Now I know some of you will not read this letter because it was written by Michael Moore but I ask that you just read it and answer for yourself the questions he poses; after all you voted for this administration.
Joe
*************************************************************
A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?
How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?
That's right. Horse shows.
I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.
I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.
Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?
When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?
When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?
Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?
With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?
Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.
That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.
It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the window at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"
My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?
And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?
Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.
Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?
I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?
I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Open letter from Michael Moore
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Michael Moore for President
OK, I'll bite.
I do not fear reading a letter from MM, or any other liberal propagandist. It's always worth a few good laughs....this guy is a complete joke, as was his docu-fantasy movie.
I am sure multiple journalists will dissect and thoroughly answer and discredit MM's assertions point by point, so I won't waste my time answering in great detail.
Suffice it so say that the American people had a choice to keep President Bush in charge of the country and the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan & Iraq, or replace him with a liberal Senator and Vet from Massachussetts......the American people have spoken with a clear majority. If MM doesn't like it , so what !!!!!! Who cares what this bloated fool thinks. Does MM fly hanggliders or paragliders.......if not...then why is he allowed on this forum? Has he ever participated in a fly in or site clean up? What does he fly, a Falcon 86895745875219856412225 ?
He asks if I feel safer: Yes, much safer.
He asks if the country is better off : Yes, much much better off.
He says that "we" need to fix Bush: Wrong, No fixing is needed or necessary.
He asks what I propose: I propose that the Democrats forego their Primary process and coronate MM as their Presidential nominee. Furthermore, MM must write the Democratic platform and ALL other Dems running for office must strictly adhere to MM's platform both in 2006 and 2008,....and don't forget to keep repeating your "Vote for me because I'll increase your taxes" motto.....gotta keep growing that Federal Government. Gentlemen, put your money where your mouth is.
Additionally, the Dems could agree to suspend (this could be justified since the country is at war) the 17th Amendment (not sure of #) and allow Bush to run for office again in 2008 against Moore !!! That would give you guys one more chance to finally defeat Bush, but this time with a "real heavyweight". I can't wait to see those debates !!!! LOL. Maybe Dr. Marble could be MM's VP,....he already talks like a VP LOL.
Is MM a liberal hero? Is he a Bush hater? No reply necessary. This is just toooo easy.
Marco
I do not fear reading a letter from MM, or any other liberal propagandist. It's always worth a few good laughs....this guy is a complete joke, as was his docu-fantasy movie.
I am sure multiple journalists will dissect and thoroughly answer and discredit MM's assertions point by point, so I won't waste my time answering in great detail.
Suffice it so say that the American people had a choice to keep President Bush in charge of the country and the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan & Iraq, or replace him with a liberal Senator and Vet from Massachussetts......the American people have spoken with a clear majority. If MM doesn't like it , so what !!!!!! Who cares what this bloated fool thinks. Does MM fly hanggliders or paragliders.......if not...then why is he allowed on this forum? Has he ever participated in a fly in or site clean up? What does he fly, a Falcon 86895745875219856412225 ?
He asks if I feel safer: Yes, much safer.
He asks if the country is better off : Yes, much much better off.
He says that "we" need to fix Bush: Wrong, No fixing is needed or necessary.
He asks what I propose: I propose that the Democrats forego their Primary process and coronate MM as their Presidential nominee. Furthermore, MM must write the Democratic platform and ALL other Dems running for office must strictly adhere to MM's platform both in 2006 and 2008,....and don't forget to keep repeating your "Vote for me because I'll increase your taxes" motto.....gotta keep growing that Federal Government. Gentlemen, put your money where your mouth is.
Additionally, the Dems could agree to suspend (this could be justified since the country is at war) the 17th Amendment (not sure of #) and allow Bush to run for office again in 2008 against Moore !!! That would give you guys one more chance to finally defeat Bush, but this time with a "real heavyweight". I can't wait to see those debates !!!! LOL. Maybe Dr. Marble could be MM's VP,....he already talks like a VP LOL.
Is MM a liberal hero? Is he a Bush hater? No reply necessary. This is just toooo easy.
Marco
Re: Michael Moore for President
i was gonna try n be nice, but since ya mentioned it, well, yeah, quite frankly, you do. (that's what he meant right?)Marco Zee wrote:OK, I bite. .
but to address your points, well....OIYE ! (you know, that yiddish excamation thingy)
garyDevan
Some othe questions
Okay,
Here are a few question for you Marco?
Why do you support a policy that is doing nothing but killing off American soldiers in Iraq? Do you hate our soldiers?
Why do you support policies that defoul our land, air and sky? Do you hate our country?
Why do you support someone who fills government posts with incompetant boobs who endanger American citizens? Do you just not care what happens to Americans?
Why are you so in love with W, his brother and his father? Are you some sort of closet monarchist? Do you hate democracy?
Why do support tax policies that help multinational corporations but hurt working class Americans? Do you love multinational corps and hate workers and the poor?
Why do you support someone who does nothing as pension plans are gutted by large corporations? Do you hate retired Americans?
Why do you support someone who is doing nothing to make our country free from the need for foreign oil? Do you love the Saudis?
Why do you support policies that are running up the national debt and putting American children in debt for centuries? Do you hate the children of America?
