YaHooka Forums  

Go Back   YaHooka Forums > The Chronic Colloquials > Free For All
Home FAQ Social Groups Links Mark Forums Read

Free For All A place for thoughts and ideas that are out of place anywhere else.

LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-09-2003, 04:23 AM   #1 (permalink)
welcome to the future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 171
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
7 Questions for Mr. Bush. Inquiring minds wanna know...

Moores got a new book out..." Dude, wheres my Country?"
Here are a few poignant excerpts:

Face it, you'll never be rich.
Read This, sometime....
A good overview of whats going down in the divided States_ and how a nation can be so seemingly apathetic. The Fear Drug and The Horatio Algier drug...Rags to Riches...I fell for it to, once upon a time in America. " you too can be rich and successful..."

anyways...This one, below, is very direct_and had Clinton been in the hotseat ALL these questions would be investigated, toute my humble opinion

7 questions for Mr. Bush:

I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens.
1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.

The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?

Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay.

2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?

Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round?

The number one supplier of oil to the US is the nation of Saudi Arabia, possessor of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was really the Saudis next door who felt threatened, and it was your father, George Bush I, who came to their rescue. The Saudis have never forgotten this. Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, says that your mother and father "are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them".

A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?

After meeting with the Saudi crown prince in April 2002, you happily told us that the two of you had "established a strong personal bond" and that you "spent a lot of time alone". Were you trying to reassure us? Or just flaunt your friendship with a group of rulers who rival the Taliban in their suppression of human rights? Why the double standard?

K2nme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 04:26 AM   #2 (permalink)
welcome to the future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 171
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"The rest of the Story..."

3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia?

I'm sorry, Mr Bush, but something doesn't make sense.

You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys. Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of 19 terrorists for two years in the US then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? How did he organise, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string?

The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?

Of course you haven't. And so the question must - must - be asked: why not? Why, when Congress released its own investigation into September 11, did you, Mr Bush, censor out 28 pages that deal with the Saudis' role in the attack?

I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-storey building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.

The Saudi air force?

What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?

4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?

While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!

Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen?
K2nme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 04:27 AM   #3 (permalink)
welcome to the future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 171
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
too long......I know, I know....:(

5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists?

Mr Bush, in the days after September 11, the FBI began running a check to see if any of the 186 "suspects" the feds had rounded up in the first five days after the attack had purchased any guns in the months leading up to September 11 (two of them had). When your attorney general, John Ashcroft, heard about this, he immediately shut down the search. He told the FBI that the background check files could not be used for such a search and these files were only to be used at the time of a purchase of a gun.

Mr Bush, you can't be serious! Is your administration really so gun nutty and so deep in the pocket of the National Rifle Association? I truly love how you have rounded up hundreds of people, grabbing them off the streets without notice, throwing them in prison cells, unable to contact lawyers or family, and then, for the most part, shipped them out of the country on mere immigration charges.

You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it.

Who, Mr Bush, is really aiding the terrorists here?

6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?

According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

Mr Bush, what was this all about?

"Houston, we have a problem," apparently never crossed your mind, even though the Taliban were perhaps the most repressive fundamentalist regime on the planet. What role exactly did you play in the Unocal meetings with the Taliban?

According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages, Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over Bin Laden? Were you threatening them with use of force? Were you talking to them about a pipeline?

7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'?

On the morning of September 11, you took a jog on a golf course and then headed to Booker elementary school in Florida to read to little children. You arrived at the school after the first plane had hit the north tower in New York City. You entered the classroom around 9am and the second plane hit the south tower at 9.03am. Just a few minutes later, as you were sitting in front of the class of kids, your chief of staff, Andrew Card, entered the room and whispered in your ear. Card was apparently telling you about the second plane and about us being "under attack".

And it was at that very moment that your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralysed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing.

George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean?

Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

Or were you just scared shitless?

Or maybe you were just thinking, "I did not want this job in the first place! This was supposed to be Jeb's job; he was the chosen one! Why me? Why me, daddy?"

Or ... maybe, just maybe, you were sitting there in that classroom chair thinking about your Saudi friends - both the royals and the Bin Ladens. People you knew all too well that might have been up to no good. Would questions be asked? Would suspicions arise? Would the Democrats have the guts to dig into your family's past with these people (no, don't worry, never a chance of that!)? Would the truth ever come out?

And while I'm at it ...

Danger - multi-millionaires at large
I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totalling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

Keeping America safe
The US Patriot Act and the enemy combatant designation are just a hint of what Bush has in store for us. Consider a brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter, an Iran-contra perp, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa): the "policy analysis market", which the government was to put up on a website.

Apparently, Poindexter reasoned that commodity futures markets worked so well for Bush's buddies at Enron that he could adapt it to predicting terrorism. Individuals would be able to invest in hypothetical futures contracts involving the likelihood of such events as "an assassination of Yasser Arafat" or "the overthrow of Jordan's King Abdullah II". Other futures would be available based on the economic health, civil stability and military involvement in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. All oil-related countries.

