Farenheight 911

[DigitalElite]

Originally posted by AxL
I will see it. Not for going to see it to learn any facts, but for entertainment. That is what it should be taken as.

Yeah, I didn't read any of the stuff either, but they were definately trying to get us to read them...

 

[Misterwhippy]

Moore is an idiot. seriously. no amount of movies he or anyone else makes can change my vote. yeah, I get to vote, I'm alredy registed. Bush '04

 

[jd-inflames]

I'm not going to vote for Bush, but never would I let Michael Moore change my mind. Yes, he makes an interesting documentary, but he also twists the facts so that people will hate others. He acts like a freaking anarchist, and there is nothing I hate more...GOD that is so flawed...

I've only seen Bowling for Columbine, but I do remember the parts where he was trying to get people to hate Bush Sr. for training Osama and the rest of the crock of shit he piled on in that movie. How was Bush Sr. supposed to know what he would do with his knowledge? He did it so that Afghanistan could defend themselves against their hostile neighboring countries. We have also given Iraq nuclear weapons. Again, who was to tell us that it would bite us in the ass 10 years later? These kind of things are no ones fault...but Michael Moore tries to make it seem that way.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Of course they are someone's fault. The US has a long history of exploiting whoever it can to achieve its goals. Training terrorists to supress communism and proliferating nuclear weapons to fight Iran are just two examples of that. You can't use hindsight as an excuse when your actions have effectively killed thousands of people. That sort of thing doesn't hold water in court cases against normal citizens of the US so why should it when applied to the leaders of our country?

 

[Guest]

If I am not mistaken, a lot of this conversation should be in arcane. I havn't seen the movie yet but I do plan too.

 

[Speedy]

Originally posted by RoaCh Of DisCord
I hope the movie takes away tons of bushes votes :O

Amen to that.

But Michael Moore does over exaggerate stuff. So far his only decent documentary was "Bowling For Columbine". But he left a lot of gaps in that one, and like JD how was bush sr s'posed to know all that shit would happen?

 

[xjMaN88lx]

Amen to that

yea this shuld be moved to arcane bc this is a good argument

 

[Swooper]

okay, here we go...

Yep, its been a while for me. The dull, daily anwering peoples problems on AIM and trying to find something worthwhile to post about in the staff forum and other jobs of Adminship get old after a while.

You say that he portrayed something that we aren't. What part of the film are you specifically talking about here?

Im talking about the entire film. By leaving out every single accomplishmnet made and twisting unrelated figures to make them appear to back up his statements agaisnt the recent actions of this country, hes portraying the country and our recent actions in a way that is entirely untrue.

I assumed this given the fact that Moore made a movie bashing Bush and you came to the conclusion that he hated America from it.

Hah. Do you really think Im that simple-minded? Most people on this forum seem to be, which is one of the reasons I dont post very much outside the staff sections. I came to my conclusion that he hated america after reading numerous articles on the topic (both ones for moore and agaisnt him). I sometimes bash Clinton and that doenst mean I hated america while he was present. Likewise, there are plenty of bush-bashers who love this country. But Moore is not one of them. Why did I come to the conclusion that he hated America? Because he wants us to loose this war. He wants the things Bush started to fail. If he loved the country he wouldnt try and make the things bush started fail just because it was bush who started them. What makes me sick is when people seem to be happy when bush does something that hurts the country, just because its something else for them to bash about. The serious democrats who I have alot of respect for are the ones who know the facts and attack bush for the mistakes he made that truely were his fault. Making a huge deal of bush's "ties to bin-Laden" when in full knowlage that the evidence he used was false, yet still making then public knowing that the vast majority of the outside would will believe it... thats the kind of additude that leads me to believe he truely hates his own country.

Pointing out that someone is liberal isn't likely to make me agree with him. Being an idiot isn't reserved for any particular political party. I would still be interested in reading his thoughts though if you find the link.

Here's one posted by Edward Koch, formal NY mayor, and if you know anything about him you know hes very liberal. I'll try and post some more later.

How will attacking a leader that the world already hates stir up hatred for our country?

We're in the middle of a war against terrorists. Why did they target the WTC? Its a simbol of western civilization, which is what they are trying to distroy. And by persuading even more foreigners to hate bush for reasons that no informed person would deem creditable is helping the terrorists. We might as well be in a cival war right now, I dont think the country has so polarized any time in the in the past 100 years, and by intensefying that war he is condemming more american solders fighting on the front outsite the US to death.

