More Moore Lies

Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah

Samantha Ellis
Thursday June 17, 2004
The Guardian

The controversy over Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 just won't go away. The film, which is being advertised with the strapline "Controversy? What controversy?", has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, meaning no one under 17 can see it unless accompanied by an adult. Distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films, opening the film next week, are appealing against the decision. The rating came partly because the film shows images of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, images Moore says he had long before the scandal erupted. He told Associated Press he kept quiet because he thought he'd be accused of "just putting this out for publicity for my movie".
Anger at Moore is building up, too. Pro-military lobby group Move America Forward is campaigning to "Stop Michael Moore from profiting in his attacks on America and our military"; Michael Wilson is making a documentary called Michael Moore Hates America; and the website www.moorelies.com is out "to expose America's fakest pseudo-muckraker".

Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help. All in all, Tony Blair must be relieved that Moore is not going to make a film about him; Moore rebuffed the rumour in a message on his website headlined: "Sorry to scare you, Tony. Michael Moore was just kidding."

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html

Whoa!!! but how could this be??

.
You either intentionally lie and mislead, or you blow smoke claiming something that you pulled out of mid-air, someone calls you on it, provides proof, yet you STILL can't admit your error.

Yea, I guess I am a waste of skin. Whatever you say, Mr. Know-it-all who's never wrong. (What a joke.)

but you should think twice before you post what you already have posted.
Nazism and Fascism are simply the same thing, have the same, sort to speak, "mother" (or "father" - is more accurate).
And when you classify one to the left and one to the right, it is time for you to read a book, not only the internet!
For your knowledge, "both of them" were on the right wing, extreme right wing in fact, even though in the name of the party was the word "socialist". For the rest, well, internet is fine, but books are even better.

.
"The ideas of Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, are remarkably similar to the ideas of modern-day Western Leftists. If Mussolini was not the direct teacher of modern-day Leftists, he was certainly a major predecessor. What Leftists advocate today is not, of course, totally identical with what Mussolini was advocating and doing 60 to 80 years ago in Italy but there are nonetheless extensive and amazing parallels."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4087

"We know from 75-odd years of experience what the Democrats have to offer: Creeping, immoral, anti-American fascism. What is fascism? Fascism is the doctrine that subordinates everything in a society to an all-powerful government. Fascists claim that they will make a society safe, prosperous and healthy, but in return they demand total power over every facet of society: Industry, finance, religion, education, property, etc. Citizens under fascist rule have no rights. The government bestows privileges on favored individuals and groups while reserving the right to revoke those for any reason."

"Forms of fascism include nazi-ism, communism and socialism. All of these forms of fascism are left wing by nature despite the left-wing lies that would have us believe otherwise......"

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_7525.shtml

Politically Incorrect
Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"
by Arthur Weinreb

June 30, 2004

Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the country?s voters. Dubbed "Youth Vote 2004", the polls, sponsored by the Dominion Institute and Navigator Ltd. were taken with a view to getting more young people involved in the political process.

In one telephone poll of teens between the ages of 14 and 18, over 40 per cent of the respondents described the United States as being "evil". That number rose to 64 per cent for French Canadian youth.

This being Canada, the amount of anti-Americanism that was found is not surprising. What is significant is the high number of teens who used the word "evil" to describe our southern neighbour. As Misty Harris pointed out in her column in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evil is usually associated with serial killers and "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." These teens appear to equate George W. Bush and Americans with Osama bin Laden and Hitler, although it is unknown if the teens polled would describe the latter two as being evil. Whether someone who orders planes to be flown into heavily populated buildings would fit that description would make a good subject for a future poll.

The Liberal government came into power in 1993 gushing anti-Americanism. Former Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien?s communications director, Francoise Ducros, made headlines when she referred to President Bush as a moron. Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish was picked up on a boom microphone saying, "Damn Americans ? I hate those bastards". Not only did Parrish not apologize for her remarks, but she later appeared on a television show hosted by alleged comedian Mike Bullard and laughed about the incident. Parrish played to the anti-Americanism of the youthful studio audience by saying that she couldn?t guarantee that she wouldn?t do it again.

Not only did then Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien not take any action against his staff or caucus members, he himself engaged in America-bashing. The depth of his anti-Americanism surfaced shortly after the 9/11 attacks when he blamed the arrogance and greed of the West (read the United States) for those attacks.

When Paul Martin assumed office last December, the childish cheap shots ended but, if anything, anti-Americanism became stronger.

Anti-Americanism played a prominent role in the election strategy of the Liberals. Paul Martin portrayed himself as the saviour of Canadian medicare while saying that if Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada came to power they would introduce "American-style" health care. Martin was happy to take credit for cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit during the 1990s when he was Minister of Finance, but he referred to tax cuts included in the Conservative Party platform as being "American-style tax cuts". Canadians who favour lower taxes or the private delivery of health care services or smaller governments or anything similar to what is found in the United States were called "un-Canadian" by Paul Martin.

It is therefore not surprising that a high percentage of Canadian youth think that the United States is evil. Nor is it surprising that this feeling is more pronounced in Quebec where Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said that he would rather live under the United Nations than the Stars and Stripes. The left wing Canadian political parties, aided by their supporters in the elite media don?t seem to be able to say anything positive about Canada without denigrating the United States in the process.

The poll results reflect that anti-Americanism will be solidly entrenched in future generations of Canadians. As well as listening to the propaganda espoused by their political leaders and the media, these kids have no experience with what constitutes real evil. They live in a country that much like pre-9/11 America, thinks that terrorist attacks are something that happens in other countries. And as the World War II veterans slowly die off, they have no conviction of the evil that the allies risked their lives to defeat.

With anti-Americanism playing such a prominent role in this past election campaign, it is no wonder that the United States was viewed in such a negative light.

Arthur Weinreb, a lawyer and author, is Associate Editor of Toronto Free Press and Canadafreepress.com. He can be reached at: aweinreb@interlog.com

.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14085

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14051

I hope you saw my "" when I said "both of them". I agree with you, and that is what I already posted, you can't take apart one of another, even in a succint description. And I don't want to continue more about this fact, just I wanted to underline that, well, if you all start posting things, at least try to be constructive and based on knowledge, not on beliefs or "I heard about ...".

In another order, I will never understand why this fight between you and Oz, you already agreed that you don't agree when it comes about politics, so, why don't you two just go along? You are more alike than you'll ever believe, but you just don't see it. And I am sure there are more subjects to discuss than politics, which by the way, was the second old job in the world - thus not to far from "une femme frivole".

you better STOP your recalls and start thinking. Because if I START with "As I recall", you'll not like what I recall. Let the things as they are, don't involve France or anyone else. That's history, modern history and politics... because I can recall a lot about Bin Laden and Saddam some 10 - 15 years ago.
You got it? It is nobody fault that things changed, but you should watch about you and don't mind about others. In other ways of speaking: see ur big tree infront of your eyes, and don't mind about my straw!

