|
Comments:
Martin - 2004-06-28 08:14:47
They interviewed me, but I actually saw White Chicks instead of F911. Somehow my comments never made it on the news.
-------------------------------
Bubba - 2004-06-28 08:16:34
Look at that, I'm the first one. Hey UB, are we going to get an update on that head of yours?
-------------------------------
Roan - 2004-06-28 08:48:48
WooT! Another Wilso fan! Ugly head or no... you know yer music!
-------------------------------
erin - 2004-06-28 10:12:15
Sorry you weren't newsworthy.;) Fahrenheit is a great documentary...and I hope that people remember it in November when they head to the polls.
-------------------------------
Jackie - 2004-06-28 10:17:21
"Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" was a great cd. Thanks for letting me know about the new Wilco CD! :-)
-------------------------------
HRT - 2004-06-28 10:49:42
When I first started listening to that Wilco disc I thought that you must be smoking crack. But then I realized that you are a Moore-ite, so I realized it's probably just weed that I smell. That 1st Wilco song started out like the business end of some foul mule's ass, but then it picked up. And I could see how it might grow on someone. But until I become that special someone I think I'll just stick to something a bit more pedestrian... like Hansen...
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-06-28 11:15:54
WOW! I have to say, I am some what depressed that anyone would feel 9/11 is a great documentary. It just shows how little people actually pay to facts. Lets look at Michael Moore's Arguements and supposed facts:
1. He claims Bush had the Bin Laden family members flown out of the US while flights were still banned and that they weren't allowed to be screened by the FBI.
FACT: The independent 9/11 commission found that the bin laden family was allowed to fly out AFTER commercial flights had been cleared to leave the US. The 9/11 also found that the FBI had indeed screened every member of the family they had wanted to screen. Also, Bush did not order them flown out, General Wesley Clark did. He has also stated it was entirely his decision and was the right thing to do. Dem's should also be aware thet the Bin Laden family is huge contributors to Harvard university and even have a building named after them. Anyone should also know that Osama is an estranged member of the Bin Laden family.
Moore makes the arguement that Bush is a comeplete moron who sat stunned for several minutes after he heard of the 9.11 attacks.
FACT: Again a half truth by Moore. Bush did sit quietly for several mintues after hearing of the attack. He was being read a short story by a class of seventh graders. Was he suppossed to panic and dart out of the room? How would that have affected those children?
Moore after calling Bush an dumbass, turns around and tries to call him an ingenious conspirator. Which is it Moore? Dumb or Genious?
The pipeline through Afgahnistan, the biggest crock of all. One instrested in the true pipeline should do some research on the proposed haifa pipeline.
Moore ignores many facts in his supposed documentary, he gets all his "facts" from one former FBI guy. Also anyone who truly claims the Iraq ware is for oil has done little reading and has just swallowed the propaganda of extreme liberals like moore. For instance a week ago last friday, President Putin of Russia made a statement that Russian intelligence had alerted the US numerous times from 2001 until the start of the Iraq war that Saddam was actively planning terrorist attacks inside and out of the U.S. If you were the President post 9/11, you were getting intelligence from the CIA saying he is connected with Al qaeda, from Russia saying he is preparing terrorist attacks in the U.S. from Israeli intelligence saying he is connected to al qaeda and planning attacks, what would you do? What would you do, knowing he has ignored every UN resolution for the last 8 years, that he had been caught actively persuing neeuclear weapons after the French built him a nuclear power plant?
Oh Bob, the handing over of power has had nothing to do with Michael Moore and to insinuate as much is ignorant. The deadline has been June 30th for nearly a year. A deadline is just that. And two days early is a sign we reached the necessary hurtles early. Handing over power to the Iraqi government, is also not a sign we are going home. Another misconception. Elections are not to be held until January 2005 and we will continue to help stamp out terrorists in their country until the ask us to go home. They have already stated they will not do that, that US involvement is crucial in their maintaining security for the time being. All-in-all I do invite every one to see Michael Moore's propaganda film. A work of fiction, not facts. Then research each and every one of the incidents he brings up. It will not be long before you realize Moore is mereily making an hour and half commercial for Kerry and nothing more, no pun intended. Here is a good link from an interview Moore had with George Stephanopolous about Fahrenheit 9/11 (btw, Moore stole that name without permission from Ray Bradbury and he has asked Moore to change it numerous times or risk litigation, so I guess he not only lies but he steals too, nice fella) on to the link... http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Entertainment/michael_moore040620-1.html For some moore interesting reading, pun intended, check out www.moorelies.com. Peace out true believers!