Interesting...I'm glad that you're able to see beyond the lies and I pity the poor small minded foreigners who will accept everything as fact.

Do you know why many foreigners think that americans eat nothing but mcdonalds and pizza? Movies. When we think of China, we think of communism, the triads and the underground, and everything the media portrays. The country is truely much more than that, but for the most part our knowlage is limited to what we see in movies and on television. Its the same with other countries' opinions of us... most of them are taken from what their media tells them. Not everyone, but most of the people their are informed. I find most of the americans I meet on this forum, whether they are conservitive or liberal, to have a bad understanding of whats actually happening and the true meaning of the war, and if people here are uninformed then people outside the country will be, for the most part, moreso. Most foreigners... not all, but most... who see this movie, will take everything as accurate and not look into the true facts.

That's what all of politics is about. Are you going to vote against Bush because he leaves the fact that he raped the economy out of his campaign addresses?

Your right, I completely agree with you here. Its sad how you can't in an election if you can't admit your mistake. Do I think a tax cut was nessesary? Yes. Do I think that cutting taxes during a war when the governement needs more resources is the right thing to do? No. Do I think Bush made a huge mistake doing so? Yes. It was a mistake, and im at least gratefull that congress was able to stop bush from cutting taxes as much as he wanted to. But still, it was a bad idea. And he should admit to his mistakes. He doesnt, but neither does kerry or the other presidential canidates. But I think that the media and all of the bush and kerry bashers should try and include most of the facts, then try and explain the bad ones. In general, they leave out tons and tons of stuff to try and make a point. And that doesnt work for me. And the topic of this subject is F911, which we seem to be drifting from. Moore left out so many facts and bended ones that helped him to help him even more, even if its not entiely accurate. Its impossible to state everything, but taking things to the extent moore did to make his anti-american message is horrific.

Before we take this argument any further, I think you should know a few things about me. First, if I make a mistake im not going to try and cover it up. I'll admit that the c*cks and c*unts line was an expression of some of the anger thats been building up inside me over these past few hellish weeks, and I should have worked to contain my emotions from whats happening in my life right now and keep them out of the forum. Like you said, it only hurt my argument and leads to discredit my point. I can only hope that people who read it take away alot more than a "convert or GTFO" message.

Also, I won't stick singlemindedly to my views and not consider other's opinions. I've been persuaded many times in the past by people who were more informed than me and were able to show me major flaws in my logic. Unlike most people here, im not about to keep sticking to my view points and refusing to listen to others just to avoid admitting that I've been defeated in an argument. But let me warn you that I've done alot of thinking on this topic, and alot of debating with my liberal friends. And its going to take alot to make me change my mind. If you want to keep arguing this out, keep it to my opinions on Moore for this thread and leave attacking my other political opinions for a different thread. Also, try providing your own facts and opinions on the movie instead of just asking me to clarify my points, so I actually get to do some serious thinking.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Im talking about the entire film. By leaving out every single accomplishmnet made and twisting unrelated figures to make them appear to back up his statements agaisnt the recent actions of this country, hes portraying the country and our recent actions in a way that is entirely untrue.

This is what I'm saying. The actions of George Bush aren't the actions of this country. Recent bipartisan polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) show Bush's approval rating to be less than a majority of voters. The country is not behind Bush so how can his actions be equated to those of the country? I will give you the point that Moore leaves out the fact that repressed Kurds may have a better future with Saddam out of the way, and he intentionally misleds in his scenes depicting the eve of the war. To me those scenes were a farce, and anyone who believed them is not worthy of discussing politics with anyway.

Hah. Do you really think Im that simple-minded? Most people on this forum seem to be, which is one of the reasons I dont post very much outside the staff sections.

I would invite you to post in AS but conditions aren't much better there.

I sometimes bash Clinton and that doenst mean I hated america while he was present.

Me too.

He wants the things Bush started to fail. If he loved the country he wouldnt try and make the things bush started fail just because it was bush who started them. What makes me sick is when people seem to be happy when bush does something that hurts the country, just because its something else for them to bash about.