Max,
Yes, I had stated that the Supreme Court ruled against Line Item Veto powers to the president by citing it to be a violation of the Constitution based on seperations of powers. You may be correct about the 6-3 vote, but I think it was 5-4. I had also said much more concerning line item vetos and I wonder how much of my post you actually read.
I agree with you that it is a disservice to everyone concerned to create a government based dependency to indivuals suffering from poverty by giving tax payer funds that does not offer incentives to get them off the social programs. Your comments, however, are over simplistic and does not even scratch the surface of the problem.

1. Teaching a person to fish is an excellent idea to help those that need to feed themselves. While this is a great saying, it is only a saying. ... Who teaches them to fish? Is there a place to fish? Does this source contain abundant fish fit for consumption? Are they to trap fish with their hands? Do we show them how to build a trap as well? Do we supply their initial tackle? Do we teach them how to obtain bait? While you use a cliche' to show an example of how to help those in need, the saying becomes hollow when nothing is offered along with it and over simplistic at best.
2. Who decides who is truly in "need"? What criteria has to be met? What level of support should be given them?
3. Would it not be far more effective to disenfranchise those that would abuse the system as opposed to a blanket policy for everyone under every circumstance?
Max, I will not say that I disagree with the philosophy you use concerning tax dollars to those that need some level of support. I will say that the philosophy itself is flawed and needs to be scrutinized and tuned to be a realistic philosophy that actually helps those in need and does not hinder them through unreaslistic expectations from them. Is 6 months long enough support for able bodied people that just need a job? Sometimes this is more than enough time and at other times it falls far short. There are too many variables and circumstances to fix a number to it and call it the solution.
Do I consider this philosophy an unworkable solution? No. I do not consider the philosophy flawed other than being short sighted and lacking flexibility.
Is a minimum wage realistic? Yes, I think it is. Anyone that works a 40 hour week should earn enough pay to supply the basic needs of that person. Food, shelter, and clothing. Availability to health care for an unhealthy worker is non productive worker and a possible risks to other workers. The way I see it Max, is there are two crucial concerns that must be addressed for this great nation to remain a great nation. Our citizens must be educated and they must be healthy. Without these two essential items, we will not remain a prosperous nation. How do we obtain these two essentials? I do not have the answer but, for this nation to find the answers the left and the right MUST abandon partisan rivalries and work togehter towards common goals. Those goals should be nothing short of the values and principles our forefathers gave us in our Constitution. As it stands now, the far right and the far left are unyielding obstacles towards the protection of our Constitution. One side wishes to own it and the other side wants to give it away. Debates are not even considered by either side from the other side.
I also think it is a disservice to everyone by our corporations moving to keep our citizens within the poverty level. Our corporations are quickly moving this nation to a third world level labor force all in the name of "profits". This nation is the consumer market for the world. What happens when everyting is cheap to buy, but no one makes wages to afford them anyway? This nation could very soon become the vanishing consumer base needed to sustain "big item" companies.

I figure by askin gyou a single simple question you just may for ONCE actually have a valid and intelligent answer.

Question: Who the hell are you to tell me to get off this board? Newbie.

then maybe you can tell us what to do. Until then STFU.

but proove to me otherwise, until then I can't change my stance on why Nazism should be on the right with Fascism.

.
"Oz said, "When (he) first came to this forum a few years ago...." (A "few" years ago = 2001)

Actually, you first came to this forum only last year - a real "newbie" (your word and tag) compared to some of us. You've been posting here since early to mid 2003. And you've been the forum antagonist from the beginning. (Link to an earlier discussion if you want to suggest I'm mistaken.)

I'm a stickler for accuracy, you know. More exaggeration or yet another attempt to mislead (for some weird reason)?

I have read his books AND seen his movies, and I can assure you, I am NOT a moron.

.
James,

I, too, read a wide range of views, from the left, such as Molly Ivans and Eleanor Clift, to the right, such as George Will and William F. Buckley, to many people in-between. (Actually, Ivans is pretty much an avowed socialist.) I read the New York Times (pretty liberal) and the Washington Times (pretty conservative) on a fairly regular basis. Time and Newsweek seem to be pretty liberal, while National Review is pretty conservative, all of which are on my reading list. And when many of the "experts" write books, I'll read many of them - especially the presidential memoirs. (My collection of presidential memoirs, and presidential "wanna-bes" such as Goldwater and Kemp, goes back to Herbert Hoover, with only a few missing - and many of them are signed. Yes, I'll buy Bill Clinton's - and hopefully get him to sign it when he comes to town on his book tour.)

Personally, I'm often accused of reading only the conservative view of things, since that's the view I espouse, but that couldn't be more wrong. After all, one of the best ways to defeat an opponent's argument is to fully understand it, and it's a great way to debate an issue without having to rely on all the standard and often repeated rhetoric. I probably read more "liberal" sources than the "liberals" who post in these threads.

(I first read Mother Jones back in the late 70s, by the way. An "interesting" publication, to say the least, although I haven't looked at it in a while.)

You are absolutely right-on about reading the source material (and/or viewing the actual speech), instead of - or at least in addition to, reading the pundents take on it. At times, one has to wonder if we actually saw and/or read the same thing?

Max, please restate the above. I'll quote the part with which I disagree:

"Is my money mine, or is my money theirs?"

"Theirs" would refer to "many (if not most) on the left". I don't think this is accurate.

At best you mean that the left expect that part of your money earned should benefit what you call the common good. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Certainly, they don't think it ALL belongs to "them". Additionally, the right feel the same way - they just spend it in different priorities. Is this correct or not?

"Common good" is bad. Spending money on national defense is bad, too?

I first joined TR in early 2002. I wasn't too active in discussions and was prettty much reading them and viewing Q&A stuff. About 6 months later, TR had made changes and I lost my login, as I wsn't big on points etc. I have reregistered under a different alias and have been using this one for about a year and a half now.

I actually remeber erading your comments and laughing with a few employees at my last job, you actually used to agree with many of my comments at that time even though they completely argued your own points through double meanings. Shortly after I had lost my login info and my email addy was not reconized to resend it, I was back with a new alias and thus the games began.

Where were you when this conflict began and the first negative pictures were being shown and GWB put an end to it.

Now secondly, you are also stating that all he US, Canadian, English, Australian Iraqi and other reporters who claim their pictures are NOT admissible to the USA are complete and utter liars, because YOU believe that you are really seeing the whole picture? Did you know Grimace and the Hamburglar are real people too?

