| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2003 : 08:02:04
|
Picked this DVD up this evening for less than a dollar... what a cracking documentry.... what a great bloke Michael Moore is and what an arsehole Charlton Heston is.
War....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 08:16:35
|
hey stuart. its a good documentary alright - very funny as well - although the footage from the school CCTV is quite shocking and its probably the only film i have been to where people actually stood up and clapped at the end. not sure if you have read his books - stupid white men is a good read, although some of his material on prions and CJD isnt 100pc accurate but im just being a pedantic microbiologist
You have to be 100% behind someone, before you can stab them in the back - David Brent |
 |
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 08:17:44
|
Hoo boy, did Charlton ever make an ass of himself. His comments are so ignorant and hilarious, it was with "shock and awe" I watched him spew forth his uninformed musings. Great film, at times funny, touching, poignant, it is a must see for everyone. This should be shown in school.
|
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 08:28:07
|
I was surprised how good it was.... and to think I had Stupid White Men in my hands in Heathrow Airport last week and then decided that I couldn't afford it.
That documentry is up there with that documentry about the killing of the Israeli Olympic Team at the Munich Olympics in the seventies.... Thats also a very powerful and moving documentry.
War....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
|
ObfuscateByWill
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 08:41:19
|
There are a couple of archived threads re: this movie.
In one of them a member posted this link: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Supposedly exposes Moore as a film-maker rather than a documentary director.
*Shka-pow! |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 09:28:58
|
| What's fictional about Charlton Heston being a complete ignoramus and showing a total lack of human decency? |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 10:07:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
What's fictional about Charlton Heston being a complete ignoramus and showing a total lack of human decency?
Those of you who actually care about getting the facts on Moore and Heston should read this admittedly long excerpt from the article linked to here:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
[begin excerpt:]
2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.
A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:
Weeping children outside Columbine;
Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";
Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"
Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"
The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.
Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.
Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]
Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.
Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.
Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.
Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.
First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.
Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.
Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:
"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."
Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.
Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."
Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.
Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.
What Heston said there was:
"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.
Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.
So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."
B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."
Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).
Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.
Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.
Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.
The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.
Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]
When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.
Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."
Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?
Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.
Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.
And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....
Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.
Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.
Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.
The viewer thinks he or she understands ....
One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."
Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"
Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:
Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.
Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.
Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.
What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.
"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.
(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston.
Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.
If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.
C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.
Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"
Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.
As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:
"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]
Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them. [end excerpt]
|
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 10:23:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stuart
what a great bloke Michael Moore is and what an arsehole Charlton Heston is.
Looks like Michael Moore achieved his goal. At least with you. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 10:27:49
|
I read that from link Erebus, and there is certainly room for debate about the validty of facts used by Moore in his film and his spurious editing techniques to persuade the viewer into thinking a certain way. All the nit-picking in the world can't hide the fact that Heston came off soudning like a fool, and none of his comments about the above stated murders or town visits lead me to say that. This is a man who explains the disparity in gun related violence between Canada and the US by saying that perhaps because the US has such a diverse population, there are higher tension, etc... I don't excpect him to be an expert on Canadian demographics, but Canada happens to be one of the most ethnically diverse nations in the world, if not the most. In fact I'm fairly certain Toronto is the most diverse city in the world. Despite the specific timeline of the day in question (related to the murder of the little girl), Heston could not provide a good reason for visiting a town which has just suffered a trajedy at that level to promote "safe" gun use, which is what I assume the mandate of the NRA is. I'm no expert, that much is clear, on any of this, all I'm saying is that a line like "from my cold, dead hands" as a "thank-you" is simply ridiculous. Taking away someone's gun is taking away their freedom? Their freedom to do what? Shoot at things? Is that what the forefathers of America had in mind? That one day every man and women would wald the streets strapped in case someone were to violate them? I don't want to get bogged down in a debate over gun safety/control (though I seem to have already), I'm just saying that the particulars of Heston's schedule that day and the statistcal analysis used to determine murder rates in various countries could be debated for an eternity. What lies at the heart of Moore's film is not "Charlton Heston is evil", but that the we live in society of fear and consumerism, and most are too dis-interested to notice or care.
