than Maxwell in Colorado does.

Are you therefore insinuating that you know better than anyone who disagrees with you?

Have a seat and take it like the man you profess you are.

When I first came to this forum a few years ago, I hd no interest in politics and was pissed that all I saw day in and day out was GWB on my TV screen.

I made several comments that were openly said to be PERSONAL opinions based on what I had seen him say and what I felt. This is how we derive on conclusions and forumlate opinions, not from text books.

You made it VERY clear that any personal opinions were not acceptable and all comments must be based on fact and cannot be formed from personal feelings. This is where I called you a drone for simply following a single path and not being open to other infomation as well as blindly following your leader.

Oer the next year or so, you continued to degrade ANYONE's personal feelings by posting snippets from the White House and other sites that mirror your own feelings. Several had come to me saying you are a bully and simply spend all day calling people liars for not agreeing with yor single source. Any other information posted was simply unacceptable as YOUR sources say GWB never said that etc.

As a result of perticipating in these forums, my personal feelings have been reinforced several times by other media that echos my beliefs. I was forced to become more involved in fact finding missions than personal statements and now you call me a know-it-all for sharing my findings here. I find an article or statement, even from GWB, and you discount it as out of context, left wing, biased, an outright lie or simply by calling me names, which you resort to more and more since TR's warnings have become water under the bridge to you.

I will accept anyone's opinion if they are willing to accept mine. That is called DISCUSSING something. As NOBODY, including yourself, really has any clue whatsoever what is REALLY going on or behind the Iraq invasion, we can only go on what is reported and form our own opinions and conclusions.

If my opinions differ from yours or I argue my point, you instantly get defensive and say things like, I am intolerant, judgemental, a liar, a know0it-all etc.

My question to you, HOW can you pass such judement as you have no more insight into this as anyone else in the world does? Would that not make YOU judgemental? Of course it does, don't even think about answering that. Just look at the judgements you have passed in your last posting!

"Quite frankly, you're about the most intolerant and judgmental individual I've ever come across."

I think that anyone here and in the rest of the world would agree hands down that you are passing judgement and therefore being judgemental.

I have had NO reason to be interested in Canada's government as it does not infiltrate my life, YOUR government does however nd therefore I am more than entitled to offer MY opinions based on what I see, as it seems to control your life, find somewhere in your Constitution where I am denied that right.

Now you also seem to think this is merely MY opinion, a single voice, wheras I speak for millions who also feel the same way, even if not in the same detail, most people I have met OUTSIDE America will agree that GWB is a misleading warmonger with only his own personal adgenda and capital gains as his interests, while the (questionable)majority of people in America believe he is in it for the people.

So how does this make ME judgemental? Did I disagree with you and that makes me judgemental? DEMOCRACY Maxwell, not DICTATORSHIP.

I am completely within my rights to offer my opinion, you are completely within your rights to offer YOUR opinion. Yet if mine is different than yours, I am being a know it all or Judgemental? Nice one Max, way to show what your country stands for.

I know that many here feel that your opinion and those like yours is what gives America a bad name, therefore if I don't grovel and conform to your ideals, live with it or leave, you do not have a right to pass judgement on my character as a result. Especially when anyone that actually knows me would disagree strongly and say I am laid back and can take anything in stride. I never get flustered and always remain cool and composed in real life issues. When I am talking to a brick, it does get frustrating. Especially when I have even agreed with you only to have you attack my post anyway.

So either realize that not everybody sees the world through kaleidoscope eyes and shares the opinion you do or pee-off.

As for you being old, no 50 isn't old at all. MANY of my friends are over 50 and are great mentors to me.

Someone who is as grumpy and pissy as you are at 50 is just a grumpy old man. Heaven help your grandchildren and those poor Scouts that you dictate each week.