Why do you support trade policies that put us in debt to Europeans and Japanese? Do you like Europeans and the Japanese better than Americans?
Why do you support polices that make America hated throughout the world? Do you just plain hate America too???.
I await your right-wing propaganda and your googled factoids.
Matthew
Here are a few question for you Marco?
Why do you support a policy that is doing nothing but killing off American soldiers in Iraq? Do you hate our soldiers?
Why do you support policies that defoul our land, air and sky? Do you hate our country?
Why do you support someone who fills government posts with incompetant boobs who endanger American citizens? Do you just not care what happens to Americans?
Why are you so in love with W, his brother and his father? Are you some sort of closet monarchist? Do you hate democracy?
Why do support tax policies that help multinational corporations but hurt working class Americans? Do you love multinational corps and hate workers and the poor?
Why do you support someone who does nothing as pension plans are gutted by large corporations? Do you hate retired Americans?
Why do you support someone who is doing nothing to make our country free from the need for foreign oil? Do you love the Saudis?
Why do you support policies that are running up the national debt and putting American children in debt for centuries? Do you hate the children of America?
Why do you support trade policies that put us in debt to Europeans and Japanese? Do you like Europeans and the Japanese better than Americans?
Why do you support polices that make America hated throughout the world? Do you just plain hate America too???.
I await your right-wing propaganda and your googled factoids.
Matthew
Another Question
Okay Marco,
I just saw the other thread about the VP. So let me get this straight. You think it's okay for the VP to exercise free speech and profane a US Senator??? But it's not okay for a regular American to profane the VP with the exact same words used by the VP? In fact, you believe the regular American should be charged with something called verbal assault? So why do you believe that your royalty can exercise free speech but Americans cannot? Do you think regular Americans should be barred from free speech???? Do you hate the Bill of Rights too???? Or just the part about free speech????
Matthew
I just saw the other thread about the VP. So let me get this straight. You think it's okay for the VP to exercise free speech and profane a US Senator??? But it's not okay for a regular American to profane the VP with the exact same words used by the VP? In fact, you believe the regular American should be charged with something called verbal assault? So why do you believe that your royalty can exercise free speech but Americans cannot? Do you think regular Americans should be barred from free speech???? Do you hate the Bill of Rights too???? Or just the part about free speech????
Matthew
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I'm sure Marco truly believes in the justness of his views and the extreme-right agenda. As much as I personally feel these are misguided beliefs--I at least give Marco credit for taking a position actively. I believe the real problem in our country lies not with those with their self-interest agendas as typified by the current neo-cons--but with those who don't bother caring enough to really take a position one way or the other--and make an informed voting decision. It is the apethetic portion of our society that the political wings like the neo-con right rely on to make uninformed voting decisions based on notions of patriotism and "its the right thing to do."
Its "La vie en rose" as the French would say--life through a rose colored lense. The culture of belief and devotion to belief are not coincidentally aligned with a party that frequently invokes God and religion as the foundation of "moral issues" and individual freedom. Once an individual accepts that the underlying belief system is based on some abstract notion of God/nation/individual prosperity are all fundamentally intertwined, it is easy to see how the masses can become willing to support their leaders unquestioningly. Hitler clearly understood this.
People like this, which unfortunately includes Marco, do not tend to see the obvious, but rather are forced to selectively process bits and pieces of information that fit their over-all framework of world-views and beliefs. Facts are processed and selectively integrated not for the purpose of learning new and important lessons, but for the purpose of supporting the framework and belief structures of the party/group's culture. A very common tactic is to "force the facts" to fit the party's preconcieved notions of what is right and wrong. It is precisely this that the administration did to the world in the lead-up and invasion of Iraq.
The party's cultural beliefs demand unwavering faith--so witness the explosion of websites and tabloids devoted exclusively to justifications of the party's belief system. The tactic is always the same: go back in history, select some facts, and then distill them in the party's spin machine to serve up more moral justifications for the party's belief system.
This party also holds that God rewards them with properity and wealth--even at the expense of those less fortunate than ourselves. This is another fundamental underpinning of the neo-con belief system--the devine right to exploit the world's resources. It is a very slight jump, of course, to include the world's people as the world's resources, though I don't exactly recall anything to that effect in any of the religous scriptures (which admittedly I haven't looked at in the last 30 years).
It's also curious how often right to wealth and individualism (ala Aye Rand as cited in Sparky's post) means opposition to any kind of welfare support system in a society. If you dig deep enough into these belief systems, there is a from of racism driving the view that class-seperation and the inevitable exploitation that emerges from class competition is a natural state of human affairs.
marc
Its "La vie en rose" as the French would say--life through a rose colored lense. The culture of belief and devotion to belief are not coincidentally aligned with a party that frequently invokes God and religion as the foundation of "moral issues" and individual freedom. Once an individual accepts that the underlying belief system is based on some abstract notion of God/nation/individual prosperity are all fundamentally intertwined, it is easy to see how the masses can become willing to support their leaders unquestioningly. Hitler clearly understood this.
People like this, which unfortunately includes Marco, do not tend to see the obvious, but rather are forced to selectively process bits and pieces of information that fit their over-all framework of world-views and beliefs. Facts are processed and selectively integrated not for the purpose of learning new and important lessons, but for the purpose of supporting the framework and belief structures of the party/group's culture. A very common tactic is to "force the facts" to fit the party's preconcieved notions of what is right and wrong. It is precisely this that the administration did to the world in the lead-up and invasion of Iraq.