The article you've linked goes onto talk about the little boy who killed Kayla being a "thug" and that he stabbed someone after the Kayla indident. This is not a gang member or "thug" for God's sake it's a CHILD who lives in an abusive and horrific environment and is clearly a product of that. The article points out how it's a crack house, and the father was in jail, and the grandma sold drugs and this was a bad family. Well no shit. This family exists for a reason. Are they just bad people who will never change? Maybe. The film attempts to provide an insight into the lives of these types of families, and the socio-economic factors that contribute to their behaviour. Which is not to say they have an excuse for criminal activity, but there is always a social element to a problem such as poverty, abuse, etc. that cannot simply be summed by "they were bad people".
I could rant all day, but I'm getting less and less coherant. I'm sorry for rambling on. Erebus, it is clear you are an intelligent individual, and it would be great to sit down and talk face to face. While we clearly disagree on a good many things, the goals of most rational people are the somewhat same, we just have a different view of how to acheive the perfect world. |
Edited by - speedy_m on 07/07/2003 10:33:14 |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 10:33:17
|
| I haven't seen the movie and I don't ever plan to see it and support Michael Moore and his bullshit, so I'm not gonna say anything about the movie, but the fact is, Michael Moore is a DUMB-ASS who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, because all he ever tries to do is make conservatives look bad, but he can't do it and make sense at the same time so he has to lie. And God bless all the hollywood LIBERALS who booed him off the stage at the oscars (which he once again lied about with the family thing). Michael Moore and all of his bullshit can just kiss my ass |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 12:21:32
|
The start of this thread is really sad. Anyone who thinks they can go to a movie and LEARN is seriously deluded. They probably think Mr. X knows who killed JFK for example.
Michael more is a polemicist who never let a fact get in his way. He trades on the 'fact' that the vast majority of people are lazy and will not do any research for themselves. They walk into the theatre predisposed to accepting his rhetoric so he fills the vacuums between their young ears and they all leave the theatre feeling better about themselves (but worse about the world).
|
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 17:45:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
The start of this thread is really sad. Anyone who thinks they can go to a movie and LEARN is seriously deluded. They probably think Mr. X knows who killed JFK for example.
Thats bullshit.... I mentionned that it was a good documentry, and that Charlton was an arsehole not about learning shit from documentries. Maybe some of the stuff in the film was fabricated, thats always held in my mind when I watch hardhitting films that are designed to make you think in a particular way. But alot of the points about American gunlaws Michael Moore brought up were pretty valid, and made good sense.
War....... Its not fantastic |
Edited by - Stuart on 07/07/2003 17:48:25 |
|
|
|
BillyChildish
- FB Fan -
16 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 18:39:11
|
An interesting observation, ignoring the jibbah-jabbah about how Moore is either a modern muck cracker or a fiendish little arrogant punk with a camera, one had to notice all the product placement in the movie. For somebody with such a loathing for all things corporate, the logos apparent in many shots (most apparent for me was In-N-Out burger, and i can cite other examples) were really unsettling for me. And if you must know i find Moore obnoxcious, but he is the closest thing we have to the people's filmaker. I believe in socialism. Actually, that would make a nice thread. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 20:30:56
|
| While I agree with some of Michael Moore's points (gun control not being one of them), it's pretty obvious he could edit Florence Nightingale into an evil bitch. Somewhere Leni Riefenstahl is smiling. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 09:31:49
|
| Just wanted to thank you speedy m for the involved reply. I've been kicking around just how to respond without again getting into a nasty debate, not with you but with folks in general. I do have two brief comments. I am concerned that taking away the guns would eventually involve a loss of freedom. Government is something to be feared and a population disarmed would soon be abused by a government retaining force sufficient to abuse. The people need to be able to resist government, though I must admit it's possibly too late for most peoples, including those of the USA. Secondly, while I'd like to think I am sensitive to socio-economic factors behind violent crime, we have gone too far with concern for the causes and not far enough in addressing the effects. We are too late for the causes. Can't help despairing over where all this will end up. Historical human horrors will most likely pale in comparison with what this century will bring. Simply too much momentum. Sorry to be such a downer. I genuinely try to let most of the socio-political talk just pass, but I had to rise to the bait regarding Michael Moore. It's grating to think that so many Americans and, especially, non-Americans take Moore at face value. Fine if people agree with his conclusions, but for me his methods completely discredit him, to the point of calling even his premises into question. If his ends are sound he needn't deceive to achieve them. And yes, that applies to Bush as well. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 09:44:05