Mr. Holmes, as many here have done in the past you will justify modern day actions by what was done during the ofunding of America.
Defense; Thats what has made America the success it is today.
Therefore all I have provided is simply a comparisson of your current disdain toward DIDN'T see from Europeans when the same thing happened during WWII and you thought war with Japan was more imperative since they bombed a single US Naval vessel.
Yes you played a role until D-Day as you wanted Allied troops to help you attack Japan but were not actively sending troops to fight in Europe and defend England or France's countries from Nazi Germany.

This is no different than you all bitching about Canada, Germany and France for not jumping on the Iraqi invasion plans without raising some serious concerns that needed to be adressed first, which turned out to be quite right afterall.

You bore the living hell out of me Max. Your comments are all the same, you have no room for acceptance, you have no room for understanding as you sit and simply bash any opinion that isn't your own. Heaven forbid America ever elect one as narrow minded as you, it would certainly be the death of your country.

You don't see what you have done yet you constantly slag others for doing the same (yes You Maxwell).

You see only ONE side, that's YOUR side, you REFUSE admamantly to any alternate opinions. You are an anarchist wannabe, a single minded and sinle focused person. You have ONLY your best interests in mind and couldn't give a crap what the rest of the word thinks, YOU are a dominatrix.

Go buy some leather restraints and get your jollies and leave others out of it.

This picture of you keeps getting uglier and uglier everytime you make your slanderous comments. Grumpy,miserable, never wrong, one sided, narrow minded, singular, against all that oppose him, needs to be controlling, domineering, bullish...........there was another leader some time ago that represented all these traits in a man, about 1939 if I remember correctly. Some saw him as the righteous one who was looking out for a better land, he was later found to be a mad man that was suffering terribly from syphillis, he eventually took his own life and did the rest of the world a favour. Six years too late.

In closing:
As for Americas early involvement in WWII, in 'Dec 38 a single naval vessel was bombed by the Japanese, by March of '39 US public opinion was to go to war with Japan instead of Hitler.

When Hilter announced his support for Japan, Capt. Royal Ingersoll was sent to England to form a US/UK alliance against Japan because England had not agreed to free it's navy to support the US blockade of Japanese shipments as England was in s state of war, being an Island the RN was pretty imperative to England and couldn't be drwn away to help the US retaliate against a single naval vessel being sunk.

Again, if it happens to someone else, the US coudln't care less, if it happens to America, the US expects everyone to drop everything and rush to America's aid. Well it's a good thing you are a supoer power, because your support is growing smaller and smaller each day.

ME ME ME ME ME.....maybe you should change your alias.

I cannot say it enough you are inside and looking inward. You will never see nor agree ot this of course until you step back and take a look from a different perspective, therefore I conclude that you are narrow minded and blind to the realities that others see.
There is no way you can deny this accusation as you refuse to see yourself from a different perspective and simply have nothing to form an alternate opinion on, this usually happens on a personal level when/if we mature.

As I said before, kaleidoscope eyes.

How about explaining what you want to see?

Is England flying its flags in America again?!?
Do Canadian TV channels plaster your TV with our political affairs? I wondered why they never show any here.

Are you insinuating that Canada makes its business American? How so?

Does England flaunt their navy and airforce in America?

Do either actually BOAST successes in your daily life?

Let's visit Normandy again?

Take a look at Normandy and the different operation conducted on various beaches.

Now tell me that YOU saved France.

During the D-Day ceremonies this year, the French were in tears when saying how they were so thankful of the Allied forces that landed on D-Day. They handed Blair and Bush flowers, hugged and held all the veterans that were still alive and wept at the level of support they had seen.

Are you now saying they are ungrateful because they don't support GWB's war in Iraq?

Lets not forget America's former president RR (God rest his soul) that completely ignored Saddam's WMD attacks and supported Saddam throughout.

Yet this is pobably untrue to a Democrat and typically a democratic mistake as seen from Repubican eyes.

The point here is, and everyone seems to be missing it, YOU are no moe righteous than any other developed (or undeveloped)country. Yet you SEEM to feel that Ameria always is and always will be right and everyone else is to blame for any failures or attacks.