That's really just speculation on your part. It's kind of absurd to think that Moore would be happy if Bush were in office for eternity and failed at everything he did, which is what you seem to be implying. I think the real situation stems from the fact that Bush has repeatedly failed. There's no point being "happy" about Bush failing because his failure to most of us in inherent. To me the purpose of the film is to fight for progress, not to gloat over the fact that we have something to bitch about.

Making a huge deal of bush's "ties to bin-Laden" when in full knowlage that the evidence he used was false, yet still making then public knowing that the vast majority of the outside would will believe it... thats the kind of additude that leads me to believe he truely hates his own country.

That leads me to believe that he truly hates Bush, not his country. I guess that's the main point tha we continually differ on.

Here's one posted by Edward Koch, formal NY mayor, and if you know anything about him you know hes very liberal. I'll try and post some more later.

As I said, it's not really important to me what political party he's affiliated with. It was an interesting read though, and some of those quotes are things that I don't agree with. Please refer to "there should be limits to freedom".

We're in the middle of a war against terrorists. Why did they target the WTC? Its a simbol of western civilization, which is what they are trying to distroy. And by persuading even more foreigners to hate bush for reasons that no informed person would deem creditable is helping the terrorists. We might as well be in a cival war right now, I dont think the country has so polarized any time in the in the past 100 years, and by intensefying that war he is condemming more american solders fighting on the front outsite the US to death.

Your logic is flawed. Moore tries to prove in his film that Bush is in league with Saudi terrorists... so it doesn't really follow that terrorists would hate him for that.

Do you know why many foreigners think that americans eat nothing but mcdonalds and pizza? Movies. When we think of China, we think of communism, the triads and the underground, and everything the media portrays. The country is truely much more than that, but for the most part our knowlage is limited to what we see in movies and on television. Its the same with other countries' opinions of us... most of them are taken from what their media tells them. Not everyone, but most of the people their are informed. I find most of the americans I meet on this forum, whether they are conservitive or liberal, to have a bad understanding of whats actually happening and the true meaning of the war, and if people here are uninformed then people outside the country will be, for the most part, moreso. Most foreigners... not all, but most... who see this movie, will take everything as accurate and not look into the true facts.

That's really unbased. I'll also point out that if your precedent for judging how well informed foreigners are is how much Americans understand "what's actually happening" than you again have no basis for an argument. "What's actually happening" is an entirely different subject for debate and if you're going to judge Americans' perception of this than you have to know the truth behind what's actually happening. A confusing argument, but logically correct nonetheless.

Do I think a tax cut was nessesary? Yes.

Are we talking about the same tax cut here? You wouldn't happen to be the CEO of a major corporation would you?

Moore left out so many facts and bended ones that helped him to help him even more, even if its not entiely accurate. Its impossible to state everything, but taking things to the extent moore did to make his anti-american message is horrific.

Anti-American? Propaganda and dissent are as American as apple pie, baseball, and corporate greed.

As for posting my own facts, I have to get to the bottom of your opinions before I decide where to go with my arguments. Consider this the cross-examination.

 

[Swooper]

As for posting my own facts, I have to get to the bottom of your opinions before I decide where to go with my arguments. Consider this the cross-examination.

Sounds good me me. I'll try and clear some final things up.

This is what I'm saying. The actions of George Bush aren't the actions of this country. Recent bipartisan polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) show Bush's approval rating to be less than a majority of voters. The country is not behind Bush so how can his actions be equated to those of the country? I will give you the point that Moore leaves out the fact that repressed Kurds may have a better future with Saddam out of the way, and he intentionally misleds in his scenes depicting the eve of the war. To me those scenes were a farce, and anyone who believed them is not worthy of discussing politics with anyway.

Well, theres one thing we're in complete agreement with. Correct me if you think im wrong, but I got the impression that F911, in portraying bush as a completley abysmal and treasonous president, ended up portraying our country as having a much more corrupt system than it does.

It's kind of absurd to think that Moore would be happy if Bush were in office for eternity and failed at everything he did, which is what you seem to be implying. I think the real situation stems from the fact that Bush has repeatedly failed. There's no point being "happy" about Bush failing because his failure to most of us in inherent. To me the purpose of the film is to fight for progress, not to gloat over the fact that we have something to bitch about.