-------------------------------
MooreSucks - 2004-06-28 11:45:43
Hotcarl is correct.
-------------------------------
nicole - 2004-06-28 12:05:00
good to see i'm not the only one who correlated the success of the doc with the early handover...
-------------------------------
Tracy - 2004-06-28 12:22:34
Right on hotcarl. Anyone who calls this a documentary probably thinks that "reality TV" really shows reality.
Moore shows one side of the story and spins it his own way. He shows several soldiers unhappy with the war in Iraq and none who support it. Does that mean there ARE NONE who support it?
Please, it's about as factual as Oliver Stone's JFK. The sad part is that most people in America, particularly the young voters, don't know how to think critically. They figure that if I saw it in a movie or read it on the Internet it must be true!
Yikes.
-------------------------------
chris - 2004-06-28 12:31:23
Nicely put Hotcarl. Uncle Bob - you don't really believe that movie has anything to do with the early handover? I know you are sharper than that.
-------------------------------
christine - 2004-06-28 12:43:22
Regardless of what thinks about Michael Moore's latest "documentary", President Bush Jr MUST be voted out of office.
You can pick apart Moore's film all you want, but it doesn't deter from the fact that Bush has lied repeatedly to the world, and the man caters only to the bible thumping, right wing nut jobs. Period. The man is a danger, to the United States and to the rest of the world.
I find it amusing that people are saying others (especially the young people) need to learn critical thinking, and yet ya'll are taking UB's comments far too seriously. He said it's a powerful film. Period. He didn't say it was 100% truth or fact, etc... And yeah, people should watch it and make up their own damn mind.
-------------------------------
Pam - 2004-06-28 12:49:33
Both you and hotcarl are correct. You are 2 different people who think 2 different ways. The entire reason why this war is happening is because of different beliefs and ideas. I am surprised the USA is not at war with itself first and other countries later. America being the melting pot of the world, and all the different beliefs and ideas that are out there and all. Love your writings.
-------------------------------
Amy - 2004-06-28 12:54:29
I wish people would stopsaying this isn't a documentary because it has a point of view. This may be a shocker, but even the news isn't 100% unbiased. Well at least America's news isn't.
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 14:11:01
Also, Bush did not order them flown out, General Wesley Clark did.
INCORRECT. Richard Clarke, the former Bush anti-terrorism adviser who came out against the administration earlier this year, was the one who gave the order. So, a member of Bush's staff gave the order. It wasn't Bush himself.
stole that name without permission from Ray Bradbury and he has asked Moore to change it numerous times or risk litigation
Titles are not subject to copyright, so Bradbury has no case. Moore no more stole that (parodied, not even direct) title from Bradbury than Bradbury stole "Something Wicked This Way Comes" from Shakespeare.
-------------------------------
beth - 2004-06-28 14:14:16
more like a mockumentary...i just love how everyone bashes bush to no end, as if they really could have done a better job in his position given the events of the past four years. i'm sure a lot of things go on beind the scenes in the white house that we will never know about. and yes, the news and this 'documentary' are biased... they don't show the good things that our president has done.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-06-28 15:04:02
Donna K. - You are correct, it was Richard Clark, not Wesley Clark. My bad, too many anti-bush Clark's floating around.
You can't copyright a title? Where did you get that from? I guess I will go make Star Wars tomorrow. sweet! You are 100% INCORRECT. Ray Bradbury could use Something wicked this way comes, because it was written many a year ago and any copyright held on it, has long since expired. Fahrenheit 451 was written between 1950 and 1953. Copyrights last for 70 years and is still under copyright by the living owner of the copyright. You are correct parodies do not fall under copyright infringement, however, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a parody of Fahrenheit 451, not in anyway. The name was used as a metaphor and was used without the permission of Ray Bradbury. "Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is ``hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title.''" Don't take my word for it, look it up. Here, I will help you even. Click Here
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-06-28 15:07:03
Oh yeah, I forgot to add an important fact. Bradbury is set to release a new edition of Fahrenheit 451 in a few weeks and a movie is in the works. The use of the title Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore harms the release of Bradbury's book and film. There is ample evidence to support litigation in this matter. Moore is a thief, plain and simple.
-------------------------------
chris - 2004-06-28 15:18:30
to add to what hotcarl said - Michael Moore referred to his movie as "the temperature freedom burns". Obviously referring to Bradbury's book directly. And since Bradbury didn't want him to use it how about a little simple courtesy between artists? I think it really shows the true Michael Moore.