You simply cannot accept that YOUR government, like any other in the world, is just as capable of screwing up and harming your country. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault and you have done no wrong, this is blindly following.

obsessed with America and her actions?? Boast what? Noone here is boasting/flaunting anything. Its just that you are obsessed with America, for whatever reason. Maybe its YOU that needs to get on with your life.

As for more nationalisties in the US than anywhere else, yes the USA is a multicutural society, so is Canada and England.

As for me not being around, I have circled the world three and a half times. I have worked in the USA, Canada, England and Brazil. I still conduct business in Canada, Germany, Swededn (well tlets just say Europe), South America, Australia and Asia. I have met the gerenal public in all of these countries and heard their accounts and thought on world affairs first hand.

As I said with the flags issue, I used to visit my Washington, Oregon and Californian partners almost weekly. I do not recall seeing a SINGLE anadian flag in the US other than at the British Embassy, but there are MANY MANY Humongous US flags even on people's porches ( I mean BIG flags).

Canadians don't have the Canadian flag on their own property (well some but they are few and far between) we just don't see a need to be overbearingly patriotic.

Anyhow, do you have anything relevant to say?

We are proud to be Americans. I will not make apologies or say sorry for that fact. English are proud to be English aren't they? So are Canadians, and so are Australians, hell even the French are.

You seem to have a issue with that.

"overbearingly patriotic." wow you use that word with such righteous recklessness. After 9/11 lot of people in this country became patriotic. I guess thats what happens after an unprovoked attack on a country. Maybe a 9/11 or something similar needs to happen to London and Toronto for people to understand Americans IF there are still proud patriotic people living in those countries.

As for France and England seeing 911, try a thousand times larger.

BOTH of these countries have been through FAR more than the US ever has or hopefully will.

Lets take you two planes flying into two buildings (even three if counting the Pentagon) and multiply it by several thousand.

How about 1000 Afghani bombers over new York city droppng several thousand pounds of bombe each evening for days without relent? New York wouldn't exist, your preisdent wouldn't know where to turn next and mass hysteria would hit the streets as everyone expected the US government to do something about it.

Well that has happened in London, the people stood up and kept going. They reinforced and came together to stop the Luftwaffe from succeeding in helping Hitler take England.
And then Garion woke up. You have no idea what happened in England during the onset of WWII, you weren't there and I am sure your American History class didn't go into it to far. I lived there, thankfully not during WWII, but the bombed churches and cathederals still stand almost hauntingly, the pill boxes are still just 5 minutes up the beach from my old house, I used to play army in them as a kid.

You missed the whole point though, as always, I really don't think you read posts before clicking 'Post a Reply'. My point is that YES the British are VERY proud, so are Canadians, we just don't see the need to spew our pride around the world for all to see, as you do but don't see that you do, do you need a petition or something to show you how people feel? Are you that blind that you can't see the results of your own actions?

It is fine to be proud (echo) yet it is not accepted by others whe you THINK you are the best and shout it from the rooftops, or as Maxwell say's, someone has to toot our horn, nobody else will.

Why should they though?

NOT ONE PERSON HERE. You think we said that. We try our best, but sometimes we are anot always right. As another poster stated, AMERICA TRIED TO INSTILL DEMOCRACY 16X AND SUCCEEDED 4X. My question to you is, how many other countries EVEN TRIED (nevermind succeeded, just tried) TO INSTILL democracy in other countries? NAME ONE!!!! JUST ONE!!!!

As far as other nations' being right or wrong, hmm...Do other nations have as much wealth and power as US does? Well do they?? So we must be doing something right (whether economics or politics or both) to gain this much power and influence!! We are the richest, most powerful nation on earth but we SHOULD listen to THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES (in which we are actually trying to rebuild with our money) on how to act and think?? We should listen to OTHER NATIONS on whats right and wrong huh? Thank god we don't listen, if we had done that, we will all be one BIG POOR FAMILY huh? Its like a CEO being told to listen to a crack whore on how to run a successfull company.