JC man, do you believe EVERTYTHING the US government tells you?

If I see pictures of the atriocities in Iraq that you don't, the reporter who took the photos has shown them globally yet been restricted in the USA, how can you for ONE second think that The White House isn't restrictng these photos from your media reports?

Did you see the pioctures of the local dogs in Iraq that were eating the entrails of dead US soldiers? Did you see the parapalegic and quardopalegic Iraqi children when their school was 'accidentally' bombed by the US?
did you see the mother who's husband and son were mistakenly attacked and killed on their way to drop the son off at school?

I didn't think so, maybe you could explain why these photos are available in every country but the USA?

Due to my current citizenship and line of work I could choose to be a US citizen at anyteim, yet I wouldn't want to enbarass myself and invite conflict while travelling so I will refrain from such idiocy, much like you would never consider becoming an Iraqi citizen. So I'll spare you the embarsassment of having yet another American that doen't believ GWB for a second, there's enough of them in the US already that have their voices stifled.

Jean Cretien, well I have never loved the guy, even though his broken French Canadian accent was more than amusing. One thing Cretien did do wasbalance the budget year after year and nobody else has lived up to that yet. He did more good tha bad in the long run, as for his bashing Bush, well it goes wit hthe territory, yuo F-up and people will call you on it.

Before you try to compare this with Bush's negative comments towadrs Australia's running candidates, this was not said during a presidential race, he was already elected and making terrible mistakes.

As for GWB himself, I think that if you elect him to run YOUR country, that is entirely YOUR choice and nobody can speak out about it unless American.

As for his ability and knowledge of foreign policy, I believe even GWB himself has admitted to haveing VERY little knowledge of foreign policy. If not, it is commonly known and echoed by his actions so far. He can contrl your taxes or do whatever he wants in your country, when he takes his adgenda to a global scale, it is the WORLD's business not just yours. He made it this way, nobody else.

What country do you speak of? I have NEVER waited for medical attention and if it is needed it is given priority. The TWO year waiting list is old and uter BS.

When my father needed a heart transplant it was done in days, not two years.

Non emergency medicine is handled on a non-emrgency basis, this way those in need can get top priority. You have proven what little you actually know about Canada or our medical system that is a low cost cakewalk to all. sure everyone has read stories about people dying or waiting for incredible amounts of time before running to the US for private help, it's ciomplete BS. People who NEED help , get help, immediately.

Well I am definitely not Liberal (in Canadian terms) so that's invalid.

as for our military, we provide much needef recon for the US and have done for years. We have the most advanced and fastest recon vehicles in North America and the US erlies heavily on Canadian forces in times of war. Otherwise GWB would have never asked Canada to participate. Our soldiers are STILL cleaning up in Iran as well as our contractors and humanitarioan efforts in Iraq, that may be stopped due to the rising levels of violence in Iraq.

Feared? by who?

What a typically arrogant and delusional statement and so expected from an American.

Nobody FEARS you, nobody wants to be LIKE you.

How do you actually beliee that a country just a few hundred years old is possibly a role model to countries that have suffered worse wars and attacks on their own soil and hae developed their nations since the birth of Christ.

What a arrogant and typically self-centered, delusional reply, and how expected fromsomeone who doesn't have a clue how his country is actually viewed from others and definitely not WHY they are seen this way.

Believe me, guys, you've found your collective voices. Listen to A.M. radio. Frothing neocons abound. The corporately controlled media certainly cannot be considered "socialist," now, can it?

Breathe deeply and chant "it's ok, it's all ok." Got it? "It's ok, it's all ok." So who cares if 867 American soldiers, 5052 American soldiers have been injured and over 1,000 American soldiers have been evacuated for treatment of mental health problems- all to further bush/cheney's ever-changing reasons for invading Iraq in the first place. Of course, Afghanistan continues to descend into a malestrom of chaos, since we've not nearly the number of troops needed to safely oversee that particular country.

So hey- let's go neocon: 1. Froth at Moore, 2. Blame Clinton (either one will do), 3. Spit at France and 4. Decry the U.N. Whoops, can't do the last, bush/cheney now needs them to do what it can't- provide a supportive and legitimate presence in Iraq. So I guess all those bad thing the U.N. was accused of weren't really true. Or perhaps this opportunistic crowd of geopolitical half-wits needs more help that it's willing to admit.

Whatever. Let's talk about Moore. He's an easier target.

Actually now that I have time, I decided to read the link you provided, I have never actually been to MM's personal site and it is really entertaining.

As a staunch BUSH supporter, how can you possibly use this as fodder when it discounts everything you stand for as an American?
I suppose all the comments and reports are al lies though, as you and the white House will probably never see the film yet will spend endless hours discounting its credibility.

As for the link proving anything it REALLY doesn't.
"Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. "Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever."

Largest grossing documentary ever is a mere title given as the film has ben classified as a documentary by the reviewers. Did MM also make up the fact that it is the "largest grossing .." or do you think he is simply repeating what the box office has said to him? No differet than US record labels classifying an artist into a segment that doesn't reflect their work at all but puts them into a demographic by labelling them. ie: Knickleback never claimed to be a rock band, they were bluesy punk (and couldn't get a deal)until they sold out to a US label and changed their sound completely to become a ROCK band and were quickly labelled and marketed as such.

This in no way implies that MM calls his film a documentary, surely even with limited comprehension skills you can see this, it is a label and he has reported what the BOX OFFICE has labelled it as, "The Largest Grossing Doumentary..." These aren't Moore's words he is repeating someone else's.

Although I tend to agree on your views of Bush, when it comes to Max I gotta chime in. Max is a refreshing guy. Since my logon got fixed (or at least since I discovered it did) I have enjoyed the conversations here in great part because of his continued participation.

Here's some more things I like:

He figures out quickly when his hot buttons are being pressed and responds wisely.

He is not purely a logician, but has an eloquency and belief system. He can be beaten by logic, yet will not beat it back until the end. He knows when to quit.

On the other hand, He doesn't waste an argument he could easily hands down beat the other person into the ground.

This may be my own delusion, but I see him having great oratary skills judging from the style of his writings, better at political debate from a position of passion than say, picking topics and team debating for the sake of it.

A good heart despite the fact that I called it a black one once :)

It's just fun to read his posts.

Max is the most likely candidate for a future U.S. Presidency of the TR peers IMO :)

He does evolve :) I am not saying he does 180's or flip flops- he doesn't. But he is reasonable. I have noticed for one that the Libertarians may be becoming a party he could actually throw a vote to someday~!

He is sensitive. I got a little too personally overinvolved about the war some time ago and had to quit watching the news and talking about it all the time for a while and he e-mailed me some really nice concerned e-mails, which were quite appreciated.

