Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

btw-i gotta admit that i got a kick out of watching wolfwitch (however you spell his name) put his comb in his mouth to come his hair then put it back in his mouth again.

However, those were just moments to make people laugh so that it wouldn't be too serious.

0 Replies

While all of y'all bash or defend Moore in this and numerous other threads, Mikey is laughing all the way to the bank.

Nothing succeeds like success.

0 Replies

Those who want to believe Moore's diatribe will think it is wonderful. Those who believe it is pure self-serving partisan tripe will denounce it as pure self-serving partisan tripe.

0 Replies

You should see the CNN review.
And Jeff Jarvis.

Both not Bushies, both hard on Moore's inconsistencies.

0 Replies

Okay, have you seen the movie? Raise your hand if you have and then tell us what you think. If you haven't, raise your hand so we know that you're just repeating what you've heard on your favorite news channel.

0 Replies

Party pooper . . .

0 Replies

I haven't seen it nor will I. I have read the reviews, none of which seem to want to go out on a limb to comment on accuracy or veracity. I make my judgment on what I thought of Bowling (not much) and what Moore himself has said re this film. I won't be contributing to his causes by purchasing a ticket however.

0 Replies

Don't confuse me with the facts, ma'am . . .

0 Replies

I went out of my way to see it, and I thought it was worth it. But then I would since it is a liberal film and makes no bones about it.

I tried to find something about the review sofia brought up and all I could find was the following link.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_25.html#007378

The way I see is that the other side has been told and people can check out the facts if they want. I am sure if there are in inaccuracies it won't take people long to pick them out.

It has broken the record for a documentary and was number one this weekend.

I loved the ending.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The fact that the documentary is doing well speaks for itself. It is getting pretty good reviews all things considering.

Does it?

It's doing well for a "documentary" (which it is not), but it isn't doing a fraction of how well The Passion of Christ did.

Is it surprising that the it is getting good reviews from a critic base that is overwhelmingly liberal?

Having said this, one would hope that the critics would view the film as a piece of art and not within a political context.

Having seen how they reacted to The Passion of Christ, we know that they are capable of political objectivity. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

No one, but Bush, knows what was going on in his mind during those seven minutes. Perhaps he froze, or perhaps he was mentally running through a checklist of his options.

Or perhaps he really wanted to find out what happened to the protagonist of "My Pet Goat."

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I am convinced that if he jumped up and assumed a "take charge" attitude he would have been criticized, by Michael Moore and his pals, for unnecessarily frightening school children just so that he could look tough.

Perhaps. But then we'll never know, will we?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

In order for the seven minute "delay" to have any bearing on anything, it needs to be shown that in those seven minutes, the president could have done something that would have led to saving lives or capturing the bad guys. Anyone care to try?

That isn't the correct standard, that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking. The proper standard isn't to judge, retrospectively, what Bush could have accomplished in those seven minutes. The proper standard is to measure his actions against what could have happened.

As mysteryman points out, we didn't know we were under attack until the second plane hit the WTC. Bush, like the vast majority of Americans, thought that the first plane not only hit the tower accidently, but also that it was a small private plane. When the second plane hit, however, we did know that it wasn't an accident. It is under those facts that we must judge Bush's conduct -- not in retrospect ("well, nothing he could have done could have saved anyone") but prospectively ("given everything that he knew at that moment, what should he have done?").

I don't know what FDR did when he was first advised of Pearl Harbor, or what JFK did when he first learned of Soviet missiles in Cuba. I'd like to think that they did something rather than nothing. As for Bush, we have the videotaped evidence of what he did.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Having seen how they reacted to The Passion of Christ, we know that they are capable of political objectivity.

Are you saying that "The Passion of the Christ" was a political movie?

0 Replies

As for Kennedy, he was assured by Curtis LeMay that the Russians and Cubans would be sitting ducks, because their aircraft were lined up on the runways rather than dispersed. So Kennedy's first action was to order U-2 overflights of south Texas and Florida, from which he learned that LeMay's fighters were lined up on the runways, and not dispersed. Curtis LeMay admitted as much when questioned about that. Kennedy did do something, he didn't do it publicly, and he suspended all other commitments while doing it, and without unnecessarily further alarming a public already alarmed by the press.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thanks Suzy.

The fact is none of us were there. All we have is even minutes of tape specifically edited to make Bush look as bad as possible in a phony documentary. The principal was there.