Next thing I know is you are going to be blaming the CEO because she is a drug addict. Go ahead, might as well stay true to yourself O MIGHTY OZ!

Well lets see:
KOMO TV - US
KIMG TV - US
KIRO TV - US
KCTS TV - US
KSTW TV - US
KVOS TV - US
KCPQ TV - US

This is just out of the 12 basic cable channels, not including other cable subscriptions which are mainly US conglomerates with a few national channels from arond the world.

Your right YOUR media is obsessed with America's actions.

and are bitching about WHY they are focused on America and her actions?? Well DUH!!!

and are bitching about WHY they are focused on America and her actions?? Well DUH!!!

" I do not know what we have in common with the French. But if there is a war that needs to be fought let's visit Normandy again! "

that was posted right before your post, gee someone said it and it is FAR from the first time, just as many have denied saying the US won WWII, which others have said several times in this forum alone. When this war was trying to be justified to begin with, this forum was littered with people saying what would you do? or When we saved your ass you were hiding under the covers (confusing Britain with France's quick surrender).
And moreso people were saying that I am lucky the US saved me or I would be spreaking German, couldn't be farther from the truth. So don't blame me when your coutrymen are too full of crap and throw it around.

From what I've seen here, and I am being quite straight about it, is that you cannot understand a single perons point of view. You will however jump in bed with someone who you feel supports your own views though.

You actually have such a limited comprehension it reiterates and earlier point brought up about American eduation cutbacks and those who have suffered because of it.

MEDIA:
I have over 60 channels. The main 'NETWORK' channels are American and they donimnate our TV, it's not a choice, GWB helped make this possible by allowing the major media giants to amalgamate ownership. Canadian channels show American news also, but then they compare it to world and Canadian reports to show some balance as the US reports are all the same. I will tell you, the US networks and the rest of the world are completely different. US says "rah rah rah America" and discounting accusations, the rest of the world is focusing on other issues of the war.

As for YOUR poor hard earned money being spent in Iraq, so is Canada's, England's etc. Canada is reluctant to send rebuilding contractors to Iraq at the current tiem due to the hostility and unrest in Iraq that wil make it unsafe for non-military personell to work. For some reason my tax money is still going to Iraq due to your invasion but if it helps them that is fine, if it bought you bombs I wouldn't be so happy.

Anyhow, it's hardly worth reiterating twice a day for the challenged peers at TR.

I think you were wrong going in to begin with under false pretenses, how has this all been ignored now and segued into something else?

Did the US lead in the other direction so you wouldn't argue sending your brothers and sisters to an unjustified death?

After reading my post I realized it seems as if I am diminishing the efforts of New Yorkers. They did come together in a great way and all helped each other, I in no way want to detract from the horrors that these people faced that day.

Just don't say others wouldn't understand that have seen it many times worse.

Well it was what about THREE days ago that it was realized that MM hadn't called his film a documentary but the media had. So I go camping and come back to see that once again, the US media has changed it's tune.

Whatever, I'm going for a paddle, fuck this crap what a waste of skin you are.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04

Struck a chord has he by posting that past link.

Here it is again,

"Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever."
- Michael Moore

"This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time."
- Michael Moore

LOOK YOUR CANADIAN BOYFRIEND SAID "documentary". Awwww

Awww, I hope you drown you loony freak. Now get off this message board.

Admit that you are a lying, truth spinner!!! Come on...its not hard...just swallow that ego like you swallowed Communism and admit that you are an anti-american, anti-Bush, USSR butt kisser.

In THAT statement he is referring to how the Academy has classified Woodstock. He doesn't say that this is a documentary, in fact I have seen him argue that it isn't a documentary but just s movie based on opinon and fact. He went on further to say it is being classified as a documentary because it is the most fitting classification for a political film.

Paraphrasing and award classification is about as accurate as many of the FACTS thet MM shows in his films.