-------------------------------
nicki - 2004-06-28 15:19:04
well, then i say "hail to the thief!".
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 15:48:07
You can't copyright a title? Where did you get that from? I guess I will go make Star Wars tomorrow. sweet! You are 100% INCORRECT.
No, I'm correct.
If you wrote "Star Wars", a book about famous fights between celebrities, it would be legal. If you wrote "Star Wars", a book about astrology, it would be legal. If you wrote "Star Wars", a science fiction novel, it would not be.
The question is not the title alone. The question is, is there a reasonable chance that one product could be confused with the other product? See the cases involving the owners of "Victor's Secret" vs. "Victoria's Secret". There is zero chance that anyone would go see Fahrenheit 9/11 thinking that it was a filmed version of Bradbury's work. Bradbury's threatened lawsuit is frivolous.
-------------------------------
BarnacleBill - 2004-06-28 15:54:05
Hey, cool! A moderate temperature flamewar on Uncle Bob!
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 15:54:16
To clarify: the term "legal" actually doesn't have meaning here. Legality is not the question; rather, the likelihood of the case being decided in favor of one party or the other. So, in the Star Wars example, precedent says that the case would be decided in your favor if your book was about celebrity feuds or astrology, but against you if it was a science fiction novel. If Bradbury pursued this case, which I'm sure he's not stupid enough to do, he would not win, based on legal precedent in similar cases.
-------------------------------
Fay - 2004-06-28 15:56:50
Too many conservatives are trying to say that Moore lied about the Saudi flights out of the country. He did NOT claim that they were flown out while flights were still banned. He claimed, correctly, that they were flown out AFTER 9/13, when very few commercial flights were allowed, and even fewer private or charter flights. AND, they were flown out without any interrogation, and there were over a hundred of them! Surely even the most staunch conservative must find this a little bit suspicious!
Even if the plans for the pipeline are pure coincidence, surely they at least project an appearance of impropriety??
Moore is very careful NOT to tell any lies in this film. He has a point of view, just like anyone else does. He has never claimed to be fair. Of course, neither are the corporate media. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and we're bombing Iraq. I'm sorry, but I have a severe problem with that. We are making terror infinitely worse, all around the world, and making new enemies every day, while incredible socioeconomic problems continue to fester here at home. It's infuriating, and I say that even if it's only HALF as bad as Moore says it is, that's still really bad!
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 16:10:55
Hey, cool! A moderate temperature flamewar on Uncle Bob!
Heh. Well, I'm not flaming.
Titles simply are not subject to copyright. This might help explain why, as well as the difference between "copyrights" and "trademarks". Copyrights concern reproduction, performance, and derivative works of the copywritten work itself.
I don't know if Bradbury has "Fahrenheit 451" trademarked, but I wrote my comments assuming that he does, because if he doesn't he's an even sillier man. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he does have the term trademarked, my comments stand. There is no attempt nor reasonable -- or even remote -- case can be made that the title will cause the confusion of source and/or sponsorship necessary for a finding of copyright infringement.
-------------------------------
Amy - 2004-06-28 16:18:52
ANYONE could have done a better job than Bush has these past four years. I might also point out that we wouldn't be in the mess we were in if Bush was not president.
-------------------------------
kaki321 - 2004-06-28 17:37:56
This is boring. Can we go back to commenting on UB's so-called shaved head? (I do think Bush sucks though, gotta say that. I miss old blowjob Billy Boy)
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-06-28 17:50:53
Donna K., you are lost. Bradbury has a solid case, and as you will see, I am sure by the time it is released on DVD it will have a different name, similar to the movie Danny Divito did with Mark Wahlberg, which was also forced to change its name based on the similar circumstances. It took until it was released on video too, but it did get done.
Moore Michael news, seems he is such an upstanding young voter, he has another couple lies up his sleeve.
1. He cliams to be a registered independent. He's not, he is a registered democrat in New York.
2. He is not only registered to vote in New York, he is also registered in Michigan. So techinically he can vote twice. BTW, he is not registered as an independent there either. Click here for all the juicy tid bits. Michael Moore's New York residence if you are interested is
100 West 84 Street
New York, NY 10024
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-06-28 18:05:36
Fay, take a gander at direct quotes from Moore, where he claims flights were grounded only after George Stephanopoulos corrects him, does he change his stance to Charter flights still being grounded. Half truths are lies. When you don't get the whole story, you don't have the facts. You also say he said they were not interviewed, when in fact 30 of the 142 were interviewed and the FBI told the 9/11 commission that all the people they wanted to screen were. Again, more half truths from Moore. We could do the same about anyone in politics. Bill Clinton, he was impeached for purgory, he lied on the stand. If we leave out the part that he lied about having an affair, it looks bad. Not that it wasn't anyway, but atleast we can understand lieing to protect your wife's feelings. I could go on, but why. As for the terrorists being Saudi, no the were Al Quieda and from many different countries. Moore staited publically that we should treat Osama as innocent until proven guilty, yet it would seem his film is based entirely on the fact Osama is guilty. More twists from the half truth teller.
