@DocSee
"And moderates are people who a) aren't educated enough to have an opinion, or b) are inconsistent. "
Huh? What makes you think that?
"Actually, the worst part of the movie was...it didn't make a point."
Actually, I believe that the point of the movie was that it wasn't the fact that guns were present, but the culture around guns in America which lead to so much violence with guns. Canada, which has a comparable gun ownership rate, doesn't have nearly as much violence because they lack the culture around guns. Or at least thats what I'm told is his point. I haven't seen the movie myself so I can't judge.
"Blame games are easy, and place no responsibility on the blamer (Moore), but are rarely productive."
Not sure what your trying to say here. Can you elaborate?
"No need to spin O'Neill's points - he's backtracking on them so fast he's hurting himself."
From your link:
Quote: "If you watched Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first treasury secretary, in his self-serving interview on 60 Minutes Sunday night, during which he spewed venom at his former White House colleagues, you know that all that was missing was his clown outfit."
Wow, that site couldn't possibly be biased at all.
Anyway, no where in that link did O'Neill ever back track on his statements.
Oh and this is just hysterical:
Quote: "Paul O'Neill never was at all sympathetic to the supply-side and Laffer Curve ideas that are so critical to enhancing economic growth in the short and long term."
Supply-side economics? Laffer Curve? Weren't those ideas debunked years ago? If I recall correctly, Reagon implemented them and the economy tanked.
I'd get your news from somewhere else if I were you. These guys are wingnuts.
"Bush's rationale for war - not only did he talk about Humanitarian Reason
s BEFORE the war, he listed
several reasons for it,"(emphasis mine)
Ummm, no, he didn't. The only real mention of what might be a humantarian reason is "stop the persecution of his own people" which is good, but thats about it. The whole "stop the persecution of his own people" bit never really got much attention from the administration as WMD were pretty much all that he talked about. I also didn't hear much about that oil for food program bit or the American soldier either.
Bush constantly talked about the WMD warning him to disarm them but he almost never mentioned anything about the persecution of his own people. I don't know about you but I can not remember an instance of Bush asking if Saddam had stopped the persecution of his people or demanding that he do so outside of that speech. I don't know though, I could be wrong. If you've got any evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
"and never claimed "imminent" danger from Iraq."
You didn't even read that link did you.
I'll walk you through it:
2st paragraph:
Quote: "Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."
3rd paragraph:
Quote: "The threat comes from Iraq."
No imminent threat from a nation like this?
Quote: "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. "
4th paragraph:
Important because it leads into para 5 with...
Quote: "We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."
5th paragraph:
...this
Quote: "Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm."
Quote: "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
6th paragraph:
Quote: "Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action--why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror "
7th paragraph:
Quote: "While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. "
Quote: "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."
9th paragraph:
Quote: " Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time."
I could go on but I think that you get the point when I've quoted nearly every paragraph out of the first nine saying or implying that he is a threat. Next time, read the link before you post it.
"I was simply making (or trying to make) the point that all this "hate Bush/hate America" talk is a) irrelevant to daily American life"
9/11 is irrelevant? People who hate us passionately are relevant to our daily lives. Ignoring them is not a wise idea.
" b) distorted beyond recognition by anyone related to Hollywood or the news media."
Really? How so? I got a pretty good idea of what you mean but I'd like to make sure first before I discuss it.
"Here's an example: Tim Robbins, Hollywood actor, gets up in front of the National Press Club, and claims that a "chill wind" from the White House is silencing dissent. If you can't see the illogic and irony of that, there's simply no hope for you."
Why? Its true. Did you see anything really critical of the Bush administration during the time that Robbins said that. I've noticed how the major media just conveniately ignores this administrations failures, paticularly in Afhganistan. It hasn't been very critical of him at all about that, but if you have a good example of the major media outlets being really critical of the Bush administration I'd love to hear it.