Let me rephrase that, I ended up trying to compress a rather complicated idea into one sentence. I shouldn't have used the term happy, what I ment is that there are many democrats (by no means all of them) who seem to start every speach with something like "I am very disapointed with [insert something they claim bush did wrong here]", and fail to present decent alternatives to what Bush did. Its hard to explain, but if you regularly watch the news on different channels you'll understand what I mean. That just annoys me when some of these democrats seem to base thier entire campaign around bush failing--if bush didn't make a single mistake their campaigns would fall apart. Let me give a couple of the more major examples and try and draw the discussion back in the direction of F911. F911 portrays it as though the lapse in security that allowed the 911 attacks was entirely Bush's fault. It doesnt explain at all how 1. No one have ever even conceived such attacks would happen until they actually did 2. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton had opportunities to stop what lead to 911 (Bush Sr. never should have given into the pressure and forsaken the Kurds, and Clinton had multiple opportunities to catch bin Laden but choose not to) and 3. Most of thoes "files" Moore kept refering to pointing to an immenant terrorist attack never went all the way up the ladder to Bush. What was Bush supposed to do? Try and push by new airline secutiry laws that would cost billions and billions to enact to prevent any sort of terrorist attack over airlines that no one ever dreamed about? The idea would be shot down in an instant. Also, he is constantly criticized for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq. I wrote a 8 page paper last year on the WMD issue and I don't want to spend too much time on a side topic, so let me just ask you where Bush got his information. Mostly the director of the CIA (who was appointed by Clinton). Gore, along with a myriad of other well known democrats, can be quoted recently stating that Iraq was in posession of WMDs. It was a surprize to everyone, but opposers of Bush immidiately jumped on the issue like it was entirely his fault.

Your logic is flawed. Moore tries to prove in his film that Bush is in league with Saudi terrorists... so it doesn't really follow that terrorists would hate him for that.

I dont recall saying that the terrorists hated him for any reason. I was trying to say that the terrorists will have a much harder time attacking a unified country that backs their leader even if they don't agree with them than they would attacking a polarized country which focuses on whether the war was the right thing and not how they can create a positive outcome from the war.

That's really unbased. I'll also point out that if your precedent for judging how well informed foreigners are is how much Americans understand "what's actually happening" than you again have no basis for an argument. "What's actually happening" is an entirely different subject for debate and if you're going to judge Americans' perception of this than you have to know the truth behind what's actually happening. A confusing argument, but logically correct nonetheless.

Its hard to actually find a single thing to base my argument around, but it is true that american movies (which they all watch, to go another country and you'll find that most of the movies there are american) are a major source of people's "knowlalge" of this country. Just look at the reaction F911 has recieved in other countrys... for the most part they all assumed that the movie was true... its a "documentery" of the "true America", and its a serious (for the most part) movie. Of course most of them assume its true, and the media of most of thoes countries isn't about to tell them otherwise (did you know that almost no one in France, Germany, or Russia is aware that Iraq owed them huge amounts of money and/or was running under-the-counter oil deals with them that their leaders were quite reluctant to sever?).

Anti-American? Propaganda and dissent are as American as apple pie, baseball, and corporate greed.

I agree with you that propaganda has become a way of american life (and life everywhere else in this world for that matter), and its sad. But in this case, the propaganda itself portrays an anti-american message. In the way Moore attacks Bush, he attacks our entire democratic system as being corrupt. Just look at the way he claims that Gore should have gotten the florida votes? Its not like their wasnt a recount... there were about six (I lost count at one point, but six is about right). And he claims that it was Bush who was manipulating the votes. I mean, what the hell, it was Gore who refused to let them count overseas miltary votes in the recounts (and they didnt), and the military is 90% republican. Moore portrays our entire democratic system as a corrupt system that can be taken advantage of and manipulated. And like I've stated earlyer, this movie can only hurt the war in Iraq even more. I don't know whats NOT anti-american about that. We live in a great country, and though it has its flaws its the best system we could possibly manage (please refer to churchill quote). All in all, the people that really get on my nerves are the americans that try to deface america by always being agaisnt their own country... being Anti-American.

 

[Silynt Rage]

excellent posts swooper...

what I would like to know, is that if Gore was elected, that wouldn't have made a difference by what swooper says about the holes in security... so would Michael Moore still made this movie... despite a democrat still being in office at the time, or are we going to use the cop-out that "If there was a democrat in office, this wouldn't have happened, and there wouldn't be a basic premise for the movie to begin with"?