The party's cultural beliefs demand unwavering faith--so witness the explosion of websites and tabloids devoted exclusively to justifications of the party's belief system. The tactic is always the same: go back in history, select some facts, and then distill them in the party's spin machine to serve up more moral justifications for the party's belief system.
This party also holds that God rewards them with properity and wealth--even at the expense of those less fortunate than ourselves. This is another fundamental underpinning of the neo-con belief system--the devine right to exploit the world's resources. It is a very slight jump, of course, to include the world's people as the world's resources, though I don't exactly recall anything to that effect in any of the religous scriptures (which admittedly I haven't looked at in the last 30 years).
It's also curious how often right to wealth and individualism (ala Aye Rand as cited in Sparky's post) means opposition to any kind of welfare support system in a society. If you dig deep enough into these belief systems, there is a from of racism driving the view that class-seperation and the inevitable exploitation that emerges from class competition is a natural state of human affairs.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Re: Michael Moore for President
well....OIYE ! (you know, that yiddish excamation thingy)Flying Lobster wrote:--I at least give Marco credit for taking a position actively. marc
so i got lazy and didn't put in the smilies. ya don't hafta go all erudite statesman like on me
in THIS case, i was just playin'. (that exageration, word twisting thing...btw,i DID post that concilliatory thingy....DEVEIL SHOULDA WROTE:
deveil wrote:Marco Zee wrote:OK, I bite. .
i was gonna try n be nice, but since ya mentioned it, well, yeah, quite frankly, you do.
garyDevan
VP Double standard--reply to Matthew
Matt,
Nice to hear from you again.
You said <<Okay Marco,
I just saw the other thread about the VP. So let me get this straight. You think it's okay for the VP to exercise free speech and profane a US Senator??? But it's not okay for a regular American to profane the VP with the exact same words used by the VP? In fact, you believe the regular American should be charged with something called verbal assault? So why do you believe that your royalty can exercise free speech but Americans cannot? Do you think regular Americans should be barred from free speech???? Do you hate the Bill of Rights too???? Or just the part about free speech????
Matthew>>
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .
A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
and conversely,
B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights.
My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).
My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.
Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Marco
Nice to hear from you again.
You said <<Okay Marco,
I just saw the other thread about the VP. So let me get this straight. You think it's okay for the VP to exercise free speech and profane a US Senator??? But it's not okay for a regular American to profane the VP with the exact same words used by the VP? In fact, you believe the regular American should be charged with something called verbal assault? So why do you believe that your royalty can exercise free speech but Americans cannot? Do you think regular Americans should be barred from free speech???? Do you hate the Bill of Rights too???? Or just the part about free speech????
Matthew>>
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .
A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
and conversely,
B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights.
My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).
My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.
Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Marco
The F-Bomb
I missed the double standard you mentioned. And you still haven't said what you believe. Do you believe in you B option?
If it's okay for the VP to use the F-bomb on a Senator, then it is okay for an average Joe to use the same F-bomb on the VP.
Do you believe the above statement to be true?
Matthew
If it's okay for the VP to use the F-bomb on a Senator, then it is okay for an average Joe to use the same F-bomb on the VP.
Do you believe the above statement to be true?
Matthew
F-bomb part 2
Okay, then do you believe in your A option? It's not okay for the VP to profane a Senator and it's also not okay for the average Joe to profane the VP.
Matthew
Matthew
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: VP Double standard--reply to Matthew
Hah hah!Marco Zee wrote:Matt,
Nice to hear from you again.
You said <<Okay Marco,
I just saw the other thread about the VP. So let me get this straight. You think it's okay for the VP to exercise free speech and profane a US Senator??? But it's not okay for a regular American to profane the VP with the exact same words used by the VP? In fact, you believe the regular American should be charged with something called verbal assault? So why do you believe that your royalty can exercise free speech but Americans cannot? Do you think regular Americans should be barred from free speech???? Do you hate the Bill of Rights too???? Or just the part about free speech????
Matthew>>
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .
A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
and conversely,
B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights.
My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).
My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.
Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Marco
Marco-you've been using that Ronco spin blender again!
Now lets take a look at, well, I'm not going to say facts, because I belive this thread has rendered the true import of "facts" meaningless.
Now Mr Veep-Dick is argueable the second most powerful person on earth (many think really THE most) and the personal consequences of verbal abuse are much less likely to be of significance to a guy surrounded by secret service and with all the country's police and intelligence resources at his disposal than some guy who has just lost everything in a natural distaster, now don't you think so? The comparison is laughable!
Also, you have conveniently forgotten that Dr. Marble--or whatever his name is--was denied access to the ruins of his home at a roadblock, only to see Veep-Dick's entourage pass through unfettered. Thus the guy had a legitimate gripe, and he just so happened to follow up with it in the Veep-Dick's face. Now don't you really think that's actually a symbol of what makes our country great?
But as far as either Veep-Dick or the good Dr getting retribution--well, freedom of speach to them both! Why should the doctor be held to a higher standard than Veep-Dick?
Great Googly-moo!