Well, then on Bush and Max, well, I disagree about the part about what Bush has actually done, but I don't know the man personally and for all I know he could have well gone down this path with the best of intentions and a sincere trying to do the right thing. Max once said something to the effect that Foreign Policy all boils down to trust in the President as a person, because we will not know what went on behind the scenes for some time, if ever. While I think that this is true, good honest people with with the best of intentions can also be mislead by others of more dubious morals. The President (whoever He is) doesn't really reflect the man so much in my view as the actions during that administration. He is the figurehead for our country, a condition of immense responsibility including things that are out of his hands entirely sometimes. It is that role, that of President that I am talking about. He may be the greatest guy on Earth, but he will be judged as President by what happened during his time. I guess we'll see what happens when his time is up, which personally I suspect will not be for a while yet.

Just a simple answer, you should be able to understand it without too much effort, I hope.

.
It was very nice, very funny in parts, quite insightful, and certainly provided some food for thought (for me).

Thanks.

"....most likely candidate for a future U.S. Presidency of the TR peers"

Wow!

Not even close

You neither have the right to tell me NOT to comment on BUSH nor do I have a right to tell you not to comment on Paul Martin (if that holds any interest to you it doesn't to me).

So I guess all that you have done here is try to stifle someone's right to freedom of expression.

Yes Garion, your accurate observation has put it all together and I am the nutcase. Haven't you read your Constitution today and recited the pledge of Allegiance like a good American scholar, or have you forgotten that freedoms still exist OUTSIDE America too?

So seeing as you are unable to answer the prvious question, I will ask once more.

What is it that give YOU the right to tell me to leave this forum? To save you an answer and possibly hours of perplexing web searches,you can't ask someone to leave a public forum that is not a property of your own.

You are more than welcome to bash the Canadian PM,I'll probably agree with you on most cases, if you are right of course. Unlike yourself, I don't take a personal offence to someone saying Canada's OM is an idiot politician. At least we haven't been lied to in order to support Canada going to war, that's all I care about, how HE affects and plays a role in my life. If he is quiet and screws up our country from the privacy of his office then so be it, if I don't like it I don't have to stay here, I have a choice and realize if I doesn't work for me, I can oppose it or move.

That's a great idea Admin.

Max would get my vote.

If TR does decide that the discussions need moderators perhaps we should nominate Max.

Chas

It seemed that way from his posts - Like the Wizard or is that lizard of Ozzz...Playing with too many Munchkens -

Well I'll just ignore his posts - like everyone else tries to do - It seems he is one of the only posters in TR that can or never changes thier view - he is always correct in his posts - even when dead wrong - Many of the other posters - will agree on principles - based on where the other lives - but to Oz - everyone must follow his Rules and his beliefs - Interesting - didn't we call that Communism back in the 70/80's before it became Non-PC to say that.. (oh from a number of the posts he doesn't like to be labeled - hum another sign of Red)

Call me an-old crazy LIFER - but everyone has a view - and that view was build on beliefs and life experences from an early age.... and discussion - widens that view to what others have experenced - but to Oz his view is very narrow view (like his mind) - of his world and everyone must conform to it - or they are (how does he put it) a blind idoit follows GWB -

It has to be just you, Max. I am 52 and I am YOUNG!!!!! YOUNG, I say! YOUNG! ............. Yes, it must just be you Max.

You are correct, Chas. MM and Rush are both biased towards their own ideology. MM had admitted that his movie is strongly biased and did not try to hide this.
I had no plans to see the movie but, I heard so much controversy from the right that I felt I had to see it and judge for myself. As an Independant, I consider it my duty to study the issues from both sides. I found, for the most part, that the movie was boring with brief moments of humor. MM made speculations towards connections that I have read about and I am less speculative than he. Other areas were a stretch, to say the least.
Like you, I can admire someone, such as Max, that can remain strong with their own convictions. Then there is the other side of the coin when someone such as Bush remains strong with their convictions, inspite of all of the evidence that he has been wrong. A sign of intelligence is not to stand steadfast in one's own beliefs but, to be able to adapt when one's beliefs have been disproven. Then again, I have long awaited a sign of intelligence from Bush. ... A complete sentence? A paragraph lacking grammitical errors? A correct pronunciation of a two syllable word? ***insert sarcastic remark here*** besides G W ... I'm easy. I will settle for two out of three.
BTW, Chas. A battle of logic has little to do with a presentaion of facts. Neither is a debate based upon facts. Should the facts be known, there is nothing to debate. This is why politics is so easily debated. Rarely are all of the facts in play. Just ask MM or Rush. Oops! Scratch Rush. I forgot. He has powers on loan from God. It certainly would help if God filled the rest of us in on that "fact".

..... there is no sign of intelligent life on this rock.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Miami, that MM's movie is not a documentary and is a simple political ad for the left. When you show such concern about onesided issues being portrayed as reality then why do you not show the same concern about Rush, Sean, and countless other conservative talk show hosts? Is not a onesided testiment towards truth always a distrotion of reality? Should you not also be concerned about the right's onesided political ads? As least Michael Savage, as weird as he can be at times, will shred the right when it has erred as well as the left. He talks like a conservative but, does show symptons of being the Independant he professes to be.

"QUESTION: What gives you the right to tell someone to STFU on this board or anywhere else for that matter for not agreeing with you?"

My Answer

The same RIGHT that you exercise in telling the US what to do.

By the same RIGHT that you exercise in spewing your opinions on HOW, WHY, WHO, WHAT, WHERE America is, was, should be, has been, will be, etc etc.

Why is my answer so hard for you to comprehend?

I have "debated" some with Max and I agree that he has some valid convictions. I also admire his ability to use thought as well as opinions in his posts. I have also discovered that he can be "left for words" when given vaild questions towards his statements. My post, "Line Item Vetos" is where I have the justification to make this statement. I would love to take the challenge where you suggested EntRight avoid a debate with Max on points of logic. I think that Max and I can learn a great deal from each other, and readers of the debate can learn as well from each side of the debate. Why do I choose Max to debate? Partly from your suggestion that Entright avoid such a debate, I love a challenge, and much more from my observance that Max seems to be the most willing to debate. What do you say, Max? A debate, not an argument. I love to debate and I hate to argue.
BTW, Do I expect to "win"? No, I expect to learn and, hopefully, to teach.

You have NO argument, this board nor 'America' is YOUR property.

You can bitch and whine about Canada as you are 100% entitled to, and personally I couldn't give a damn anyway. How can you contest a fact to begin with? Your government wrote the rules haven't you read them yet?

Your argument is like my saying you can't go to MacDonalds. What a retarded concept, can't you see it?

Secondly, if you don't like it, lump it or bugger off. That should be at your level anyway.

Well all the info is definitelu right, they suspected this and officials said there was a possibility of that and it may be linked due to possible whatever. Very conclusive.

But anyway, that is OLD news, Regean supported it and watched idly as others have also igored WMD being used in the middle east as it favoured their agenda, again this is old news.

What isn't confirmed is that America was under threat of WDM as Saddam neither had the weaponry nor logisctical support to launch an intercontinental missile attack against America.

Even your favorite peers will tell you this war is not to save America from bombs laden with mustard gas from hitting America, you weren't threatened in that way, George W. Bush MOST DEFINITELY didn't say such a horribly scary thing!

There was speculation and reports to the president of confirmed WMD that he later agreed were 'inconsistent' (that means they were bulls**t).

So your post reminds me of the many justifications for attacking Iraq, as reported it was "Attack on Iraq" then "Operation Iraqi Liberation" or something, the tides turned don't you remember?

You're not supposed to say it was due to WMD anymore, the Republicans changed their mind, now you are doing it because of how Britain uncovered dead bodies buried in mass grves after a Middle Eastern war, or was it to "SAVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ?" from a certain doom?

.
I accept.

Your "line item" message (which really wasn't about the line-item veto) touched upon some issues that I am most passionate about - the forced transfer of income to fund various social programs. You said that my "comments are over simplistic and do not even scratch the surface of the problem." And in this thread, you're right. I didn't really delve into them, as it wasn't really the subject of the thread. But a "debate" would give me the opportunity to do just that.

How would it be structured? I might suggest starting a new thread.

Would it be "moderated"? I'll accept TheChas as the moderator, perhaps someone else if he's not willing or able, but definitely not some. Or perhaps we don't need one. What do you think?

Will other people be invited to comment? I wouldn't care one way or the other, but I wouldn't want to be diverted and side-tracked by the various attack dogs that roam around.

But sure, I'm willing.

We still haven't fix the water supply to Pre-invasion levels.

Those "WMD's" that you claim had use by 1986 sticker on them.

How many more American Soldiers do you want to kill for your overactive paranoid neocon hysteria.

You said you have freedom of speech, to talk, opinionate, lie, to spin, to tell the truth *GASP*. Which I completely agree, I never denied that. I also have freedom of speech to say STFU. As far as I see it its a mutual exercise of a god given right that we are both using. What are you so upset about? I thought you were all for freedoms and stuff...of that nature?

Guess what bro?, we go hit whoever we feel is a threat to our national security, PERIOD. Get used to it.

.
...that, at the time of 9-11, there may be upwards of 20,000 "terrorists" world-wide who are poised to participate in terrorist attacks against the United States, its interests, or it allies. If you think that Osama bin Laden is the only one, all I can say is that I'm glad you're not in charge.

Terrorists don't attack soldiers, you say? What planet did you just fall from? Who attacked the USS Cole?

From CNN:

Senior Bush administration officials Tuesday said a member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group operating in Iraq has been captured by U.S. forces.

Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed by the United States to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq.

Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Powell told the U.N. Security Council in early February that after al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons.

During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, nearly two dozen of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country, said Powell.

----------

Oh, but let me guess. You'll say that it came from the White House, so it must not be true.

It's a pretty sad day when our fellow citizens (if you are indeed one) defend those who steal our airplanes, crash them into our buildings, and kill thousands of our citizens.

Your're saying that these insurgents, who behead innocent people, are revolutionaries?? Are you serious!! MY GOD! These people are nothing but thugs and rouges, who want nothing but an extremist goverment that they can control. Are you by any chance MM?

I see now, there is a new group in Iraq that is looking to kill al-Zarqawi called Salavation Movement. Looks like the people of Iraq are taking a stand against these thugs. Bravo for the Iraqi people.

.
You are right-on about the Iraqi people standing up against the thugs.

From a news story recently released:

"At a time when Iraqis are starting to unite ... to ensure a prosperous future ... these cowardly criminals are still desperately attempting to prevent our rich country from moving forward."

- New Iraq Prime Minister Iyad Allawi

Allawi told Spanish daily El Pais the government wanted to reinstate the death penalty for a limited time until Iraqis could decide themselves in elections.

He said the move was unrelated to the trial of Saddam Hussein -- accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -- but was a response to "indiscriminate murdering by terrorists."

Allawi blames Saddam supporters and foreign militants for sabotage, guerrilla attacks and kidnappings aimed at making postwar Iraq ungovernable.

Iraq Justice Minister Malek al-Hassan said the government held 29 foreigners for joining the insurgency. "They are all Arabs, regrettably," he added.

----------

The Iraqi people, in my estimation, just want their country back. They wanted it back from Saddam's henchmen. And sure, they'd like the USA to get out as soon as possible, I don't think anyone will deny that, but they also want to take it back from the thugs who are trying to prevent it from happening.

Clueless? No other country owns more assets in the US than Canada except the UK. Just shows how clueless you are thinking the your country and others don't influence the rest of the world. You have admitted that you are doing business in the US and attempting to influence the way we think by your retoric and probably your music. Destroy what we stand for and you destroy yourself. Stupid socialists.

pctech is a perfect illustration of the victim mentality of democrats. They would lead us to believe that Americans are too stupid to figure out
how to teach others how to fish and too stupid to learn if we did.

Using that tale as a metaphor in this situation does little to support your apparent position, and more to back mine. Perhaps you want to try again?

That's NOT what you said bvefore, the crappy thing about lying on this forum is it can be recalled for all to see that you have changed your comments.

My GOD Garion you are a tiring one aren't you. Now I understand some people aren't too quick to th edraw and am willing to go over my points so that they can be understood but for heavens sake, are you just freaking stupid or what?!?!?

You have a right to ay STFU, yuo don't have a right to tell people to get off this board.

What's even more amusing is that you are so unable to defend your own warped conclusions that your only retort is STFU. Kinda like the child, taking his baseball bat home when they won't play vy his rules. You have the mentality of a VERY small child, you have the logic of a peice of string and the brains of stick of butter. Get help, you are an embarrassment to Americans a reflection of a poor educational system and a hiderance to the US citizens with SOME brains.

Noone here cares pal except people like you that live in this country.

Hmm...we went in there because we thought Saddam had WMD. So we didn't find the smoking gun??, oops! Now he is gone and we rebuilt/rebuilding that country. Isn't that a good thing that a dictator is gone? But its not important to you, you wanna check USA's power.

So now we go after any other country we feel is a threat to us. If you don't like it, too f*king bad, because my safety and security is more important than whether you LIKE it or NOT! Now you get the picture?

