Michael Moore to release two new "Documentaries"

Exactly, it's not much different from professional wrestling in a way.

I guess I have one more thing to say regarding the current issue surrounding Moore's new documentaries: It's about time we all got past heaping the "liberal" and "conservative" labels on each other. What makes anyone thing that one is a "liberal" just because he or she defends Michael Moore's rights?

And someone like Ann Coulter ("Witches of New Jersey" or whatever) or Rush Limbaugh (cf. "Feminazis" or whatever) can hardly be called a "conservative," just as George Bush is hardly a "conservative," but rather a strange combination of egomaniacal, spoiled brat and right-wing radical who has destroyed the national budget. (Being an "independent" -- if you like labels -- I don't have anything against being rich in itself. But take a look at Henry James' story, "Master Eustace," for a nice portrait of a how a spoiled child descends into psychopathic cruelty.)

Take a look also at the new article in Onlinejournal. com, a well-reasoned piece demonstrating that Bush and his people are guilty of war crimes and now are trying to get the law changed before the November election in order to protect themselves.

Notice that the Bush people and their dwindling supporters are quick to respond to every criticism by pointing the finger at the Clinton administration. I thought they were trying to distance themselves from Clinton. Why are they always bringing him up?

Bush? George Bush has spent the better part of his life getting into jams and creating messes that other people get him out of.

But this time he's president, and what he does affects the whole world directly. Similarly, Rumsfeld, who has always struck me as little more than a narcissistic third-rate sophist who until now has been allowed to get away with obfuscations galore, still acts as if he thinks that running the military and defense is like being on his college wrestling team. It's fine for Rumsfeld to "never give up even when he's been beaten," if you're talking about college wrestling. But the welfare of the country and the world is not just about his ego.

Republicans? I can remember when there were some good ones, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who stood against the Johnson administration's Vietnam policies. John Chafee of Rhode Island was another. Even Nelson Rockefeller looks good by today's standards.

And while we're busy attacking Bill Clinton -- again! -- remember that his Defense Secretary was a Republican, Congressman Cohen from Maine.

Today's Talk of the Nation featured in the first hour people who have been in Afghanistan on the ground, and who detailed that, how, and why the entire Southern half of the country is now once again under the control of the Taliban, and how America's name there is now mud, as it is in so many parts of the world today. Schools are falling apart, and people are angry at both the Karzai governement and the U.S.


After 9-11 Iranian youth marched in the streets yelling support for America. That's all been destroyed by the idiocy of the past five years. Notice incidentally that Paul Wolfowitz got out, didn't he? Now he's running the World Bank.

But then again, we live in a time when true patriots, who criticise those in power, are labeled criminals or terrorists or terroist abaters or terrorist sympathizers. This is a very old demagogue's trick.

Take a look also at Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia, Chapter Three, "Prospects of a Scientific Politics," by which reasoning it becomes clear that the Bush people fit the definition both of "fascist" and "bureaucratic conservative," and Ronald Reagan looks like a neo-communist.

Speaking of Reagan: I still remember the mean-spirited glint in his eye when as governor, he tear-gassed the protestors at Berkeley -- who remembers that he destroyed the air controllers' union in 1981? We're paying the price of that macho move still today. Now, the Bush people want to cut both pay and benefits of the air controllers even fuither, and increase their work hours. They're overextended now already. this is insane, as well as criminally hypocritical.

Who in the Bush administration knows what it is personally to fight in a real war? Of course, John McCain did, but he's sold out to the Republican establishment that runs George Bush, and now busies himself with smiling and telling everybody everything they want to hear.

In any case, you tell me: Where's all the money going?