-------------------------------
Mr. Grey - 2004-06-28 18:17:23
Amy, are you smoking crack? "ANYONE could have done a better job than Bush has these past four years." Al Snore would have responded to 9/11 the same way his mentor Bill "We will hunt down those responsible" Clinton did. By sitting on his ASS. The one time Clinton DID respond, it was a lash out based on even shoddier intel than Bush had for invading Iraq. BTW, if you are ever interested, look up Saddam's sons. They make their dad look like a saint.
RICHARD CLARKE is the man who, by his own admission, AGREED to postpone his report on terrorism until after Sept. RICHARD CLARKE is the man who apologized for this "intelligence breakdown". He then writes a book that at best deserves a spot in the fiction section of the bookstore. I personally feel it belongs with the comic books, since he paints himself to be superman. He writes that he was the only one reacting on 9/11. That everyone else stood around like sheep. I have never laughed so hard in my life!
Now, for the matter at hand. Michael Moore has a long history or distorting the truth. His last mockumentary, "Bowling for Columbine" is also filled with lies, insinuations and half-truths. For the whole story, go here.
I just have to ask, does anyone remember the 9/11 commission report? The one that APPLAUDED the way Bush handled the days after 9/11. The one that agreed with his reasons for invading Iraq, based on the available intel at the time. The same intel that caused John F. Kerry to vote IN FAVOR of the invasion. Yep, he voted FOR THE WAR. Now, he has decided to pull a Clinton and blast Bush for staying after we toppled Saddam's regime. Had we pulled out, another, possibly worse dictator would have seized power. Like the warlords tried to do in Afghanistan. You really should try thinking for yourself once in a while, and not just repeating everything Kerry and his supporters say. Actually, I don't give a shit what you say. But last I checked, parrots were considered pets, thereby excluded from voting.
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 19:10:29
The Wahlberg/DeVito film "Renaissance Man" bombed and was re-released months later under a different title. The DVD is available under the title "Renaissance Man".
And since I now realize I'm debating someone who is incapable of responding to any of my points in any way other than basically saying "Ummm...nuh uh!", I'll stop with my boring old facts now.
-------------------------------
Amy - 2004-06-28 19:13:17
We would not have invaded (although I am sure you choose to call it liberated) Iraq if Bush wasn't in office. He is just a pupped used by his daddy's cronies. And if I really truly thought Bush was the one running the country I'd be much more afraid than I already am.
-------------------------------
Allison - 2004-06-28 19:42:08
According to the news here in Australia, the handover was 2 days early to avoid terrorist attacks on June 30.
-------------------------------
DeAnn - 2004-06-28 20:23:22
I'd much rather see you than most of the fake plastic disgusting pieces of trash on television.
-------------------------------
Jenn - 2004-06-28 20:30:29
Yea... id like to see you go into the white house after your country was torn apart and the possibly the worst catastrophy that has ever hit our country happens just make everything better. Wanna know what Lil Billy Clinton woulda done? he woulda had one of osamas daughters or possibly osama himself sucking his cock underneath the desk. Dumbass Mikey here is an obnoxious thinks he knows it all liberal that is as dumb as a fucking rock! anyone who makes negative comments about columbine high school (where 13 teenagers died) making fun of the christian teens who stood up for their faith needs to have a reality check. i repect him to have hia own opinions but that doesnt need to put down someones name who is dead
-------------------------------
Jenn - 2004-06-28 20:44:25
Oh and Donna, as for anyone doing a better job... im sure that dean will do a fine job in office, yah know, since he cant make up his mind on any issue and seems to try and pacify everyone in the country all at once by not haivng a spine... so i guess thats what you want though, isnt it? Someone who doesnt challenge your life at all and does things the way that you see fit... someone who is too much of a spineless jellyfish to have solid beleifs on anything.. let alone stand up for those beleifs.. id rather have a president that knows how to make a decision and stand behind it than someone who didnt know anything.. and besides.. if you think you can do a better job then you go out there and make a name for yourself and run for predient.. but until then stop bitching about how soandso isnt doing a good job... take initative and do it yourself
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-28 21:09:48
You should scroll up and track who you're arguing with, Jenn. I've posted no comments on Dean, or on Bush, Kerry, or Gore, for that matter. I've only corrected factual mistakes made by another poster.