.
here you are, over here, marco. 'almost lost track of you!
can you help me clear up some things?
has haliburton received yet more major no bid contracts relative to the hurricane?
did either bush or chaney actually refer to halliburton as an'agency"? (i.e. government agency)
while spending all of these billions of dollars and issueing these no-bid contracts, has he actually selectively exempted some regulation that required these companies to pay their workers the prevailing wage, or minimum wage...i.e. taking money from the people at the very bottom of the gravy train, those people in most desperate need at this time?
set the record straight will you please? hell, i'll even settle for setting the record spinning...
where are you dude? your not concerned about that 'you already said i had the answer to all your questions' thing?. i didn't think you'd be the type to pout. 'hope that's not the case and you have just been busy. i'm sure your not of the mind that you are the only one who gets to throw stuff around in a dismissive fashion. your not that type are you? i mean, aren't we in this world problem solving thing together?
...the mckain/powell thing....you aren't intrigued?
....clinton free to run again?....no interest?
where are you dude? i NEEEEED you! it's become an addiction and the 12-step meeting for tonight was cancelled!
...wait...i REMEMBER!....there's a bottle....in the attic... with the plastic and the duct tape....i was saving it for a biological attack!!...the hell with it , 'guess i'll just have to do it staight when the time comes.
here you are, over here, marco. 'almost lost track of you!
can you help me clear up some things?
has haliburton received yet more major no bid contracts relative to the hurricane?
did either bush or chaney actually refer to halliburton as an'agency"? (i.e. government agency)
while spending all of these billions of dollars and issueing these no-bid contracts, has he actually selectively exempted some regulation that required these companies to pay their workers the prevailing wage, or minimum wage...i.e. taking money from the people at the very bottom of the gravy train, those people in most desperate need at this time?
set the record straight will you please? hell, i'll even settle for setting the record spinning...
where are you dude? your not concerned about that 'you already said i had the answer to all your questions' thing?. i didn't think you'd be the type to pout. 'hope that's not the case and you have just been busy. i'm sure your not of the mind that you are the only one who gets to throw stuff around in a dismissive fashion. your not that type are you? i mean, aren't we in this world problem solving thing together?
...the mckain/powell thing....you aren't intrigued?
....clinton free to run again?....no interest?
where are you dude? i NEEEEED you! it's become an addiction and the 12-step meeting for tonight was cancelled!
...wait...i REMEMBER!....there's a bottle....in the attic... with the plastic and the duct tape....i was saving it for a biological attack!!...the hell with it , 'guess i'll just have to do it staight when the time comes.
garyDevan
Matt, Neither A or B
Matt,
I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.
I said previously:
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .
A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
and conversely,
B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
<< I personally do not believe it is NEVER or ALWAYS appropriate to F Bomb someone (neither A nor B)...see C) below >>
If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights. <<Marc seem to be taking this position>>
My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).
OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.
Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
<<ADDED: if he was inconvenienced by the VP motorcade, then he should have yelled at the Secret Service people....he just had a political "bone to pick" with Cheney, and did so. >>
So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Marco
To summarize the three possibilities:
A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are wrong,....or
B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....
C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not include the F Bomb).
I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for use of the F Bomb than what I said?
Marco
PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work, soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.
I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.
I said previously:
Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a right" .
A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always" as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
and conversely,
B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
<< I personally do not believe it is NEVER or ALWAYS appropriate to F Bomb someone (neither A nor B)...see C) below >>
If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his free speech rights. <<Marc seem to be taking this position>>
My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a "higher double standard" ( his words).
OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't have all the facts.
Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL. Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
<<ADDED: if he was inconvenienced by the VP motorcade, then he should have yelled at the Secret Service people....he just had a political "bone to pick" with Cheney, and did so. >>
So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire. Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F Bombed Leahy to begin with?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Marco
To summarize the three possibilities:
A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are wrong,....or
B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....
C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not include the F Bomb).
I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for use of the F Bomb than what I said?
Marco
PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work, soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.
Open letter from Michael Moore
It is NEVER right to use abusive speech on the floor of the Senate.
It's against the rules of the Senate. Since Cheney, in spite of
being the Constitutional President of the Senate, doesn't seem to get
it, it may be permissible for citizens to remind him of his error in
public settings. Two places, two sets of rules: the Senate, no F-
word; the street, freedom of speech. People in the Senate gallery
who try to exercise "freedom of speech" get forcibly removed.
Senators aren't even allowed to call eachother by their names: "the
distinguished gentleman from Vermont". This is precisely to avoid ad
hominem attacks. Public officials don't rate freedom of speech -
they are getting paid to follow a stricter set of rules than apply to
ordinary citizens. Even off the Senate floor, Trent Lott said words
to the effect that segregation was a good thing, and he was out on
his ear as majority leader. What is so hard for you to understand
about this, Marco? - Hugh
On 15 Sep 2005, at 23:25, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Matt,
> I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.
>
> I said previously:
> Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a
> right" .
>
> A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to
> besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always"
> as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
>
> and conversely,
>
> B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have
> been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
>
>
>>
>>
>
> If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and
> Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as
> they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F
> bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his
> free speech rights.
>
> My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they
> appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for
> Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and
> enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double
> standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a
> "higher double standard" ( his words).
>
> OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone
> deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or
> justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you
> unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP
> discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and
> have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
>
> So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate
> justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is
> warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know
> what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I
> know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't
> have all the facts.
>
> Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his
> justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with
> Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL.
> Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as
> Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
>
>
> So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F
> bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and
> Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb
> Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a
> response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
>
> Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in
> the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire.
> Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are
> free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail
> for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps
> bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in
> legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am
> not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an
> informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything
> adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
>
> Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is
> acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This
> comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But
> if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F
> Bombed Leahy to begin with?
>
> I hope this clears things up for you.
>
> Marco
>
> To summarize the three possibilities:
> A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are
> wrong,....or
>
> B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo
> Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....
>
> C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the
> discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I
> don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was
> clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not
> include the F Bomb).
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble
> opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for
> use of the F Bomb than what I said?
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work,
> soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next
> Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a
> chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and
> fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow
> a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm
> pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who
> drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.
>
It's against the rules of the Senate. Since Cheney, in spite of
being the Constitutional President of the Senate, doesn't seem to get
it, it may be permissible for citizens to remind him of his error in
public settings. Two places, two sets of rules: the Senate, no F-
word; the street, freedom of speech. People in the Senate gallery
who try to exercise "freedom of speech" get forcibly removed.
Senators aren't even allowed to call eachother by their names: "the
distinguished gentleman from Vermont". This is precisely to avoid ad
hominem attacks. Public officials don't rate freedom of speech -
they are getting paid to follow a stricter set of rules than apply to
ordinary citizens. Even off the Senate floor, Trent Lott said words
to the effect that segregation was a good thing, and he was out on
his ear as majority leader. What is so hard for you to understand
about this, Marco? - Hugh
On 15 Sep 2005, at 23:25, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Matt,
> I guess I should have inserted "option C" for further clarity.
>
> I said previously:
> Of course you've heard the expression: "Two wrongs don't make a
> right" .
>
> A) IF it is always wrong (ie never justifiable) for Cheney to
> besmirch Leahy with the F Bomb, then it should be equally "always"
> as wrong, IMHO, for Marble to do the same to Cheney.
>
> and conversely,
>
> B) IF it is OK for Marble to F Bomb Cheney, then it should have
> been OK for Cheney to F Bomb Leahy in the first place, right?
>
>
>>
>>
>
> If you claim this is a Free Speech issue, then both Cheney and
> Marble should be "free" to F Bomb whoever they want to as much as
> they'd like , right? So, then what's the big deal with Cheney F
> bombing Leahy to begin with.....it should be allowable under his
> free speech rights.
>
> My liberal colleagues are employing a double standard when they
> appear to be saying that it is awful/dreadful/inappropriate for
> Cheney to F bomb Leahy, but it is an act of courage and
> enlightement for Marble to F Bomb Cheney. I consider this a double
> standard, given A and B above....whereas Hugh considers it a
> "higher double standard" ( his words).
>
> OPTION C) : My position is that there are times when someone
> deserves the F Bomb response, and I believe it is warranted and /or
> justified when someone has directly and personally attacked you
> unjustly or unfairly. (see my Joe and Marc analogy in the VP
> discussion). Cheney and Leahy are NOT strangers to each other, and
> have had a working relationship, perhaps antagonistic, for years.
>
> So, my take on Cheney is : did he use the F bomb without adequate
> justification? (assuming there are conditions when the F Bomb is
> warranted). And for me to make that determination, I need to know
> what Leahy had said to him to illicit that response. And until I
> know "THE WHOLE STORY", I am withholding judgment, since I don't
> have all the facts.
>
> Now, with regards to Marble's statements....what was his
> justification to F Bomb Cheney? He had never met or spoken with
> Cheney before, so his only justification was purely POLITICAL.
> Cheney did NOT personally attack him unjustly or unfairly.....as
> Cheney and Marble were complete strangers.
>
>
> So, Cheney may, or may not, have had adequate justification to F
> bomb Leahy, depending on what Leahy said to Cheney FIRST.......and
> Marble, again IMHO, did NOT have adequate justification to F Bomb
> Cheney since his only motivation was political disagreement, not a
> response to a Cheney personal attack on Marble.
>
> Free Speech is NOT universal, as it is illegal to scream "FIRE" in
> the middle of a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire.
> Similarly, if you say, "Cheney, I am going to kill you", you are
> free to say it, but you better be ready to spend some time in jail
> for exercising that Free Speech right. Marble's comments perhaps
> bordered on "threatening" and he took a risk of being placed in
> legal jeopardy for doing so ( is this courage or idiocy?) . I am
> not a lawyer, so I asked the forum if someone is, to give an
> informed "legal opinion" on this situation. I doubt anything
> adverse will actually happen to Marble for his words.
>
> Perhaps you believe that dropping the F Bomb on politicians is
> acceptable if you don't agree with their political positions. This
> comes down to what is proper political etiquette, as Hugh said. But
> if you do believe this, then what was the big crime when Cheney F
> Bombed Leahy to begin with?
>
> I hope this clears things up for you.
>
> Marco
>
> To summarize the three possibilities:
> A) It is ALWAYS wrong to F bomb, ergo, both Cheney and Marble are
> wrong,....or
>
> B) It is ALWAYS right to F Bomb, since it is free speech, ergo
> Cheney are Marble are both right.....or....