I'm sorry if I wasnt clear in my labeling of liberal and conservative. There should be no labeling people as such, but actions and views can be and should be so that any political influence is easily identifiable. As to you question: "Where's all the money going?", its going where it has always gone, to the pocket of the wealthy, and of course a few scraps are dished out to the rest of the population, but nothing truly significant. We live today in a world that posses enough resources to end world poverty, it simply isn't done because money is to heatedly desired to be given away in such a manner.
"Who in the Bush administration knows what it is personally to fight in a real war?"
Is it necessary for the ruling government officials to have served before they declare war? If so it has been constantly overlooked.
"So Moore is an eccentric politically oriented hack...so are the people who made the Republican movie version of 911 just released...so what... Extremist political animals like Moore and these other idiots only have the power you give them. Ignore them and analyse the facts as they are not as you wish them to be and make a deductive decision based on logic and both sides of this idiotic culture war will eventually go away...I hope"
Well said I completly agree.

In general: I wouldn't be too quick to equate Ann Coulter with Michael Moore. It's one thing for Moore to depict or suggest or expose George Bush as self-centered, deceitful, or stupid, another thing for say, the Reverend Pat Robertson to advocate the assassination of Hugo Chavez, another head of state, or Ann Coulter, to openly call for the murder of the NY Times editors.

Why are not Coulter and Robertson arrested for such actions=remarks?

Why are operations like Moore's films labeled "political moves" while events prompting them, (1) like the unconstitutional halt to the 2000 Florida recount,
(2) Bill Frist appearing on the steps of the Supreme Court at 8 AM to get them to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's decision to let the recount continue, (3) the ignoring of the State right to determine election procedures by these "conservatives", (4) the now demonstrated doctoring of WMD evidence in Iraq, (5) the endless obfuscations of Rumsfeld in front of an indulgent media, (6) the endless revisions of what Bush did not didn't say or do, (7) the State-of-the-union lie that Iraq sought yellowcake from -- "Africa"!-- (8) the pairing of Max Cleland's photo with Osama bin Laden's to manipulate the Georgia vote, (9) the disappearance of over 350,000 Democratic precinct votes in Ohio where Bush "won" by only 118,000 votes in 2004 -- the list could go on it far longer -- why are not these "political moves"?

And we call ourselves a "nation of laws?"

Free speech.

Didn't SCOTUS already decide this? And the rest of your complaints? I think you need to take it up with them. If you can prove any of it I'm sure they will here your case.

Michael Moore has all the right in the world to say what he wants and to produce any movie that he pleases.

With that being said I also have all the right in the world to rebuttle every thing that he mutters out of his grossly enlarged mouth. I do that because Michael Moore is attacking me and my beliefs. Ann Coulter is not attacking me and my beliefs. Therefore why should I respond to Ann Coulter in the same way that I respond to Michael Moore? The people that are being attacked by Ann Coulter need to step up and defend themselves like I am doing.

Do I think Ann Coulter is extreme? Yes. Does she constantly make comments aimed at my beliefs that are negative and even down right lies in certain circumstances? No she doesn't. If she is doing that to you then you make a post about her.



I believe if you look at all currently elected Congressman they all now fall into the "Spoiled Brat" category regardless of whether or not they were born into wealth or not. These people are not only given the power to make decisions that effect a large sum of people whom they have never come into contact with, they are paid a nice sum of money to do it. John Kerry or *insert favorite liberal, democrats, independent, whatever* is hardly looking out for you.

I voted for George Bush because National Security is a huge concern to me. More of a concern than Gay Marriage, tax cuts or even the economy at large. A strong economy and weak National Security can not exist without National Security, eventually, down the road allowing an "event" to happen that destroys the economy and/or puts the economy into shackles for many years to come. Case and point: September 11, 2001. 5 years from today this countries economy was put under tremendous stress and was looking at a future of uncertainity. That uncertainity exists today just as much as it did 5 years ago. This uncertainity exists because of lackluster National Security allowed 4 airlines to be destroyed, 2 of the tallest buildings in the world to be toppled and a building that represented the security of America to be attacked. The effects of this disaster do not go away overnight and they do not go away in 5 years. Not when responses to prevent these attacks are requires globally and put our man and women in harms way. We, the United States of America, have been left to stand up to these Middle Eastern extremists with very few strong allies. France, Germany, Russia and China have failed the world with their lackluster approach at preventing these terrorist cells from growing and organizing another attack the size of 9/11. Their unwillingness puts pressure and stress on our economy as we must fund these types of actions ourselves. The United Nations as a whole has failed the world. The security council is a joke. Allowing Syria on the security council is the equivalent of putting Ted Kennedy in charge of a DUI class.