- Rage

 

[Swooper]

Originally posted by Silynt Rage
excellent posts swooper...

what I would like to know, is that if Gore was elected, that wouldn't have made a difference by what swooper says about the holes in security... so would Michael Moore still made this movie... despite a democrat still being in office at the time, or are we going to use the cop-out that "If there was a democrat in office, this wouldn't have happened, and there wouldn't be a basic premise for the movie to begin with"?


- Rage

I'm positive that if gore had been elected the 911 attacks would still have occured. No president would even try to propose to shut off air traffic for a few days, have insanely long security checks at every airport (like right after 911), and spend millions and millions on improving the airport security system when the only documents they had stated that it was looking like there might be come large scale terrorist attack (Im fairly sure we had no idea what form of attack was going to take place... its believed that the terrorists themselves didnt know until them opened an envelope with their instructions while on the flights themselves). So even if we knew that a terrorist attack might occur... what the hell were we supposed to do about it?

I place a good chunk of the blame on Bush Sr. actually. Back then the media was almost entirely liberal, and there was a ton of pressure for him to pull out of the war at the time. And he did. As a result, the Iraqi groups who had been brave enough to rebel may never have decimated when we pulled our support away from them, and things would be completely different. He never should have pulled out, he should have stuck with what he believed in and not given in to the pressure. And clinton shouldn't have called the CIA off when they had bin Laden cornered. He had multiple chances to catch him, but it was that time when he specifically called them off that gets to my nerves... As for Bush Jr, I dont think there was anything within reason he could have done, even if there were alot more signs than there were about a terrorist attack.

I doubt that Moore would have releaced the movie had Gore been in office at the time. Moore claims he is an indipendent and therefore bypartisan, although he doesnt mention the fact that prior to 2001 when he stopped voting he continually marked himself as a democrat. When Clinton bombed baghdad and other parts of Iraq it was virtually ignored by the media. So ignored in fact that im guessing alot of you dont even know what Im talking about. Up until recently the media has been almost entirely liberal, and even now nearly all television networks are at least leaning towards the left, and although conservitives have taken over talk radio the media in general is liberal. So consitering how much the media in the past has completely ignored violent acts by democrats such as Clintons work in Iraq and the fact that however much he tries to lie about it Moore is very very liberal, I would be willing to bet good money that had Gore been in office F911 would not exist.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Well, theres one thing we're in complete agreement with. Correct me if you think im wrong, but I got the impression that F911, in portraying bush as a completley abysmal and treasonous president, ended up portraying our country as having a much more corrupt system than it does.

I guess that's one of the main points that we differ on then. It would be pretty hard to prove/disprove an corruption so this argument is really just moot.

Let me rephrase that, I ended up trying to compress a rather complicated idea into one sentence. I shouldn't have used the term happy, what I ment is that there are many democrats (by no means all of them) who seem to start every speach with something like "I am very disapointed with [insert something they claim bush did wrong here]", and fail to present decent alternatives to what Bush did. Its hard to explain, but if you regularly watch the news on different channels you'll understand what I mean. That just annoys me when some of these democrats seem to base thier entire campaign around bush failing--if bush didn't make a single mistake their campaigns would fall apart. Let me give a couple of the more major examples and try and draw the discussion back in the direction of F911. F911 portrays it as though the lapse in security that allowed the 911 attacks was entirely Bush's fault. It doesnt explain at all how 1. No one have ever even conceived such attacks would happen until they actually did 2. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton had opportunities to stop what lead to 911 (Bush Sr. never should have given into the pressure and forsaken the Kurds, and Clinton had multiple opportunities to catch bin Laden but choose not to) and 3. Most of thoes "files" Moore kept refering to pointing to an immenant terrorist attack never went all the way up the ladder to Bush. What was Bush supposed to do? Try and push by new airline secutiry laws that would cost billions and billions to enact to prevent any sort of terrorist attack over airlines that no one ever dreamed about? The idea would be shot down in an instant. Also, he is constantly criticized for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq. I wrote a 8 page paper last year on the WMD issue and I don't want to spend too much time on a side topic, so let me just ask you where Bush got his information. Mostly the director of the CIA (who was appointed by Clinton). Gore, along with a myriad of other well known democrats, can be quoted recently stating that Iraq was in posession of WMDs. It was a surprize to everyone, but opposers of Bush immidiately jumped on the issue like it was entirely his fault.