You know, just because someone corrects someone elses (really egregious) factual mistakes doesn't necessarily mean they're a flunkie for the other side. =) It's funny when people assume that, though.
-------------------------------
Mr. Grey - 2004-06-28 21:53:26
Amy, did you even bother to read the rest of my post? JOHN F. KERRY, along with the MAJORITY of Congress voted IN FAVOR of invading Iraq. We would have gone in NO MATTER WHO was in office. Had it been Al Snore though, we would have pulled out after finding no WMDs. Which would have left Saddam in power and free to continue to rape and pillage the country. Yes, we LIBERATED them. Yes, we have given the people something people like you should not have, the right to vote. I say that, because it is ever so clear you are incapable of original thought.
Donna, it seems to me that you are both correct. It is technically infringement, but the courts have ruled that it is okay to infringe on another's intellectual property. This does not mean that he has not violated the law as it was written. Only that the courts have decided that it is okay to break the law. The same thing has happened with the perception that the Constitution is a "living" document open to interpretation. But that is an discussion for a later date.
-------------------------------
Mark - 2004-06-28 22:11:37
The truly scary thing about Bush is the fact that the leader of the free world cannot even string a sentence together.
-------------------------------
Fay - 2004-06-28 23:26:47
No, the truly scary thing about Bush is all the business relationships he has with the most powerful oilmen in the world, many of whom are incredibly corrupt, and he can send our babies (but of course none of their own) to die so that he and his buddies can make ever more money. ...Whoever that was, I wasn't talking about any interview with George Stephanopoulos, I was talking about the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," wherein Moore clearly states that those Saudis were flown out of the country after 9/13. I was listening for it, because I'd read about this purported distortion. Also, 15 of the 19 hijackers were most definitely Saudi. Also, those 30 who were "interviewed" were merely checked for identification. I promise. I looked it up.
Yes, lots of politicians are liars. No, I don't know for sure that Kerry would do, or would have done, much better. But the Bush family's relationships with the Saudis and the oil business are downright frightening. And like I said before, even if Moore is lying his head off (which he isn't) and it's only HALF as bad as he says it is.... it's still pretty damn bad!
-------------------------------
Mr. Grey - 2004-06-29 00:29:08
Fay, read this article written by one of Michael Moore's fellow LIBERALS. The relationship with the Saudis is so tenuous it is laughable. Repeat after me, BAAAH, BAAAHHHHHH! Sheep and parrots, that is all you are. THINK FOR YOURSELVES!!
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-29 08:00:27
This does not mean that he has not violated the law as it was written.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The law, as written, has not been violated. It's really that simple.
Michael Moore has made a two hour film, here. I haven't seen the film, but I'm sure there must be something in it that people who disagree with Moore's worldview can point up besides this specious Bradbury thing. I mean, if so, I'm happy, because it increases the likelihood I'll get what *I* want: Bush gone, and with him the power of his branch of the Republican party reduced significantly; Kerry in place for a single disastrous term; and finally, Kerry's inevitable defeat by John McCain.
I really dislike reactive partisanship. No one in this thread has any responsibility to show "original thought". Guess what? We're not policymakers, and we're not Washington insiders, so everyone here is simply quoting their pundits of choice. Mr. Grey, you're no more "thinking for yourself" than anyone who opposes you is. You're quoting the sources on your side, and they're quoting the sources on theirs. And frankly, that's depressing, and the absolute hatred coming from both sides is neither natural nor inevitable, but it will take quite a while for the country to recover from it. Bush leaving office is a start, but Kerry is certainly no answer. However, I'm perfectly willing to let him take it right up the ass for the next four years in order to wipe the slate clean. McCain, who has the respect of people from across the ideological spectrum, is the politician best poised to heal the country from the wounds its taken over the past fifteen years. And when he runs in 2008 against the incumbent Kerry, he will wipe the floor up with him.
-------------------------------
Fay - 2004-06-29 10:41:22
Thank you Donna. We can only hope. And vote, of course. :)
I am neither a sheep, nor a parrot. Also, I know what "tenuous" means. Sorry, I know that's a flame... I took the insult bait... shame on me. I'll forgive myself.
