MattMonroe
Getting Rad
It's like tasing sin on the tip of your tongue, it's more like swallowing it whole...
Posts: 7
|
Post by MattMonroe on Oct 8, 2004 10:26:40 GMT -5
Hey, Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You can't talk about Clinton not doing his job and ignoring Bin Laden, because he's not the one who received threats and intelligence a month before the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Don't put the blame of 9/11 on Clinton. Putting the blame on Clinton seems to be a trend with the Bush camp. Now I don't think Bush wanted/helped/planned for something like 9/11 to happen, no one in their sane mind could do that. But maybe if he had done his job and taken things seriously, we could have been able to prevent it.
|
|
|
|
Post by L9U9C8Y1 on Oct 8, 2004 10:33:28 GMT -5
Did you not read the first part of my post? The World Trade Center was attacked by Bin Laden while Clinton was in office!! and he did nothing then... the attack happened it wasn't intellegence saying it would happen it did!
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 8, 2004 14:44:51 GMT -5
============= hey jack ass, when did he ever disrespect the people who died in iraq? freakin idiot. Yeah, what the fuck are you talking about? When did I ever disrespect people in Iraq? I think I did pretty much the exact opposite in my posts about Farenheit 9/11. I think if anyone disrespected the people that died in Iraq it would be Bush for being the one that sent them to die over there when he couldn't even go to war himself... He lucked out by getting in the Air National Guard and he couldn't even show up to do that. As far as Clinton in '93 goes, 6 people dying is a little less severe than over 3000 dying and both buildings toppling to the ground. Also, a car bomb in the parking garage takes a little less planning than a simultaneous hijacking of 4 airliners crashing into strategic targets that could only be executed after months of flight school training by people that shouldn't have even been in this country to be begin with. Maybe if Bush hadn't been on vacation for most of his first year in office, he could have worked harder to make this country safer. 9/11 saved him from looking like a complete failure as President because it gave him a chance to look like a hero. |
|
|
|
Post by L9U9C8Y1 on Oct 8, 2004 16:02:19 GMT -5
Regardless of how many people died in 93 it was still a terrorist attack on American soil and the plan was for it to bring down the building. At that time was when Bin Laden had all of his training camps and had begun the training for the airplanes and such. That was all while Clinton was president. Plus the hijackers had begun to enter the US prior to Bush being elected. I'm sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh towards Clinton in my last post but he also could have set things in motion to prevent 9/11. I'm just saying this didn't all start happening once Bush became president. It was already in motion and most of the hijackers were already living here.
|
|
FlowersFromIdaho
Got Rad
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Posts: 35
|
Post by FlowersFromIdaho on Oct 8, 2004 16:46:03 GMT -5
I don't like either candidate, but you guys have to admit that thinking that the entire 9/11 plot could have been hatched and carried out in the 8 months that Bush was president is just asinine. It took YEARS of planning to pull everything together, so there is no one president to blame. Clinton got the exact same intelligence that Bush had, so either both are to blame, or neither. If Clinton had the same intelligence that Bush had, then isn't he also at fault for not acting on it, and for just passing it along to the next guy because, hey, it's not his problem anymore? Please. Don't let your hatred of the opposite party get in the way of your logical thinking, there's no reason to refuse to believe the truth just because you don't want to believe it. And Micheal Moore is not in the truth business. That man truly disgusts me for so blatantly politicizing these tragedies. Bush also disgusts me for politicizing the 9/11 attack. Things like that should be outside of politics, it's extremely disrespectful to the families and the victims for them to be used in such a fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 8, 2004 17:13:36 GMT -5
Clinton was a much better President in my opinion for two reasons: the economy was better and we didn't get involved in any $200 billion wars. I heard a startling fact that the first Persian Gulf conflict cost $5 billion and now this one's already up to 200... that's crazy. Oh, but Clinton got a blow job so that makes him a bad President... and a evil sinner. Whatever.
|
|
ianos
Got Rad
Bums and pies!