>
> C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the
> discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I
> don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was
> clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not
> include the F Bomb).
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble
> opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for
> use of the F Bomb than what I said?
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Gary, I'm not pouting, far from it...been busy with work,
> soccer season, watching the Confirmation Hearings for our next
> Chief Justice...he is one sharp guy.....those Dems don't have a
> chance to shoot him down. But it is fun to watch them try, and
> fail miserably time after time LOL. I thought Biden was gonna blow
> a gasket !!! Can't wait to get the next nominee up there. I'm
> pulling for Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown. Then we'll see who
> drops out next....Stevens or Ginsberg, or both.
>
Open letter from Michael Moore
Works for me... I thought his movie was pretty good, too. Sure, the
business about spiriting the Saudis out of the country was a bit
overwrought, but the basic point that Bush is a mediocrity who was
redeemed from irrelevance by 9/11 is all too true. I will stipulate
that Bush has grown in office - but from a very low base, and not
enough to be the kind of leader the nation needs. - Hugh
On 11 Sep 2005, at 21:09, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> Now I know some of you will not read this letter because it was
> written by Michael Moore but I ask that you just read it and answer
> for yourself the questions he poses; after all you voted for this
> administration.
>
> Joe
> *************************************************************
>
> A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
>
>
> To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
>
> On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does
> it feel?
>
> How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after
> we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose
> main qualification was that he ran horse shows?
>
> That's right. Horse shows.
>
> I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and
> with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt
> Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of
> honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New
> Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put
> aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the
> last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our
> President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show
> runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or
> catastrophe.
>
> I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/
> conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just
> talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.
>
> Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the
> horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency
> preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you
> think we are safer?
>
> When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a
> man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?
>
> When men who never served in the military and have never seen young
> men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think
> they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have
> your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
>
> Do you really believe that turning over important government
> services to private corporations has resulted in better services
> for the people?
>
> Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for
> politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-
> fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal
> programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or
> bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?
>
> With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts
> for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so
> hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?
>
> Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be
> judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came
> in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and
> justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was
> revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and
> die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them
> to eat cake.
>
> That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke,
> Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves
> with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose
> repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some
> country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.
>
> It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover
> in his jumbo jet, peeking out the window at the misery 2500 feet
> below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then
> be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would
> arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while
> children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing
> nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown),
> you're doing a heck of a job!"
>
> My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing
> stock of the world?
>
> And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or
> shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find
> ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were
> on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?
>
> Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or
> natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow
> one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an
> education system where one in six children never graduate and most
> of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The
> middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45
> million have no health coverage whatsoever.
>
> Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out
> and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've
> sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution.
> Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope
> that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and
> shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that
> maybe the problem will somehow go away?
>
> I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man
> who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't
> up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of
> New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our
> peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you
> propose?
>
> I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.
>
> Yours,
>
> Michael Moore
>
business about spiriting the Saudis out of the country was a bit
overwrought, but the basic point that Bush is a mediocrity who was
redeemed from irrelevance by 9/11 is all too true. I will stipulate
that Bush has grown in office - but from a very low base, and not
enough to be the kind of leader the nation needs. - Hugh
On 11 Sep 2005, at 21:09, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> Now I know some of you will not read this letter because it was
> written by Michael Moore but I ask that you just read it and answer
> for yourself the questions he poses; after all you voted for this
> administration.
>
> Joe
> *************************************************************
>
> A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
>
>
> To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
>
> On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does
> it feel?
>
> How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after
> we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose
> main qualification was that he ran horse shows?
>
> That's right. Horse shows.
>
> I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and
> with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt
> Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of
> honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New
> Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put
> aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the
> last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our
> President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show
> runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or
> catastrophe.
>
> I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/
> conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just
> talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.
>
> Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the
> horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency
> preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you
> think we are safer?
>
> When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a
> man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?
>
> When men who never served in the military and have never seen young
> men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think
> they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have
> your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
>
> Do you really believe that turning over important government
> services to private corporations has resulted in better services
> for the people?
>
> Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for
> politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-
> fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal
> programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or
> bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?
>
> With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts
> for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so
> hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?
>
> Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be
> judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came
> in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and
> justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was
> revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and
> die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them
> to eat cake.
>
> That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke,
> Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves
> with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose
> repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some
> country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.
>
> It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover
> in his jumbo jet, peeking out the window at the misery 2500 feet
> below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then
> be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would
> arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while
> children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing
> nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown),
> you're doing a heck of a job!"
>
> My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing
> stock of the world?
>
> And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or
> shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find
> ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were
> on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?
>
> Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or
> natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow
> one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an
> education system where one in six children never graduate and most
> of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The
> middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45
> million have no health coverage whatsoever.
>
> Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out
> and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've
> sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution.
> Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope
> that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and
> shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that
> maybe the problem will somehow go away?
>
> I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man
> who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't
> up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of
> New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our
> peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you
> propose?
>
> I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.
>
> Yours,
>
> Michael Moore
>
Open letter from Michael Moore
As we say in the Pentagon: if you're not worried, you don't
understand the situation. - hugh
On 12 Sep 2005, at 16:14, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> I do not fear reading a letter from MM, or any other liberal
> propagandist. It's always worth a few good laughs....this guy is
> a complete joke, as was his docu-fantasy movie.