That is an OpEd article. First and for most, you are trying to give President George Bush the same title that Adolf Hitler and until recently the leader of Iraq, Sadaam Huessin, have earned by killing millions of Jewish people and gasing his own people, respectively. Now let's take a look at that article and see if "War Criminial" is an appropriate title for President George Bush.



Somehow that does not upset me quite as bad as the killing millions of Jewish people and gasing Iraqi citizens :dunno:



Dwindling supporters? Says whom? Polls? A polling of 1,000 people in a country that contains 299,360,879 will not be accurate.

An more accurate poll is this one:

George W. Bush: 62,040,610
John F. Kerry: 59,028,111

As far as Bill Clinton goes his National Security policy along with the likes of George Tenet and Madeline Albright are responsible for failed attempts at capturing and killing Usama Bin Laden on at the very least 2 different occurances in the year 1998. Not only this but Bill Clinton's No. 2 person in the Justice Department is responsible for turning a blind eye to concerns on increasing "The Wall" between the CIA and FBI

Bill Clinton deserves more blame for 9/11 than George Bush, as far as the blame of Presidents go. This is why he keeps being brought up because he is just a part of 9/11 as any elected official who was in office on 9/11. Al Quida did not start planning 9/11 the moment George Bush took office. They did not start attacking America the moment George Bush took office. They have been attacking America since 1993 when they tried to toppled the Twin Towers the first time.



Sounds kind of like Bill Clinton and the majority of politicians as a whole. Not sure what these jams are that he can't get out of. Must not have happened during his first term, because he seemed to get out of any kind of jam with another Presidential election win.



And out of the choices in 2000 and 2004 I am so greatful that he is President.



The United States of America is not being beaten. I would like you to point out where we are being beaten.




There are good Republicans today just like there are good Democrats today. Unfortunetly for the Democrats the wrong democrats are in charge right now and they just can't seem to put it together that America just doesn't want them leading this country. All they have to offer is attacks and no viable solution to any problems this country face.

They rely on polls to often to try to gain the American vote. If a poll of 1,000 anonymous people says that they want America to pull out of Iraq then they jump on the bandwagon. It's a shame.



This coming from a country who has instilled into their leadership a anti-US anti-Israel and Ant-Freedom President? Quite frankly I don't care what Iran thinks of the United States right now. Look who is leading their country. Maybe they should stop whining about ours?



Have you been labeled as a terrorist by any official of the Government for your opposing views on this site? :dunno:




Take a look at the real world, where terrorists blow up towers and kill innocent people. Is that anywhere in the book?



I'm sure he tear gassed them for quitely protesting didn't he?




How can something be criminally hypocritical when it is not a crime in the first place to be hypocritical? :lightbulb:

Please provide sources for Bush cutting pay and benefits to air controllers.




Cause Bill Clinton does right? I'm pretty sure when Clinton ordered troops into Somalia you weren't uttering the same words. When some of those troops returned dead... I'm sure you werent calling him a war criminal.



So was John Kerry run by a Democratic Establishment? What about Gore? Or do you prefer to use a less hasty word to describe the Democratic party and a stronger word for the Republicans, since obviously, that is who you despise at all costs?



What money?

It is time for me to call an end to my partificpation in this thread. Too much legalistic nit-picking for me. Should I take a look at the "real world?" Most of it either now mistrusts or detests Bush and his administration. This has happened largely in the past five years, although the roots of it go back much further as you know.