You are trying to have a logical discussion with somebody who would use an email address as a web alias?

TR as most other websites, gets crawled and email addresses are gathered from it such as this clever persons alias to be sold around the world (mostly Florida) to Spammers. Just make sure this guy never has YOUR email address in his address book, as soon as he is hit (and yes he will be) his addy book will then in turn inflict the same, due to an irrespobsible lack of protection, against yourself.

It seems like you are trying to knock some sense into ssomeone with no actual thought process.

Millions of Americans are subjected to watching their families broken up and killed because some overparanoid kid who fears his own shadow thinks he is underattack.

here's an idea, why don't you convince GWB to nuke the rest of the planet, then you will most certainly be the biggest and the best, yet all alone and unable to function as you have destroyed your valued resources that all these so called enemies provide you with.

>"Noone here cares pal except people like you that live in this country."
Do you have ANY idea how MANY of your country's citizens that involves? What, do you really think a handful of left-wing extremists are the issue? I would say it is far closer to half of your population that is adamantly against this invasion.

For you to brush off the reasons for going to war just proves how ignorant you really are. Are you then implying ANYONE said to be a threat to america should be attacked whether or not it's true? In this case, GWB mislead yuo and without any apologies, continued to send thousands on men and women to die for an uncertain cause, where has this happened before?? Vietnam?

You speak for a very small group of people here that share your sentiment about the US being ever powerful and able to destroy the world. at the rate you are going now, how long do you seriously believe yuo will remain a super power? When you are no longer a super power (No SP has ever been able to maintain that status in te world's history, it is impossible), don't you think it just MIGHT help save you from complete annihiliation if you have a few alies. You are obviously too young to see long term issue or make any sense as you are simply confused on the whole issue and can't see a bigger picture to what you are up to.

Again you brush off being told you had to go to war without Allied support (which would have taken two or three more weeks) hundreds of American soldiers died because of premature actions justified by your presidenty instilling fear into YOU. Do yuo actually feel the same way your president does? That your troops are just expendable pawns to help America prosper?

"So now we go after any other country we feel is a threat to us."

Good idea! Go for China and Korea, they'll at least show yuo what resistance and death tolls are all about. Yuo talk big because you have effectively killed a bunch of ill equipped and unprepared soldiers in Iran that surrendered not out of fear of America but starvation and lack of arms.

Yuo then go and take out a regime in Iraq that you had supported as it destroyed human life for years and consider yourselves tough guys?!?

You need to do a LOT of growing up before you'll understand the value of life and other countries. If it wasn't for Iraq and Iran, Canada and UK, Australia and other allies, you wouldn't be anywhere near as prosperous as you are today. Yuo NEED these countries to survive, if you doubt it, go back and pick up that grade 8 text book you've been neglecting to read all year.

you idiot. You NEED us to survive. We provide you with jobs, military, security, and are willing to fight the fights that you are too cowardly to fight yourself (except for UK). So stfu and go back to school..and this time don't go to a communist school where they will teach you that USA is "evil".

By showig me exactly how Canada needs the US to survive, yes I know yiou THINK you help us with money and arms and stuff, but that doesn't hold water as it is easily shown that Canada provides equally to the USA, in the form of Electicity, Natural Gas, Fish stocks, Softwood etc.

You are one of thos eguys who think s Ameirca invented everything I bet, where would your country be without,
a) the lightbulb (before you contest, it was German, rebuilt in Canada and the USA bought the
patent and marketed it)
b) The telephone
c) Acetylene used to weld together your bombs and ships
d)BASKETBALL
e)BROMINE
f)CREED TELEGRAPH SYSTEM
g)ELECTRIC CAR HEATER
h)GRAMOPHONE
i)HEART PACEMAKER
j)INSULIN PROCESSING FOR SAVING THOSE WITH DIABETES
k)QUARTZ CLOCK
l)BOAT'S SCREW PROPELLER
m) THE GAS MASK (for saving you against the attack from Saddam that you are nin turn going to supposedly save US from)

the list just goes on and on endlessly, full of inventions of Canadian s which you happily use in your day to day lives and yet have no idea that they aren't your own.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa090100a.htm

The part I think that is most hilarious about this whole discussion, is that you actually believe that you support the world, wheras not a single country in the world doesn't see you that way. You have SAVED nobody, ever at anytime from anything, other than yourselves.

So in response to my iterating exactly what we have provided you with, VERY vaguely and only barely skimming the surface, perhapse you could in turn explain exactly what and who you saved us from and how much money we have beged you for and what exactly we need you for.

If you can actually answer a logical question, based on your own comments that you are helping save us, you may just be able to save a little face here and gain some respect from others who currently see you as nonsensical and insane.

Once again, Who have you saved us from? How have you "protected" us? How much money have we asked you for that you have given us, (I suppose because we are a poor third-world nation that actually balances it's budget instead of facing billions of dollars of debt each year).

I would love for you to visit Canada with your almighty approach and see how long you last. I KNOW verty well that many Americans support my views as I have been told so when sharing my points with Americans in America.

You speak absolute lies, not a single word of the truth ws included in your last or most comments, youare simply lashing out without ANY supporting evidence to your statement, and yet you think people will accept them??

I'm not saying that ANYONE else should believe as I do, I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs. I don't ask that you agree with me..but you can sure as hell respect that we have a difference of opinion without assuming that I'M the moron.

Rush was in the habit of saying, "with powers on loan from God.". ( early to mid 90's )He has since changed this to say, "with talents on loan from God.". ......... I guess God demoted him?
Yes, I use to listen to Rush and it was with his, "with powers on loan from God." statements that finally caused me to shun him. There is a limit to my tolerance towards arrogance.

fjf142, is the only point you can make is that you can make personal attacks?

Terrorist attack Civilians.
The guys who flew the planes into my building -Terrorists.
The guys who chop off the head of contractors - Terrorists.
The Guys who shoot at soldiers - Not Terrorists.
The Guys who shoot back at people shooting at them - Not Terrorists.
The Guys who drop bombs on hideouts of insurgents - not terrorists.

Just because somebody isn't a terrorist doesn't mean that they aren't a thug or evil.

.
These "people" whatever you and I may select to call them, are bigger than I believe most people understand. This network of "terrorist" organizations, know no particular nationality, and is not unlike a paramilitary organization. They have rank and structure, and if one of the leaders fall, another is in the wings, ready to take his place. Their methods are, what we have come to know, as terrorist methods. It is estimated that their numbers are somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 strong, and they are scattered around the globe in dozens of countries, including both Iraq and the USA.