|
Interesting Erebus,
but holy shit what country do you come from, that's not a cut I'm just curious? Also how can you address the effects of violent crime if you haven't figured out any causes? And I also think that there have been so many historical human horrors (shut up speedy) that have always been and always will be. Just look at the middle east, those things have been going on since the beginning of time and will continue. I'd be more concerned about how we are all going to die because of how we pollute this earth. And at least, not in my neck of the woods at least, we don't all go to public executions on the weekend anymore. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 09:55:39
|
| Well, thank you Erebus for posting a non-curse laden, non-offensive, well thought out reply. This type of intellectual debate and discussion are the tools of the peaceful revolution, one that can be conducted at anytime by anyone, in a country where we have the freedom to express ourselves in any way we see fit. Once again it comes down to a similar goal for human existance with differing ideas on how to acheive it. The wonderfull thing about the world today (and this is something I mentioned in a thread long ago dealing with space exploration, I'm sure Dave Noisy remembers it) is that there are enough people and resources on this planet to tackle most any problem we have. If we could attack the problems of violence and crime on both a social and economic front, than mabye something could actually be done imporve things. I would disgree with you that it's "too late" for the cause, and I think inevitability doesn't exist, at least not in this context. People have the power to change, both themselves and the world around them. Perhaps you beleive this need be done with the bayonette rather than the olive branch, which is certainly how it has been done in the past. But, to use another cliche, Rome wasn't built in a day, and our society, as well whatever group or system governs it, is a work in progress. If there are more people on both ends of the sprectrum as well as in the middle (where I feel I stand, like a classic Canadian Liberal), that are willing to think rationally and act responsibly, then I beleive there is certainly hope that historical human horros remain historical and that eventually there would be no need to feel that you require a gun to possibly over throw the government that is there to serve you. Perhaps I don't feel my gov't is something to be feared because even though I feel there are times when my leader has been quite incompitent, I don't get a sense of genuine malevolence or anything sinister from him. I can't say I feel the same way about your cheif. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 09:57:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
And I also think that there have been so many historical human horrors (shut up speedy)
What was that about? |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 09:59:09
|
| Well put Mike. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 10:16:57
|
| Well said, indeed, though I also question the "shut up speedy" as I fail to see it's source. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 10:24:48
|
| See I totally don't understand you two. Last time I wrote something that seemed totally innocent to me and you two had to write down that you were refraining from commenting as I had left you wide open for some sort of sexual innuendo and now I wrote human horrors and you guys are like what's going on and what was that about? |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 10:30:35
|
| Oh my dear Carolyn, I could twist anything you say into something sexual. I think you TOTALLY understand us two. In fact, you'd like to understand a lil' closer. Well I don't go in for those sort of back door shennanigans. Sure I'm flattered, maybe even a little curious (ya I wonder where you are, Curious....), but I'm not one for the male-male-female trio. Too much sausage and not enough bun. Perhaps this isn't the most appropraite thread for this type of discussion. I may have just destroyed any credibility I had. Not that there was much to begin with. And when was the last time you said something innocent and we refrained from commenting, I don't remember that. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 10:55:51
|
| Seems to me we never refrain. And I do mean never (shut up carolynanna). :) |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 11:45:40
|
I dunno, i think the 'public needs arms to oppose gov't' line is really tired and tripe.
Assuming the military would back the gov't, the public doesn't stand a chance.