Is the Bush administration now trying to "do better"? Yes, marginally, now that they're threatened with losing power and being sanctioned, censured, or worse.

Is the U.S. being "beaten" in the "war on terror"? This depends in part on how you define the term. Talk or listen to anyone who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan or who knows what's actually going on there. They don't paint a very rosy picture. The druglords and warlords that replaced the Taliban who now again control southern Afghanistan are burning schools, threatening teachers or aid workers, and regard themselves as being ahead simply by not losing to the U.S.

And they're not losing. The fledgling government in Iraq is no match for the insurgency. U.S. military are overstretched and still subject to that beloved "stop loss" policy that keeps them there for who knows how long. We're talking about staying there for a generation or two, and to think, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told us this would a quick war that would "pay for itself." I wouldn't put much promise anything Bush and his people are now SAYING about pulling out.


I remember five years ago when the word out of the Bush White House was that they were out to do everything differently from the Clinton people, and they wanted to "resolve the problem of terrorism in one fell swoop."

Now you hear everyday how al Qaeda, or "the base," has "mutated" into thousands of terror groups globally. Whoever voted for Bush voted for the dumbest, most unproductive, merely reactive policy. Doesn't anybody remember that after Bush got into power, our "allies" and police and interpol forces all over started complaining that they suddenly no longer were getting any cooperation from the U.S. in combating terrorism at the municipal, local, grassroots level?

Shortly afterward, philosopher Rumsfeld started to complain about "old Europe." If yer not fer us yer agin' us. And the remaining thread of a distinction between "unpatriotic" and "critical" started to collapse, as the nation was cleverly plunged into and kept in fear by alerts, lies, and tough-guy mumbo-jumbo. .

Now Bush goes over to Hungary and tries to make nice talk. At least he's stopped saying, "Bring it on." I suppose it didn 't help either that Rumsfeld and Cheney also started to transfer their "expertise" to Iran, whom they threatened with bunker-busting nuclear weapons. And this is leaving out Gitmo and Abu Gahraib. Bush won lots of friends also by his Axis of Evil speeches. How far we've come from the days when unfortunate Anwar Sadat
referred to "my good friend Jimmy."


I'm not saying that toughness, resolve and force are never necessary. But can we wonder that other countries don't want to give up their nuclear aspirations with this bunch running the "greatest power on earth"? In WW II my own father, now dead, ran back through a minefied three times by himself to help his men, and survived hand-to-hand combat with the Waffen SS. He saw what a sham Bush was from the outset.

But I suppose the thing that makes me feel it's pointless to continue further here beyond this, is people who say Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are merely exercising free speech when they call for the murder or assassination of other Americans or heads-of-state. This is glib nonsense. I'd call that kind of talk "terrorist."


Leave aside any mention of 9-11, and the whole story there. I wonder how some family in Iraq or Afghanistan, or our ally Pakistan (which has just signed a protection agreement with Osama bin Laden), feels as they're getting bombed, for example.

"Terrorized," I bet, is a good word.

Exeunt.

I think your running on a little bit. The topic is about Micky More, try and stay on it as hard as that may seem.

I have nothing more to say to you about this. I have said my peice. Obviously you are as dead set as me in your beliefs.

She(I assume) has had nothing to say for quite a few posts, LOL.

Sicko will be outstanding.

Eli Lilly is a big drug company that puts profits over patients.

They covered up findings that their Zyprexa has a TEN times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes

Daniel Haszard Eli Lilly zyprexa drug caused my diabetes Zyprexa-Victims

Would the greater risk be because of drug interaction?

Good question,i would say flatly no,what occurs is there is a TEN times greater incident of becoming a type 2 diabetic from zyprexa.The prevailing theory is because it causes weight gain which itslf is a precursor for diabetes AND more sinister it may actually poision the pancreatic beta cells killing them off.