If one person of this organization blows himself up taking a bus load of civilians with him, you and I both agree that he is (was) a terrorist. If that same person blows himself up, but taking a building full of soldiers, I still call him a terrorist. So does the US government. So does the Iraqi government. So does the British government. So does the United Nations. If you want to call him something else, it doesn't make him something else. You can call him a grapefruit, for all I care. But it doesn't detract from what he is or what he does or how we should deal with it.

These "terrorists" in Iraq are not Iraqi loyalists "defending their country". They are terrorists - or grapefruits, if you prefer - many of whom went to Iraq from other countries, intent on denying the Iraqi people the freedom they desire, and they want to disrupt the efforts at creating a democratic form of government in the region.

I honestly don't think that you have a good grasp of the depth of this network of terrorists, er, uh, I mean grapefruits. Perhaps you should study the issues a little bit more.

I am going to call these people thugs and terrorists, because not only are they targeting soldiers, but Iraqi civilians who are they feel are helping the Americans. Max is right, most of these insurgents aren't even Iraq's, but Muslim extremists looking to kill westerners or anyone who helps them (look the the South Korean). They are using terrosim as their weapon. They are definately not Revolutionaries.

It's not just "Al-Queada" and other assorted terrorist groups fighting in Iraq. Al-Sadar (sp?) never worked with terrorists and he's killing US troops, You have Ba'athists still fighting. And we still don't know who we can trust over there, are the Kurds gunning for their own state? What about the influence of Iran (which are structurally against Al-Queada, think Shiite vs. Sunni).

Because of the wild eyed paranoid neoconservatives in charge of the US, we are spending way too much time and resouces to combat a problem Saddam that we had fairly well contained.

We don't have enough resources to ensure stability in Afghanistan for their elections without begging for French help.

To put this in Server management terms maybe you guys can understand, Saddam was an OS/2 Server that we had to look at every so often, would act up and the application that it served was clugy. Al Queada are 25 unpatched Win2k Servers that are crashing every 20 minutes. Instead of working on the Win2k servers we've decided to upgrade the OS/2 server to 2003 without checking to make sure the hardware or the Application can work with the new operating system, so now whe have the Win2K mess and the new 2003 mess to deal and they are both mission critical.

Read your posts...and um...nope he's still a flaming MORON.

Perhaps I forgot the time we live in (let's hold hands and dream of rainbows and fields of flowers now)...that's called a joke btw.

Ok the people who don't read his books and see his movies may not be morons -- only the ones who buy his books and read his movies and actually think Moore is NOT a moron are really the MORONS.

Clear enough now?

You've read the books and seen the movies to come to this conclusion? Or are you one of those people who don't HAVE to do that to know?

So what would you call Canada - It's not a Capitalist - it isn't communist - it isnt nationalist - Me Thinks its a Socialist society.

Government takes money from everyone and redistrubutes it to those the government feels needs it most. You as a citizen of the country don't know what to do with your excess cash - so the government will take it and give it to those that don't want to work for it.

Hum - call me Crazy - Call me Nuts but isn't that socialism ...

So Oh Great and Powerful (only in your own mind) OZ what is Canada ... What is their form of Government - Tell us stupid people south of the Great OZ Media - what is Canada's form of Government...

.
On your initial point, or attempted point, it would be best to simply agree to disagree. Of course, you also disagree with the U.S. government, the British government, the Iraqi government, the United Nations, the military experts, and so on. But if you want to insist, knock yourself out. As far as I'm concerned, this "dead horse" has been beaten enough, and, like I said, we can simply agree to disagree.

But I must also suggest that your description of the current American administration as the "wild eyed paranoid neoconservatives in charge of the US", shines a very bright light on your extreme bias. Making suggestions such as that only serves to discredit everything you say.

"Wild eyed paranoid neoconservatives in charge of the US"?????????? Get real, dude.

You found the WMD's. Goodness somebody call the AP newswire.

.
I seem to recall a previous discussion when you said, "The few times I've (you've) heard Ann Coulter, she has completely turned my (your) stomach". However, you also admitted that you haven't (didn't) read any of her books.

I might suggest that Michael Moore has made just as many appearances, perhaps more, on various TV shows as Ann Coulter. So based on your "turned my stomach" comment, isn't it reasonable to suggest that a similar opinion of Michael Moore could be derived from a person who didn't actually read his books or see his movies?

You're not applying a double-standard here, are you?

.
If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it looks like a duck, it's a duck.

However, I didn't say that if you read Ann Coulter that you are a moron. My husband has read Ann Coulter and has given me his synopsis and I was completely turned off by it, so that and watching her (fleetingly) on TV is all the exposure I've had.

Again, I'm not saying that anyone give MM a fair chance, I'm just saying, don't assume I'm a MORON because I've read his books or watched his movies..especially if you haven't.

You know, Max, I was thinking (which is very difficult right now as I am addled by a nasty sinus infection) And I KNOW you had to have read the moron posts before getting to mine. And I KNOW you are an intelligent man, so I am sure you understood what I was saying and you decided to nitpick a point instead of focusing on intent. I'd bet that if it didn't have to do with MM, you would have let it slide..

Like I tried to say before perhaps my original post was a bit unfair saying that everyone who reads Moore's books or watches his films are morons. However Moore really is still a moron in my mind. No I didn't watch his movie - and unless I can see it for FREE I never will, I won't contribute money intentionally to his pockets. Sorry but it just ain't gonna happen.

People who buy his books and go to his films (paying to seeing them) AND they truly buy into his crap...yes they are morons. Hey its not like classes or groups of people I've been lumped into has never had someone stand up and say that class or group was idiotic or moronic. The largest group being the ol' "geek" stereotype that comes from my chosen profession and my interest in technology. Or how about when I was younger with the leather jackets and the long hair, playing my guitar and hanging out with "the wrong crowd" -- folks called me moronic for that.

I didn't rip people overly or make fun of them personally, I said they are morons -- look up the definition for moron, in my context I think it applies.

You have a guy (Mike Moore) who is nothing but hot air, is obviously doing "it" to just carve a niche for himself of fame and fortune and people are buying into it as fact and as someone truley with a deep passion. No its not for fame. No its not for riches. Gimme a break!

I read plenty of articles in the newspapers and in various magazines about MM along with small spots on tv news shows here and there that I don't need to see his film or read his books to form an accurate opinion of what I believe he's all about.

He is a M-O-R-O-N!

Period.

PS. It has nothing to do with what side he attackes btw, he could be for Bush and attacking Kerry with the same style for all I care. Its how stupid he is, how obvious he is...oh well apparently not as obvious as I thought. Damn lemmings.

;)

.
Yes, I did read the "moron" posts. And no, I don't think you're a moron. And yes, I probably would have let it slide if it wasn't about the real moron, Michael Moore.