Posts: 42
|
Post by ianos on Oct 9, 2004 8:14:37 GMT -5
All of ya'll seem so bent on hating the war in Iraq. John Kerry supported the war. If you really want a candidate who is against the war and who promises to bring home our troops your man is Ralph Nader. Geez As I've been saying - a third party vote in America is a wasted vote and everyone knows that. Even I know that and I'm British. Dunno how to quote lots so I'll address it directly: CypressDrummer: Truths are stretched to make points, but never to the point that they become untrue. If this happened, Moore would have his ass sued off for lying - slander/libel whatever. He is not a liar. And as for the soldiers coffins, as I said earlier - they aren't being shown because when that happened in the Vietnam war it changed a nation's opinion on a conflict and forced a President to cancel a war. Bush doesn't want to do this. People are capable of learning from other sources now though, hence the public opinion turning against war. L9U9C8Y1: Yes, Moore cut and pasted things. Do you know what that's called? EDITING. I hate to break it to you like this, but everyone who makes anything for film, TV, radio, music - whatever - edits it. EVERYONE. The Republicans edit things to suit their message they're putting across, the Democrats do exactly the same, McDonalds do the same, Moore does the same, Inspection fucking 12 do the same in the studio to make their music sound as good as it can. It's something that gets used in the world and using editing as an argument to rubbish what Moore says is absolutley - absolutely ridiculous. As for your comment about not relying on one source for your info - I couldn't agree more. Just make sure your only sources aren't Fox News, CNN or anything else remotely right wing corporate bullshit. Look for the BBC's World Service, use the internet, check everything, not bullshit right wing propaganda, not bullshit left wing propaganda. Just check the news. That's another thing - Moore tells you something, it's "propaganda", Bush tells you something else it's "fact"? Think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 9, 2004 13:38:34 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more... I love Michael Moore and all his movies and I think they're very truthful. I don't think he's trying to make something look like this or like that to sell movies and make money... I think he genuinely cares about the state of our country and the bullshit that this administration is getting away with.
|
|
FlowersFromIdaho
Got Rad
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Posts: 35
|
Post by FlowersFromIdaho on Oct 9, 2004 19:22:44 GMT -5
That's another thing - Moore tells you something, it's "propaganda", Bush tells you something else it's "fact"? Think about it. Conversely, Moore tells you something, it's "truth," Bush tells you something it's "bullshit?" Think about that. It's up to you to do your research and discern what's truth and what's half-truth, or what's an outright lie. When it comes to politics, not one single person is going to tell you the whole truth. Not one. They will tell you what they want you to hear, with just enough truth to be believable. When it comes to editing, it's one thing to cut out things that make your case look bad, it's quite another to INTENTIONALLY edit something so that it is taken completely out of context. Which is exactly what Moore does. Quoting the first sentence of a 3 or 4 sentence statement is just one example. He intentionally misleads you. For instance, there is no bank that you can walk into and get a gun, as he lead you to believe in Bowling for Columbine. That was total bullshit, and it was set up in advance. What they actually do is issue you a voucher for a gun in partnership with a gun retailer. Sorry, Matt, but Moore is not very truthful. He doesn't care about the country half as much as he cares about his party's affiliation and anything he can do to support them. It's all politics, and as everyone knows, politics is not about truth. |
|
CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 9, 2004 20:05:36 GMT -5
matt, i didn't say YOU disrespected the people of Iraq...i meant moore disrespected all the soldiers fighting in Iraq right now, including Iraqis. sorry for the confusion.
|
|
CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 9, 2004 20:15:35 GMT -5
also, the reason the gulf war cost only 7-8 billion and the war in iraq is costing near 200 billion is because we are building a nation.
and like i've been saying, i don't really care if you criticize the war ten years from now and it's all down the crapper, but let's give it some time. ten years at the most. you cannot really give a fair assessment of what's going to happen to iraq right now. this will probably take the efforts of three or maybe four presidents before we see what iraq's potential blooms into.
|
|
|
|
Post by L9U9C8Y1 on Oct 11, 2004 11:56:29 GMT -5
Well, I am certainly surprised to see that there isn't a new thread about the 2nd debate. I thought it was very interesting. I think they both did a good job of getting their positions across.
On another subject... Did everyone see that Christopher Reeve died yesterday? I really thought that if anyone were to be able to walk again it would be that man. He had such a great attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 11, 2004 12:15:45 GMT -5
"are they crippled from birth, or crippled wanna-be's like christopher reeve?"
|
|
|
|
Post by L9U9C8Y1 on Oct 11, 2004 14:49:10 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by that...  |
|
|
|
Post by BlahBlahBlah on Oct 11, 2004 18:08:10 GMT -5
Clinton was a much better President in my opinion for two reasons: the economy was better and we didn't get involved in any $200 billion wars. I heard a startling fact that the first Persian Gulf conflict cost $5 billion and now this one's already up to 200... that's crazy. Oh, but Clinton got a blow job so that makes him a bad President... and a evil sinner. Whatever. Bill Clinton had a higher unemployment rate when he was running for reelection in 1996 than the current situation. Just a little food for thought |
|