Again, this is how all of politics work. Politicians have always run campaigns based on the faults of their opponents rather than their own merits. I'm glad that it pisses you off though. And I don't really care what Gore says on the matter. You're correct, he's an imbecile. I don't think this country would be better off if Gore were in office, and I don't really think it will be much better off with Kerry in either. The phrase "lesser of two evils" is constantly used when describing the elections, yet suprisingly the American people put up with it.

I dont recall saying that the terrorists hated him for any reason. I was trying to say that the terrorists will have a much harder time attacking a unified country that backs their leader even if they don't agree with them than they would attacking a polarized country which focuses on whether the war was the right thing and not how they can create a positive outcome from the war.

Basically what you're saying here is that during war time we're not allowed to question our leader...mkay, whatever.

Its hard to actually find a single thing to base my argument around, but it is true that american movies (which they all watch, to go another country and you'll find that most of the movies there are american) are a major source of people's "knowlalge" of this country. Just look at the reaction F911 has recieved in other countrys... for the most part they all assumed that the movie was true... its a "documentery" of the "true America", and its a serious (for the most part) movie. Of course most of them assume its true, and the media of most of thoes countries isn't about to tell them otherwise (did you know that almost no one in France, Germany, or Russia is aware that Iraq owed them huge amounts of money and/or was running under-the-counter oil deals with them that their leaders were quite reluctant to sever?).

Unfortunately I can't find estimates for what percent of the world is currently against the war, but I'm guessing that the numbers can't go up too much more from the status quo. Anyway, I'm dropping this section of the argument for now.

I agree with you that propaganda has become a way of american life (and life everywhere else in this world for that matter), and its sad. But in this case, the propaganda itself portrays an anti-american message. In the way Moore attacks Bush, he attacks our entire democratic system as being corrupt. Just look at the way he claims that Gore should have gotten the florida votes? Its not like their wasnt a recount... there were about six (I lost count at one point, but six is about right). And he claims that it was Bush who was manipulating the votes. I mean, what the hell, it was Gore who refused to let them count overseas miltary votes in the recounts (and they didnt), and the military is 90% republican. Moore portrays our entire democratic system as a corrupt system that can be taken advantage of and manipulated. And like I've stated earlyer, this movie can only hurt the war in Iraq even more. I don't know whats NOT anti-american about that. We live in a great country, and though it has its flaws its the best system we could possibly manage (please refer to churchill quote). All in all, the people that really get on my nerves are the americans that try to deface america by always being agaisnt their own country... being Anti-American.

Refer to Lincoln quote: "When the people shall grow weary of their Constitutional right to amend the government they shall exert their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow that government." Democracy is not inherently American so I fail to see how even criticizing democracy is "anti-American".

 

[ShaftedTwice]

omg.. swoop just unabridged what was going on in my mind.. those were top-of-the-line quality posts and i could not have said it any better.

 

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Swooper
Im talking about the entire film. By leaving out every single accomplishmnet made and twisting unrelated figures to make them appear to back up his statements agaisnt the recent actions of this country, hes portraying the country and our recent actions in a way that is entirely untrue.

i haven't seen the movie yet, but i plan to.
don't worry about ruining it for me, i'd just like some examples of what you're talking about.

 

[Swooper]

Arg, you had to post this late tonight when I have to get up early tomorrow morning to go on vacation for 10 days. Well, at least I think this debate is pretty much coming to and end and now its about down to matters of opinion, so I think I can make this short.

Basically what you're saying here is that during war time we're not allowed to question our leader...mkay, whatever.

I keep trying to clarify what Im saying here but I guess im just not doing a very good job of expressing my thoughts. I havent been saying not to question our leader, im just saying not to do it in such a blatant way as to hurt the entire country's international respect and make it harder for the leader to acheive whatever good could possibly come from whatever hes doing. You may not like Bush, but putting huge amounts of pressure on him to try and back out from some things hes already put into motion is just going to make the end result worse than it would already be. Meh, I know its a confusing thought, I've tried to clarify it in pretty much every post Ive made in this thread, so try looking back over them to see if you can get a basic idea about what im talking about

Unfortunately my moms bugging me because she needs to get on and Im leaving for vacation first thing tomorrow morning so I need to wrap this up. Let me just say one thing... I think we differ in our definition of "anti-american". Eh... no time, my moms literally hovering over my shoulder. Maybe someone else can take it up for me.

Im out for 10 days, later all