When Bill Clinton was president, there was an extreme "right-leaning" faction who actually suggested that Bill Clinton was responsible for (ordered) the deaths of about 50 people - including Vince Foster, that he allowed some air strips in Arkansas to be used by Colombian drug dealers, and other such nonsense. (He may have done plenty of things, but these are "way out there".) Sure, they had plenty of "proof", just like Michael Moore claims to have. But it was no more than clinging onto something that may have appeared to be legitimate, and it was spun and twisted so far out of proportions, only for the purpose of creating a desired conclusion. But in actuality, it bordered on the ridiculous. Grab onto such coat-tails, and everybody's credibility is brought into question. Those are the kinds of people I try to avoid like a bad sinus infection because they are so whacko, in both their methods and conclusions, that they have an adverse affect on the legitimate detractors. Pick a conclusion, any conclusion, and work backwards looking for things to justify and prove it, and you could probably prove that Al Gore was abducted by aliens for the purpose of conducting cerebral experiments. (Really, he was??????)

Personally speaking, I think Michael Moore's movie is a great thing for the Republican party and President Bush. Not only are the extremists riding on his band-wagon, but the more main-stream left-leaning Democrats are as well. They are destroying their own credibility by grasping onto such extreme nonsense, and most of main-stream America isn't buying it. And I also think that Americans are getting fed up with the politics of personal destruction, a game that the Democrats play to the hilt. They are so pessimistic and so negative, they are always blaming someone else for this or that, and they beat the "doom-and-gloom" drum so loud and steady, that people are really beginning to get fed up with it. There's no optimism and hope coming from the left, only pessimism and blame. And this will drive more and more people to the right, away from the "loony left" as it is appearing to be.

Prediction:

Bush - 51%
Kerry - 42%
Other - 7%

....in part, thanks to Michael Moore and company.

By the way, I seem to fight-off those sinus infections a couple of times a year. So speaking of Bill Clinton, "I feel your pain". Drink plenty of hot tea, grab a couple of sessions in the steam room, and you'll be as good as new in a few days. (I can't do the antibiotics thing. It wreaks havoc on my system.)

I realize how slanted MM is, I take what I want from his work and leave the rest, much the same as I do with all else.

Thanks for the advice, I'm doing the hot tea, sudafed and the tanning bed. And I agree about the antibiotics, I avoid them unless it is absolutely necessary.

Seriously. What is the difference if its classified as a documentary or not?

And I have to tell you it looks way closer to documentary than an actual movie.

You know the saying..if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck....

;)

Canada is not a socialist nation. If you want to call any country socialist that has government institutions that could be private, then the US is socialist because it has NPR and PBS.

Capitalist economies have a free flow of capital(Canada does as much as anyone, more regulation than the US, less than Japan or the EU).

Capitalist countries have stock markets to promote a market economy, Canada has stock markets.

Capitalist countries have the means of production in private hands - Canada does not have government ownership of key resources or means of production.

You pick on one sector - the health care sector. Hospitals are not owned by the government, though they are regulated by the government, and they get their funding by providing services to the government. They are private not-for-profit organizations run by boards of private individuals, like many hospitals in the US. They do fundraising for capital projects, like Hospitals in the US. Some are run by religious groups like hospitals in the US.

Doctors and nurses are not government employees. Many doctors work in private practises. There are for profit hospitals and clinics for things not covered by gov't health care - dental clinics, cosmetic surgery etc.

Canada did own an airline - they sold it. They did own an oil company - they sold it. They do own a passanger rail company - doesn't the US gov't own Amtrak?

The truth is all economies are mixed. The US economy may be more capitlist than the Canadian economy, but that doesn't make it socialist.

Socialist economies have the government owning primary resources and the means of production - Canada does not.

Socialist economies have centralised economic planning - Canada does not.

Canada does have a heavier tax burden than the US especially for those who have higher incomes. But its actually less for those in lower incomes - that doesn't make us socialist.

Canada and the US both have welfare and employment insurance - you might be suprised at how many provinces have toughened welfare regulations and how the federal government has tightened employment insurance. Its no picnic I can tell you.

So instead of rhetorical labels - tell me how you define socialism.

James

.
...between the socialist and capitalist systems. I can't disagree with any of it.

And I agree, both the U.S. and Canada have socialist aspects of their society (more than just PBS and NPR). I think Canada has more than the USA, simply by considering the fact that your health care system is nationalized, while ours is not - at least, not yet.

Many of the European countries are even more socialist than both the USA and Canada - France and Germany, to be sure; and Sweden, from what I understand, socializes almost all aspects of their society. (Doesn't Sweden even call themselves a socialist-democracy?) But just because we both have it, doesn't make it any more palatable to me. (The USA doesn't pass the duck test either.) As I'm sure you know, I'm for more capitalism, and less socialism, simply by considering the fact that any socialized program takes away someone's individual liberties. I believe we've gone too far in the U.S., and it's time to swing the pendulum back a little bit (or a lot). But I would settle for at least change in dialogue, a change in our desired direction, and more focus on our founders' original intent.

I find it extremely interesting that the nations of eastern Europe - the ones that emerged from the extreme control of the union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics (USSR), are, today, among the most democratic in Europe. I guess they haven't been in control of their own destiny long enough to realize that they can vote themselves favors from the public coffers. But give them a hundred years or two to give-in to their individual greed, and they'll eventually slide downhill just like we did.

By the way, on ducks versus geese. My state-city-neighborhood-yard is the destination of choice for hundreds of thousands of Canadian geese for their winter migration. These Canadian geese are often incorrectly referred to as ducks by many people. I used to think that it was just mother nature at work that brought the geese here. But now I'm convinced that they were intentionally sent here by our Canadian friend, Mr. OzMedia, just to poop in my yard. Canada and the USA - two nations joined together by goose poop.

Plague of nature - destroyer of parks and golf courses everywhere.

I'd much rather have ducks -unless they are migrating, ducks don't seem to congregate in such large numbers, aren't as noisy, vicious and territorial. Kind of like the inlaws...

If any of you have seen that cutesy "Fly Away Home" about a man teaching Canada Geese to migrate, I have an aunt who knows that guy -has worked for his wife. My impression is you'd have to be a nut to help those geese like that, and from all reports, he is that. He has a really funky underground house though.....

James

Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," looking at it from the conservative side of things.

Today's targets: The lefties.

The Top Five Alternate Titles for "Fahrenheit 9/11" (Left-Wing Loon version)
**********************************************************

5> Rogered By Me

4> White Schmucks

3> Bush Casualty and the Sundance Bid

2> The Seven Minute Twitch

and the Number 1 "Alternate Titles for "Fahrenheit 9/11"....

1> The President's Brain Is Missing

==================================================================