-------------------------------
HRT - 2004-06-29 10:53:12
...Sometimes I wonder if the people of America have half the freedom, liberty and choice that we think we do. What if the whole thing is just one big scam to make people THINK that they have a say when in reality it's all a giant farce... hmmm maybe I'll write a book about it and call it Fahrenheit 411 the temperature that information burns...
-------------------------------
Mr. Grey - 2004-06-29 11:33:22
Donna, you claim that I am not thinking for myself. In this you are dead wrong. If I didn't think for myself, then I would believe all the lies and half truths being spread by the vile spewing left. I would blindly have watched Moore's movies and not questioned his creative editing techniques. I always thought editing someone's speech so that they say something totally different was considered lying. But maybe that's just me. Moore is a bigot and a liar. PERIOD.
McCain is the answer to America's woes? Boy have you been sniffing way too much glue. McCain has picked up Bush's abandoned plan to legalize ALL illegal immigrants. You remember that idiotic idea Dubbya came out with two months ago? Now McCain has adopted it in a blatant effort to parlay to the immigrant vote. There is a reason Bush abandoned the plan, he realized some of those in this country illegally are TERRORISTS! Now, McCain wants to LEGALIZE these TERRORISTS so they can now move freely in our society. No, what this country needs is a strong, decisive leader. McCain is not that. Dubbya is not that. (yes, you read that correct. I disagree with Bush on a LOT of issues.) Kerry is so wishy washy on every damned issue, he felt that he had to issue a press release last month clarifying what he stands for. I am terrified of what will happen should he win in November. This country has not had a strong leader since Reagan.
-------------------------------
Donna K. - 2004-06-29 12:11:10
McCain is the answer to America's woes?
McCain is the politician best poised to heal the divisive, venomous atmosphere in this country. The current climate, which sets Americans against other Americans in some sort of absurd competition to determine who is a *real* American and who isn't, is the real wound this country bears right now. The danger to this country is the bitter, nasty way public discourse is conducted here, not terrorists. We're the ones who are destroying everything this country stands for. The Democrats have no one at all, and no one Republican commands the interest and respect of people from across the political spectrum as effectively as McCain. That doesn't mean that he commands the respect of *everyone*; only that people can be found from all the warring sides who are familiar with McCain and think well of him. People who disagree with him about major points of his platform still respect him as a man and a leader. That's vital. So yes, McCain is best positioned - in fact, the only person positioned - to cure this particular ill.
McCain represents a state that relies heavily upon illegal immigrants to perform manual labor, and has to deal with the death of hundreds and exploitation of thousands of those people every year. That's probably why a plan like that is of interest to him. Like any representative, he advocates for his constituency. The residents of the Southwest are affected by this issue; Texas, Arizona, and California in particular. The idea that LEGALIZING these TERRORISTS would be the outcome is absolutely ludicrous. The people in this country illegally because they are planning to attack us would be doing us an enormous favor if they'd go down to the INS, let us photograph them, telling us where they work, and giving us their address. Which, yeah, I'm sure they'll all run right down to INS to do just that! (/sarcasm)
And no, you're no more thinking for yourself than the people on the left are. And that's okay. Unless we're all planning to break into some government records offices sometime soon, we all rely on the media and other informed parties to deliver an array of information to us, and we have to work with that. That's the way it's always been. The only difference between you and the "vile spewing left" are the sources you each choose to believe.
-------------------------------
TSD - 2004-06-29 12:28:33
The funny thing about legacies, (i.e. who's public policy will have the greatest impact positive or negative on future generations) is that you can't know what they are going to look like, until it's entirely too late to do anything about them. But then again, what's it really matter anyway cause someday some revisionist is going to spin it whichever way he/she wants too anyway.
I'm sure there is something poignant someone could say about the forest and the trees right about now... too bad I'm not that guy...
-------------------------------
Amy - 2004-06-29 13:47:47
Well said Donna K!
-------------------------------
HRT - 2004-06-29 17:52:58
After careful review of this thread I have to say that while I respectfully disagree with 87.5% of all that Donna K has said thus far, I do respect the attempt at a logical argument. Which is far more than what seems to come from most name-calling-so-called-open-minded-hate-all-people-with-a-faith-in-God-anti-GWBush-Kerry-loving-Clinton-worshiping Liberals.
I so enjoy a good well thought out argument, even when its wrong.
-------------------------------
HRT - 2004-07-06 18:29:57
Amen
-------------------------------
how to arrange flower birth month flowers - 2005-12-31 07:30:08
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
|