I haven't seen the film yet, but will shortly.

As to the claim above ('specifically edited to make Bush look bad'), could someone who has seen the film simply answer whether the seven minutes is played with any editing, or straight through without editing?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

In order for the seven minute "delay" to have any bearing on anything, it needs to be shown that in those seven minutes, the president could have done something that would have led to saving lives or capturing the bad guys. Anyone care to try?

That isn't the correct standard, that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking. The proper standard isn't to judge, retrospectively, what Bush could have accomplished in those seven minutes. The proper standard is to measure his actions against what could have happened.

As mysteryman points out, we didn't know we were under attack until the second plane hit the WTC. Bush, like the vast majority of Americans, thought that the first plane not only hit the tower accidently, but also that it was a small private plane. When the second plane hit, however, we did know that it wasn't an accident. It is under those facts that we must judge Bush's conduct -- not in retrospect ("well, nothing he could have done could have saved anyone") but prospectively ("given everything that he knew at that moment, what should he have done?").

I don't know what FDR did when he was first advised of Pearl Harbor, or what JFK did when he first learned of Soviet missiles in Cuba. I'd like to think that they did something rather than nothing. As for Bush, we have the videotaped evidence of what he did.[/quote]

Well Joe, let's examine your argument.

You say that the standard isn't what "could have (been) done ...that would have led to saving lives or capturing the bad guys," but "what could have happened."

OK, so now it falls to you to suggest what could have happened that might have been prevented or mitigated within a span of 7 minutes.

It is perfectly ridiculous to assert that FDR and JFK took significant action within the first 7 minutes of their learning or their respective 9/11's, but then prove me wrong and enlighten me as to the lightning quick reactions of these two former presidents.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Well Joe, let's examine your argument.

You say that the standard isn't what "could have (been) done ...that would have led to saving lives or capturing the bad guys," but "what could have happened."

OK, so now it falls to you to suggest what could have happened that might have been prevented or mitigated within a span of 7 minutes.

You still don't understand. It's not a matter of preventing or mitigating anything within those first seven minutes, it's a matter of doing something given the information that he possessed.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It is perfectly ridiculous to assert that FDR and JFK took significant action within the first 7 minutes of their learning or their respective 9/11's, but then prove me wrong and enlighten me as to the lightning quick reactions of these two former presidents.

Well, if they did more than nothing, they did more than Bush.

0 Replies

joe wrote:

You still don't understand. It's not a matter of preventing or mitigating anything within those first seven minutes, it's a matter of doing something given the information that he possessed.

So your argument is that any action, irrespective or whether it served any purpose whatsoever, would have been better than inactivity for seven minutes.

Sound like the argument a PR consultant would make.

joe wrote:

Well, if they did more than nothing, they did more than Bush.

Again, your argument reduces to the facile assertion that any action would have been better than inaction, even though you cannot even suggest what value might have been obtained by specific action.

0 Replies

I'm sure Mr. Bush doesn't have any PR experts at his hand like Andy Card or Karl Rove. If anyone truly believes that he doesn't, I will see if I can provide a ticket to Bush's first Mars manned space mission -- which will never happen under his four year regime. He's an unabashed braggart who has been given a political wedgie.

0 Replies

Perhaps, once the seven minute footage has been seen by Woodward or Rumsfeld or Bush himself, one of them might make some observations regarding the President's body language.

"As the aide stepped away, the President's clear gaze moved into the middle distance. Every fibre, every neuron, seemed to move into a wrestler's crouch. Watch the enemy. Ponder. Wait for the opening. But something else as well. Don't signal the move! Lift the right shoulder just a bit and pretend you've been thrown off, maybe by this Billy Goat. But it's a ruse! What a confident calculating powerful force he seemed at that moment."

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

So your argument is that any action, irrespective or whether it served any purpose whatsoever, would have been better than inactivity for seven minutes.

I merely assert that appropriate action is better than inappropriate inaction. Now, the question is: was it more appropriate in that situation to act or not to act?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Sound like the argument a PR consultant would make.

Too bad, then, that Karl Rove didn't give Bush the message rather than one of his aides.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Again, your argument reduces to the facile assertion that any action would have been better than inaction, even though you cannot even suggest what value might have been obtained by specific action.

I refer you to my comments above.

0 Replies

Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know