>
> I am sure multiple journalists will dissect and thoroughly answer
> and discredit MM's assertions point by point, so I won't waste my
> time answering in great detail.
>
> Suffice it so say that the American people had a choice to keep
> President Bush in charge of the country and the war on terrorism,
> including Afghanistan & Iraq, or replace him with a liberal
> Senator and Vet from Massachussetts......the American people have
> spoken with a clear majority. If MM doesn't like it , so
> what !!!!!! Who cares what this bloated fool thinks. Does MM fly
> hanggliders or paragliders.......if not...then why is he allowed on
> this forum? Has he ever participated in a fly in or site clean
> up? What does he fly, a Falcon 86895745875219856412225 ?
>
> He asks if I feel safer: Yes, much safer.
>
> He asks if the country is better off : Yes, much much better off.
>
> He says that "we" need to fix Bush: Wrong, No fixing is needed or
> necessary.
>
> He asks what I propose: I propose that the Democrats forego their
> Primary process and coronate MM as their Presidential nominee.
> Furthermore, MM must write the Democratic platform and ALL other
> Dems running for office must strictly adhere to MM's platform both
> in 2006 and 2008,....and don't forget to keep repeating your "Vote
> for me because I'll increase your taxes" motto.....gotta keep
> growing that Federal Government. Gentlemen, put your money where
> your mouth is.
>
> Additionally, the Dems could agree to suspend (this could be
> justified since the country is at war) the 17th Amendment (not sure
> of #) and allow Bush to run for office again in 2008 against
> Moore !!! That would give you guys one more chance to finally
> defeat Bush, but this time with a "real heavyweight". I can't
> wait to see those debates !!!! LOL. Maybe Dr. Marble could be MM's
> VP,....he already talks like a VP LOL.
>
> Is MM a liberal hero? Is he a Bush hater? No reply necessary.
> This is just toooo easy.
>
> Marco
>
understand the situation. - hugh
On 12 Sep 2005, at 16:14, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> I do not fear reading a letter from MM, or any other liberal
> propagandist. It's always worth a few good laughs....this guy is
> a complete joke, as was his docu-fantasy movie.
>
> I am sure multiple journalists will dissect and thoroughly answer
> and discredit MM's assertions point by point, so I won't waste my
> time answering in great detail.
>
> Suffice it so say that the American people had a choice to keep
> President Bush in charge of the country and the war on terrorism,
> including Afghanistan & Iraq, or replace him with a liberal
> Senator and Vet from Massachussetts......the American people have
> spoken with a clear majority. If MM doesn't like it , so
> what !!!!!! Who cares what this bloated fool thinks. Does MM fly
> hanggliders or paragliders.......if not...then why is he allowed on
> this forum? Has he ever participated in a fly in or site clean
> up? What does he fly, a Falcon 86895745875219856412225 ?
>
> He asks if I feel safer: Yes, much safer.
>
> He asks if the country is better off : Yes, much much better off.
>
> He says that "we" need to fix Bush: Wrong, No fixing is needed or
> necessary.
>
> He asks what I propose: I propose that the Democrats forego their
> Primary process and coronate MM as their Presidential nominee.
> Furthermore, MM must write the Democratic platform and ALL other
> Dems running for office must strictly adhere to MM's platform both
> in 2006 and 2008,....and don't forget to keep repeating your "Vote
> for me because I'll increase your taxes" motto.....gotta keep
> growing that Federal Government. Gentlemen, put your money where
> your mouth is.
>
> Additionally, the Dems could agree to suspend (this could be
> justified since the country is at war) the 17th Amendment (not sure
> of #) and allow Bush to run for office again in 2008 against
> Moore !!! That would give you guys one more chance to finally
> defeat Bush, but this time with a "real heavyweight". I can't
> wait to see those debates !!!! LOL. Maybe Dr. Marble could be MM's
> VP,....he already talks like a VP LOL.
>
> Is MM a liberal hero? Is he a Bush hater? No reply necessary.
> This is just toooo easy.
>
> Marco
>
Worry about MM???
[quote="mcelrah"]As we say in the Pentagon: if you're not worried, you don't
understand the situation. - hugh
Is anybody in the Pentagon worried about Michael Moore??? Somehow I doubt it.
I know I sure as hell don't worry about him. Far from it.
It is the the Dems who should worry that MM gets perceived by the American public as "the enlightened voice" of the Dem party.....like I said before...MM for President.....I would love nothing better. Let him write the whole Dem Platform. I would even consider donating to his campaign.
Marco
understand the situation. - hugh
Is anybody in the Pentagon worried about Michael Moore??? Somehow I doubt it.
I know I sure as hell don't worry about him. Far from it.
It is the the Dems who should worry that MM gets perceived by the American public as "the enlightened voice" of the Dem party.....like I said before...MM for President.....I would love nothing better. Let him write the whole Dem Platform. I would even consider donating to his campaign.
Marco
Open letter from Michael Moore
If you feel safer since we invaded Iraq, you are deluded. (Or
perhaps Quaaluded?) - Hugh
On 18 Sep 2005, at 01:30, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> [quote="mcelrah"]As we say in the Pentagon: if you're not worried,
> you don't
> understand the situation. - hugh
>
> Is anybody in the Pentagon worried about Michael Moore??? Somehow
> I doubt it.