The public also allowed (encouraged?!) the insane power the US military has.
That is one excuse i cannot let go.
I don't think the gov't should be 'feared'. There shouldn't be fear in *anyone's* life. The gov't is really just people like you and me when it comes down to the wire...more work need to be exacted to prevent lying maniacs from getting into power.
(Shut up Dave Noisy.) |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 11:49:48
|
| I also like how bush conveniently gave some $ for aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS just recently. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 12:24:52
|
I enjoyed that killer CBC headline:
"Poor countries worse off: UN Report" |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 12:50:52
|
Yes its always convenient to send billions of dollars to Africa. That is why there is such a long line of leaders doing it all the time. It also proves how DANGEROUS Bush is. Anyone so sinister as to send billions of dollars across the world to fight aids is surely evil.
Carolynanna your post shows that solving problems and helping the afflicted takes a back seat to your idealogical wars. People who have spent their lives fighting famin and aids like Bob Geldof are praising Bush, but, he's probably not smart enough to realize that it was just an act of convenience. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 13:01:35
|
Hey Dallas, whatsup, GD Anaheim hey?
I just meant;
How long has so much of Africa's population been suffering due to HIV/AIDs, a long time, and to the point where it seems almost hopeless (I hope it isn't) for any sort of recovery to happen. And your point was that sending $ doesn't happen all too often. And although it is excellent for anyone to send relief $ it just seems slightly ironic that they announce this relief around the same time that we find out (although now its been deemed false) that Iraq has been looking for Uranium in Africa. Who's spending and on what exactly? |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 13:22:22
|
There is no link between funding Aids relief and Iraq that I can see. Africa isnt a player there. Bush is doing something GREAT. Even someone as far left as Richard Gere chided the Clintons for not doing enough and praising Bush. Same thing with Bono. This also isnt new, the initiative was announced in Bush State of the Union in January.
Painting Bush as some evil, uncaring person (not by you but lots of people) is just nuts. He gains nothing from this African relief among hardcore conservatives. The fact of the matter is, and history will continue to prove it out, that GWB is a truly caring individual who is tirelessly trying to improve the lifes of people all over the world. Doing so will not happen easily or without costs and even mistakes. I'm just glad that someone has finally begun the work.
But my main point is that if the Left is going to take potshots at $15 billion in relief than they are truly in their own little jihad and issues and solutions dont matter if they come from 'the other side'. That is what is bankrupting the democrats in the US IMO. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 13:26:55
|
Dave I also dont subscribe to the 'armed to keep the Govt in line' argument.
The main point is that America is a country founded on the right to bear arms. Period. The only way that should be changed is through an Amendment to the Constitution. The US is a representative Democracy, and until the American people want that change made, we will be a country that allows its law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms.
The other point is that guns cannot be eliminated in America any more than Pot or other drugs. So, more restrictive gun laws simply restrict the right of law abiding citizens, since we can all agree that criminals dont give a hoot what the law says. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 14:13:11
|
America is also a country founded on racist colonial assimilation policies (not to say that Canada is exempt or any different, but for the sake of argument), yet hopefully those wrongs do not continue today. Citing history or tradition as the only excuse for poor policy is no way to run a progressive country - it certainly would be frowned upon as a defense for racism, why should guns-4-fun be any different? And I say run in the most democratic sense of the word, since you are correct that the constitution would need to be changed to fix that and groups like the NRA have too much power to allow that to happen. Your point about whose rights are being restricted (law abiding vs criminal) is well taken, and it is true that you would be restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, but then the question becomes: Why do law abiding citizens need guns? And why do we want to make it even easier for criminals to have access to guns and hide behind some outdated constitutional clause?
Finally, no, Bush (take your pick as to which one), is not a caring and benevolent individual, and to suggest this is somewhat naive. On the other hand, to suggest that he's pure malevolence is equally cynical, but when it comes down to it, he LIED to you and to America and to nations that they call allies (to their face) whilst manipulating them with threats of economic and political sanctions. Yet he remains as popular as ever? He has single-handedly in less than a term turned a very friendly and open Canada-US relationship into a far more adversarial and degenerative one. He has the nerve to go over the UN's head (an organization that is based on the foundation of democracy that America supposedly stands for) to promote a war for his own popularity, oil monies, and economic renewal, while lying to everyone he has to including taking advantage of those many lives lost on September 11th and the hurt of not just the nation, but the world, to justify his political schemes? I find nothing scarier than that a man such as this is not only still in power and un-penalized by the international community, but continues to enjoy a more than 50% popularity rating. Maybe it's because 34% of Americans believe that chemical weapons were actually found and used in/by Iraq according to a poll I read this morning (though I grant that I put little faith in polls). I can't explain it, but people need to open their eyes and look outside America the beautiful and see if maybe they're not getting the whole story.
Taking everything at face value means following your leader blindly, and if that doesn't sound all that bad to you, maybe you should do some reading on Germany in the 30's and 40's. If the whole rest of the world is decrying your actions except those with something to gain from them (whether politcal, economic, or otherwise, often blatantly), maybe it's time to stop thinking that everything is for the good of others and Bush is the greatest man alive since Gandhi. Anyway, not meaning any personal jabs, these are obviously just from my point of view, but I've never owned a gun in my life and I don't believe I ever will... (though with Bush in power, I do understand why you might want one). And I continue to lead my life just fine.
Pax Americana? No thanks. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 15:15:23
|
So after you get personal you say "not to get personal". Pretty sneaky. Its a typical attack from the left. If someone disagrees with you they obviously dont think. How could they. It would also take just a minute of reading to know that "the whole world..." is hardly against the Iraq liberation. But it sure SOUNDS rightous!
Your own examples refute your point on gun ownership in America. Slavery was ended by elected American leaders because the Northern and large parts of the South public rightfully thought it was an abomination. The right to bear arms is upheld today because Americans TODAY want it to be. The NRA is not more powerful than the public. The majority of Americans support the right to bear arms and until that changes that right will continue. The public didnt support legal ownership of fully automatic machine guns, they are outlawed. The NRA fought that and lost.
Your stuff about Bush lying isn't seriously thought out. For Bush to be lying about Iraq's WMD so would every major politician in the Western world not named George Galloway in the last 10 years. Not just Blair, but, Clinton, Chirac, Annann and more and more. All have damning statements about the fact that Iraq was developing WMD's. Why were they all lying? The world knows Saddam bought the materials, why didnt he ever account for them? Why were his forces armed with WMD suits? To protect your idealogy, you are taking the word of Saddam over Blair, Clinton, Chirac and even Koffi Annann.
Oh yes, Bush is also responsible for a deteriorating relationship with Canada. Give me a break. Give me one negative quote from a US admin. person who has denigrated Canada. The Canadians have been attacking Bush. With all that is going on in the world, stroking Canada got rightfully prioritized, but still, you cant come up with one negative policy regarding Canada. Just what has he done? |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 16:12:40
|
I'm not sure where I got personal exactly, unless you're George Bush, but I apologize for any offense taken anyway. And I consider myself quite middle-of-the-road-liberal. And I shouldn't have used the term 'whole' world, you are correct that that was a bit of hyperbole, but you also don't have to look far to see that there were and are far more people against than in favour of war, which is why the UN resolution didn't pass. Majority rules? Nope, democracy in a global environment is a pipe dream.
The NRA IS the public... not the whole public (thank God), but enough of them. Which, I guess means that they are indeed powerful. And guess what, if you're a politician whose only ambition is to stay in power or increase your own power, and you'd probably agree with me that this is the case for far too many politicians these days, you're probably not going to take a strong anti-gun stance or introduce an ammendment. Nor vote for it if the minority whose ambitions are strictly what's best for the people were to introduce it. Still, great that the majority did win out on automatic weapons. Democracy at work.