The proposed market lasted about one day after it was revealed to the Senate. Senators Wyden and Dorgan protested the Pentagon's $8m request, and Wyden said, "Make-believe markets trading in possibilities that turn the stomach hardly seem like a sensible next step to take with taxpayers money in the war on terror." As a result of the uproar over this, Poindexter was asked to step down.

Giving Saddam the key to Detroit
In Las Vegas, an armoured fighting vehicle was used to crush French yogurt, French bread, bottles of French wine, Perrier, Grey Goose vodka, photos of Chirac, a guide to Paris and, best of all, photocopies of the French flag. France was the perfect country to pick on. If you're a cable news company, why spend priceless reporting time on investigating whether Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction when you can do a story about how rotten the French are?

Fox News led the charge of pinning Chirac to Saddam Hussein, showing old footage of the two men together. It didn't matter that the meeting had taken place in the 1970s. The media didn't bother to run (over and over again) the footage from when Saddam was presented with a key to the city of Detroit, or the film from the early 1980s of Donald Rumsfeld visiting Saddam in Baghdad to discuss the progress of the Iran-Iraq war. The footage of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam apparently wasn't worth running on a continuous loop. Or even once. OK, maybe once. On Oprah.
K2nme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 08:08 AM   #4 (permalink)
smoke mad blunts
Jam Cruiser's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Philly
Posts: 6,589
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
I'm gonna have to print this out
Jam Cruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 08:15 AM   #5 (permalink)
Posts: n/a
I can't read this right now! I will try again later.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 09:20 AM   #6 (permalink)
The Shiz Nizzle
c-weed's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: KY
Posts: 187
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mostly Nonsense

"You'll never be rich." I don't think I've ever heard such self-defeating propaganda in my entire life. Sure, Moore's a socialist and hates capitalism, hence his hatred of corporations, but give me a break. Moore is himself a millionaire. In fact, 4 million American households are millionaire households (that's about 4% of the population b/c households consist of more than one person). 80% of those in millionaire status are first generation millionaires.

The only reason there aren't more millionaires is bad financial planning. Are you telling me that you don't know of anyone that is a self-made millionaire? My parents' generation wasn't just the first to graduate from college, but the first to graduate from high school. I'm a generation removed from a poverty almost unparalled in modern U.S. society. Now, 75% of those in poverty have television, around 25% have a computer. While half the people in the world make less than $3/day, the homeless in San Francisco are given $345/month. Instead of wallowing in this filth, Why don't you take this country for the sum of its parts?

Moore is like the Ann Coulter of the left. Everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Moore is making millions by telling people like yourself that you can never suceed and that your country is an evil failure.

I will give him this, Bowling for Columbine is a good movie.
c-weed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 11:09 AM   #7 (permalink)
welcome to the future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 171
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Definately_grains of salt_C-weed.

the truth about bowling for columbine
I emailed this guy and he's really alright_for a lawyer_

I still think the rags to riches, Horatio Algier- american dream is a myth, yes it happens_
however_not very often and if you are not from a good hood, with a good education_forget it.

Moore makes many good points that I agree with_but I don't know shit about the ann coulter problem, except she isn't very popular!
K2nme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 12:17 PM   #8 (permalink)
The Shiz Nizzle
c-weed's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: KY
Posts: 187
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

Thanks for the link, that's some startling information. Did you know that most millionaires were C average students? Evidently, they are used to working harder to succeed and it carries on into their working lives.
c-weed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 12:33 PM   #9 (permalink)
The Shiz Nizzle
c-weed's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: KY
Posts: 187
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Ok, I've read more of the page attached to that link and damn, I'm shocked. That's completely messed up. There is no reasonable explanation to edit and mislead the way Moore has in "Columbine." Lying to propogate a cause that you believe in is not honorable. That's like a climatologist falsifying data to support or negate global warming theories (this has actually happened).

It's scary to think that technology has made it so easy to splice audio and video and put it back together in the most convincing way. (I actually have experience in both video and audio editing for television and radio.) With practice, It's quite simple to make chopped sentences sound natural. For audio, all it takes is synching sound waves or inserting the proper breathing sound at just the right moment. For video, you only have to insert a cutaway shot, a practice done daily to keep the news fresh and interesting. These things must be done because people ramble when interviewed and news programs don't have the time to air hour long speaches. It's one thing to shorten and clean an interview/speech, but it's another to change the meaning of a person's words. The real power is not held by those speaking the words, but by the people who choose how to frame them.
c-weed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 03:39 AM   #10 (permalink)
welcome to the future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 171
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah C weed, propaganda swings both ways. I think the guy who wrote the paper is Libertarian.

So, you are well aware that with splicing and soundbytes and best of all computer graphics technology The MEDIA can( and does) manipulate what is fed to the masses_like the non FCC regulated media can actually contort the " stories" and make you see and hear exactly what THEY want you to see and hear...

Like the Fear of bad terrorist coming to get you...

We don't have this real or imagined fear in n.europe_or Orange Alerts or Homeland security threats. ( yet )
it all looks pretty dishonorable from this side of the atlantic.
K2nme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 04:52 AM   #11 (permalink)
Sureshot's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Surrounded by the unimaginative
Posts: 6,364
Thanks: 0
Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
At last people who saw through Michael Moore and understand that propoganda isn't just something "they" do. It comes from both sides.

Wow, I have nothing creative to add, sounds like you have this wrapped up. Great thread, thanks for the read.

The original article DOES make SOME good points though, I particularly like "You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it" because I think these double standards on "rights" are one of US (and indeed global) politics major problems right now.

Like you say K2, take everything with a pinch of salt, even the salt.

- The information in the above post is conjecture and the poster a figment of your imagination.
- All images are computer generated or were taken in nations with forward thinking laws.

o GrowFAQ o Add A Canna Grow Tip o Other Highs FAQ o Inquiring Minds FAQ o
Sureshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 11:03 AM   #12 (permalink)
patriot's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: United States of Saudi Arabiaa
Posts: 1,892
Thanks: 61
Thanked 356 Times in 225 Posts

Bowling for Columbine has it's place though. Notice how no one disputes the statistics of the amount of homocides in the USSA vs. the other countries. Population doesn't come into play at all there. I grew up playing with toy guns and war. The Amerikkan media glamorizes war.

Michael Moore makes a lot of good points in Bowling For Columbine, including the gent at Lockheed-Martin standing in front of a weapon of mass destruction wondering why Columbine happened the way it did wondering where the gunmen would get ideas like this.

There is also no mention of the fact that the Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy exchanged gunfire outside the school, but did not follow them into the school to help keep others safe. There are many lawsuits because of this. So much for the "Resource Officer."

You can disect almost anything. It is very easy to disect what is broadcast on the news media every day, including the statement, "Marijuana is a dangerous drug."

As far as the crack house in Flint goes, this makes the girl a victim of the prohibitionist laws. If illicit substances were regulated like tobacco and alcohol, these types of things would not happen so readily. But then law enforcement would have to chase real criminals.
A true patriot is always ready to stand up against his own government.

We can't be using plants that come from the Lord for beneficial purposes. Now hurry up, or we'll be late for church.

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.-Adolf Hitler

Legalizing marijuana won't grow our economy-Barack Hussein Obama 2009
patriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 12:30 PM   #13 (permalink)
The Shiz Nizzle
c-weed's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: KY
Posts: 187
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I agree with you Patriot on the fact that the police mishandled the situation and that the media lies about drugs. However, you should not take this trickery so lightly. A couple of things...

I believe the statistics Moore uses to show how many people are killed by guns is misleading. The numbers include shootings done in self defense. "this figure is thousands higher than the FBI's, and includes police killings of thugs, and uses by citizens in self-defense against criminals." However, I do agree that gun homicides are a huge problem. We don't have to lie/mislead to make that point though.

The Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites. So, it wasn't a weapon of mass destruction. "They may, however, build some components for the submarine based nuclear missile. The Titan missiles were once made there, but it was before the Columbine killers were born."

What of this:
"Animated sequence linking NRA and KKK. Moore's animation suggests that NRA sprang from the KKK. I point out Moore butchers history here. NRA was founded by Union officers, headed by former Union commanders, elected as its president U.S. Grant, who was the greatest enemy the Klan ever had, etc."

Hey, you've got to face the facts. Misleading viewers through clever editing is insidious. Maybe he didn't think his views could stand on their own feet. I don't know the reason, but it's wrong. That's cool if this is what you believe in, but you shouldn't put your eggs in this basket. It has a hole in the bottom.
c-weed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 03:04 PM   #14 (permalink)
Beaming live from orbit
espiex's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Over the hills and far away
Posts: 1,013
Thanks: 5
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Yawn, blah blah blah the media's to blame.

So the media is telling you lies about drugs? Is it really? Or is it, in fact, reporting the words of various police and government officials, who are telling you lies about drugs? Don't shoot the messenger, the media has no hidden agenda other than making money.

Propaganda does indeed swing both ways. I totally lost any respect I had for Moore when I first read that stuff about BFC.
Yeah, he's a socialist, hates capitalism. But he's not giving those videos and DVDs and T-Shirts and all the other crap he makes away is he?
espiex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 06:42 PM   #15 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Moore is a hypocrite on many levels, but I gotta say the person that wrote the site trying to debunk BfC uses smokes and mirrors, just like Moore. It tries to say that only
"Deaths from gun accidents .............. 824 (not a typo)

Of the 2.39 million US deaths that year, gun homicides comprised 0.4%.And of course that probability can be sizeably reduced by a few lifestyle changes. E.g., don't deal crack. Gun accidents comprised three one-hundreds of one percent.

But you can't make much of a documentary around a theme of "The US has an enormous problem -- almost one-sixth as likely to kill you as the flu, and one-ninetieth as likely as heart failure."
This is total BS, cops kill innocent people and self defense isn't always self defense. Even still, he tries to say that everyone that gets murdered by a gun does so cause of their lifestyle. This guy is a hypocrite as well, and I bet there is a lot more on the page that is bullshit as well.
twigburst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2003, 07:15 PM   #16 (permalink)
Gone Daddy
Posts: n/a
statistics are awesome
  Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design