> I know I sure as hell don't worry about him. Far from it.
>
> It is the the Dems who should worry that MM gets perceived by the
> American public as "the enlightened voice" of the Dem
> party.....like I said before...MM for President.....I would love
> nothing better. Let him write the whole Dem Platform. I would
> even consider donating to his campaign.
>
> Marco
>
perhaps Quaaluded?) - Hugh
On 18 Sep 2005, at 01:30, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> [quote="mcelrah"]As we say in the Pentagon: if you're not worried,
> you don't
> understand the situation. - hugh
>
> Is anybody in the Pentagon worried about Michael Moore??? Somehow
> I doubt it.
> I know I sure as hell don't worry about him. Far from it.
>
> It is the the Dems who should worry that MM gets perceived by the
> American public as "the enlightened voice" of the Dem
> party.....like I said before...MM for President.....I would love
> nothing better. Let him write the whole Dem Platform. I would
> even consider donating to his campaign.
>
> Marco
>
Reply to Matt
Matt said previously << Okay,
Here are a few question for you Marco?
Why do you support a policy that is doing nothing but killing off American soldiers in Iraq? Do you hate our soldiers?
Why do you support policies that defoul our land, air and sky? Do you hate our country?
Why do you support someone who fills government posts with incompetant boobs who endanger American citizens? Do you just not care what happens to Americans?
Why are you so in love with W, his brother and his father? Are you some sort of closet monarchist? Do you hate democracy?
Why do support tax policies that help multinational corporations but hurt working class Americans? Do you love multinational corps and hate workers and the poor?
Why do you support someone who does nothing as pension plans are gutted by large corporations? Do you hate retired Americans?
Why do you support someone who is doing nothing to make our country free from the need for foreign oil? Do you love the Saudis?
Why do you support policies that are running up the national debt and putting American children in debt for centuries? Do you hate the children of America?
Why do you support trade policies that put us in debt to Europeans and Japanese? Do you like Europeans and the Japanese better than Americans?
Why do you support polices that make America hated throughout the world? Do you just plain hate America too???.
I await your right-wing propaganda and your googled factoids.
Matthew>>
Reply : No, no, no, no , no, no, no, no , no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think that's the right number.
Marco
Here are a few question for you Marco?
Why do you support a policy that is doing nothing but killing off American soldiers in Iraq? Do you hate our soldiers?
Why do you support policies that defoul our land, air and sky? Do you hate our country?
Why do you support someone who fills government posts with incompetant boobs who endanger American citizens? Do you just not care what happens to Americans?
Why are you so in love with W, his brother and his father? Are you some sort of closet monarchist? Do you hate democracy?
Why do support tax policies that help multinational corporations but hurt working class Americans? Do you love multinational corps and hate workers and the poor?
Why do you support someone who does nothing as pension plans are gutted by large corporations? Do you hate retired Americans?
Why do you support someone who is doing nothing to make our country free from the need for foreign oil? Do you love the Saudis?
Why do you support policies that are running up the national debt and putting American children in debt for centuries? Do you hate the children of America?
Why do you support trade policies that put us in debt to Europeans and Japanese? Do you like Europeans and the Japanese better than Americans?
Why do you support polices that make America hated throughout the world? Do you just plain hate America too???.
I await your right-wing propaganda and your googled factoids.
Matthew>>
Reply : No, no, no, no , no, no, no, no , no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think that's the right number.
Marco
Neither A nor B......"C"
Matthew,
my answer is "C":
<< C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the
> discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I
> don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was
> clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not
> include the F Bomb).
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble
> opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for
> use of the F Bomb than what I said?
>
> Marco
PS: this should be in the Cheney discussion, not here under MM.
my answer is "C":
<< C) It is SOMETIMES right, or SOMETIMES wrong, depending on the
> discussion being held. I think Cheney MAY have been justified ( I
> don't have all the facts on what Leahy said) and that Marble was
> clearly wrong (political etiquette between strangers should not
> include the F Bomb).
>
> I don't expect everyone to agree with this...it is just my humble
> opinion, not spin. Does anyone have a better "justification" for
> use of the F Bomb than what I said?
>
> Marco
PS: this should be in the Cheney discussion, not here under MM.
C is not an answer
Gee Marco,
You can't even answer a simple question with a straight answer without going off into some sort of spin to try to justify your double standards. How pathetic is that?
Matthew
You can't even answer a simple question with a straight answer without going off into some sort of spin to try to justify your double standards. How pathetic is that?
Matthew
Reply to Matthew
Matthew,
Do you have trouble understanding that there can be more than two answers to a given question? Why do you insist that there can only be two answers, A or B, when others have argued for different variations of C, as I have.
If you don't like my answer, or think its a pathetic answer, that's fine with me...you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm giving you my "best answer", not spinning. I'm not insisting that you have to agree with me.
Marco
Do you have trouble understanding that there can be more than two answers to a given question? Why do you insist that there can only be two answers, A or B, when others have argued for different variations of C, as I have.
If you don't like my answer, or think its a pathetic answer, that's fine with me...you are welcome to your opinion, but I'm giving you my "best answer", not spinning. I'm not insisting that you have to agree with me.
Marco