As for Bush lying, he, or at least his administration, forgive my hazy memory as it was a while back now, were confronted with the fact that no WMD were found and the response was "it was never about WMD". I think they followed it with something like it was about regime change (leave it to use Canadians to get confused about that), which may have been needed, and may have been justified, but that is up to the people of Iraq or failing that, a majority agreement of the governing world body, the United Nations. Don't get all "protect my ideology" on me. My ideology is simply doing what's right, I don't consider myself left or right wing, and to be quite honest, it's also that I think that people who align themselves with one side or the other are short sighted. There are good elements on both sides of the political spectrum and sometimes elements from either side are the best approach to a situation. My ideology says the right action at the right time for the right reasons. That's it. Implying that by disagreeing with you is agreeing with Sadam Hussein is the most ridiculous and offensive argument I've heard, though you're not the first to use it. I seem to recall a Mr. Bush reciting the same thing verbatim. I said there are no WMD to be found and that it was not about that. You show me (and the world... we're still waiting) evidence of WMD. If they're there, it hasn't been shown yet. All that's been shown is evidence that's been proven to have been fabricated (though never proven that it was fabricated by the US, the CIA tends to be the source of all this fabricated evidence). Even if you don't believe that your government has fabricated evidence to bring people on side and even if you believe that Bush has been completely honest about his motives (and he would probably be the world's first politician to do so), you must at least question them?
And dear reader, if you might look into what these Canadians who were attacking Bush were doing so as a result of, I believe you would find your answers. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by stroking Candada, I assume you are referring to the fact that Bush took over a year to even meet our Prime Minister (and then cancelled, did he not?) while he made time to travel to Mexico within weeks of election and pretty much everywhere else in the world, despite a long-standing tradition of being the first port-of-call of the new elects? Otherwise, I'm unclear. This really isn't all that important, but you cannot deny that it's not a snub. Nor can you deny that in the face of solid Scientific evidence, an extreme overreaction on our part to block the spread of the diseasea (including but not limited to erradicating 1000s of cattle without a trace of MCD just to be safe), that the border being closed to Canadian beef is any longer about Mad Cow disease. Again, not critically important (we only lose several million a day as a result), but you wanted an example. If nothing else, consider the fact that we have always gotten along fine (at least since 1812) until you elected him. God knows we've had our prime minister much longer than Bush has been in power. <sigh>
Anyway, I'm not trying to attack America, or you, or even your ideologies. I'm expressing my opinions, and you've expressed yours, and I'm fairly certain that neither I nor you will be convinced, so perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
Edited by - Cult_Of_Frank on 07/09/2003 16:15:04 |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 03:38:37
|
Did anyone hear that there was a shooting yesterday at the Lockheed plant, the one mentioned in Bowling?? My friend and I had a conversation about Bowling yesterday then he informed me a little later that he'd heard that there was a shooting at the plant. Ive not read anything on the internet about it so not too sure if it is true. Does anyone know??
As for George 'W' Bush, I really do not know how anyone can defend him whatsoever. The man is blatantly and idiot and a criminal who should be made to answer for his lies. And just so some of you right wingers don't complain about me being anti America (which to a certain extent I am I guess) the same should go for my prime minister Tony Blair, who has proved himself to be almost as much a fuckwit (although not in the same league as George 'refer to Pakistani people as Pakis' W Bush).
I read recently (from the Internet so not sure if it is completely true) that Bush and Rumsfeld were talking about commissioning more nuclear weapons..... nothing surprises me about the American Government anymore and the way they live in their right wing hollywood dreamland.
War....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 07:28:37
|
Stuart, you have no facts to back up your screeching, just louder and more obnoxious name calling. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the Middle East moves closer to peace, Saddam Hussein is deposed, Al Qaeda is close to irrelevent, Afghanistan is liberated, Africa is rec'ving $15 billion in Aids relief, Iranian students are pressuring their gov't for more freedom, Liberians are cheering US soldiers in the streets, the US passed an Education bill that Ted Kennedy called 'wonderful'...EVIL PURE EVIL, LOL
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