I took zyprexa starting in 1996 the year the FDA approved it, which was ineffective for my condition and gave me diabetes.

Zyprexa is the product name for Olanzapine,it is Lilly's top selling drug.It was approved by the FDA in 1996 ,an 'atypical' antipsychotic a newer class of drugs without the motor side effects of the older Thorazine.Zyprexa has been linked to causing diabetes and pancreatitis.

Zyprexa, which is used for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, accounted for 32% of Eli Lilly's $14.6 billion revenue last year.

Did you know that Lilly made nearly $3 billion last year on diabetic meds, Actos,Humulin and Byetta?

Yes! They sell a drug that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that they may have caused in the first place!

I was prescribed Zyprexa from 1996 until 2000.
In early 2000 i was shocked to have an A1C test result of 13.9 (normal is 4-6) I have no history of diabetes in my family.

All the psychiatrist I've interviewed and the information on line presents zyprexa as a worse offender than the other Atypicals such as seroquel.My doctor has stopped prescribing zyprexa altogether.

The PDR classifies zyprexa as 'severe' for causing weight gain and diabetes and seroquel as 'moderate'.

Of course the 50 year old Thorazine didn't cause diabetes and is many times cheaper but it could cause tardive dyskinesia.

Where Eli Lilly's negligence comes in,is their KNOWING and not informing consumers (black box warning) until the FDA demanded it.

Lilly's incentive not to readily disclose is they had billions coming in from state medicaid scripts.
----
Daniel Haszard Zyprexa-Victims

I asked because people on these types of medicine are often on a few others as well.

Good luck with your case as I'm sure you have your work cut out for you .

Spamalicious! You can put AdSense on there and make as much money as the mesothelioma tards. :beat:

You have a great way of making a newcomer feel welcome.:wtf:

I think Moore is a slime...He is concentrate to get (In)famous rather than make a point. I hate him, He is a traitor..Americans are better off without him...

If Americans are frustrated, his attitude is not going to make things better, on the contrary it will create more separatitism between american society which already have a lot to be worry about and mourn for (Vietnam, Gulf War, 9/11 and Iraq).

I found amusing that Moore forgot all the soldiers that are fighting right now, they did not ask for it they were drawned in this war.. They are fighting not only the militar war but a social, religious and cultural hostility, everyday of their lives.:frown:

We (American, British and others)are at war because we have been attacked on our soil and we are fighting to stop something similar happen again in the future...Our intention are good not evil like Moore want the world to believe....:no:

If Moore worry about social issues, education, healthcare In USA he has the right to get the attention using his own methods, but at the same time he needs to be careful in time like these and take responsability for what he says and how ...

America has a lot to on its plate to deal with not to mention the bloody world hostility raising up in the last 5 years... Not Cool Dude!!!! America is not really proud of you!!!:eek: If I was american myself, i would slap the guy in the face and split on him!!! I am yet angry...Slime Moore.:no:

Were there ever terrorist attacks on U.S. soil before 9/11?

Yes, starting with the Boston Tea Party, on through the Oklahoma City
bombing and the previous World Trade Center attempt.

Why? Because terrorism is a part of life in this world, and though we are
by far the most immune and removed country on the face of the earth from
it, it still inevitably touches us.

Why does terrorism happen? Because some people find violence the perfect
way to express their feelings on any number of subjects: from the intrusion
of secularism on their fundamentalist viewpoints, to the existance of abortion
clinics, to certain forces keeping unjust regimes in power, to feeling that the
government is infringing upon their rights, to plain old insanety...

Iraq played no part in 9/11. Saudi Arabia is more closely connected.

In a way, Michael Moore performs a public service by making all Liberals look like idiots and by further alienating them from the mainsteam of American society.

See, there is a silver lining in every cloud.

Michael Moore is to the Liberals what Bush is to the Conservatives.:439: