0
   

Do the Dems feel it slipping away?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:23 am
BX, do you really think Moore has ruled that out? Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:27 am
I wouldn't count kerry out yet. After all the republicans have already shot their best at him and it is still dead even.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:04 am
I hear Michael Moore's next documentary will be on the health care issue.

He's such a damn partisan, don't you think ?

Imagine, wanting to raise awareness and open a dialogue on such a "liberal" thing as health care.

Why would he want to waste his time with the health care thing anyway ? Why doesn't he just take his bundles of money, languish amidst the jet set, and leave all us patriotic Americans alone?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:05 am
It's no longer valid to use the term 'documentary' and Michael Moore in the same county, much less the same sentence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:06 am
Sure it is. You may disagree, which is okay, but he remains one of the best-known documentary makers around the globe.

The fact that you don't agree with his message does not change the fact that he makes the documentaries.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 11:19 am
Have you SEEN his work ?

Bowling for Columbine was incredible. The questions he raises (and does not answer but chooses to leave open ...) are extraordinarily important.

As are the questions he raises in F911.

It's still "valid" to ask questions in America, isn't it ?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:35 pm
Cy - Michael Moore, in an interview, said it wasn't a documentary. He said it was more an op-ed piece.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:40 pm
Roger and Me was great too!
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:47 pm
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:16 am
DNC campaign heaquarters phone# 1-800-WHI-NERS

Press 1 to make a donation.

If you have questions for John Kerry just hang up.


Exceprt:

Quote:

Kerry's showing he just can't take the heat

September 5, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

-->

Both candidates gave speeches late on Thursday night. George W. Bush was more or less expected to. John Kerry didn't have to, but reported for duty even though nobody wanted him to. Unnerved by sagging numbers, he decided to start the post-Labor Day phase of the campaign three days before Labor Day. The way things are going, Democrats seem likely to be launching the post-election catastrophic-defeat vicious-recriminations phase of the campaign round about Sept. 12.

At any rate, less than 60 minutes after President Bush gave a sober, graceful, droll and moving address, Kerry decided to hit back. In the midnight hour, he climbed out of his political coffin, and before his thousands of aides could grab the garlic from Teresa's kitchen and start waving it at him, he found himself in front of an audience and started giving a speech. As in Vietnam, he was in no mood to take prisoners: ''I have five words for Americans,'' he thundered. ''This is your wake up call!''

Is that five words? Or is it six? Well, it's all very nuanced, according to whether you hyphenate the ''wake-up.'' Maybe he should have said, ''I have four words plus a common hyphenated expression for Americans.'' I'd suggest the rewrite to him personally, but I don't want him to stare huffily at me and drone, "How dare you attack my patriotism."

By about nine words into John Kerry's wake up call, I was sound asleep again. But this was what he told Ohio's brave band of chronic insomniacs:

''For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve.''

Oh, dear . . . growing drowsy again . . . losing the will to type . . . what's he saying now?

''Two tours of duty''

Ah, yes. As usual, he has four words for Americans: I served in Vietnam. Or five words if you spell it Viet Nam.

So we have one candidate running on a platform of ambitious reforms for an ''ownership society'' at home and a pledge to hunt down America's enemies abroad. And we have another candidate running on the platform that no one has the right to say anything mean about him.

And for this the senator broke the eminently civilized tradition that each candidate lets the other guy have his convention week to himself? Maybe they need to start scheduling those Kerry campaign shakeups twice a week.

There was an old joke back in the Cold War:

Proud American to Russian guy: ''In my country every one of us has the right to criticize our president.''

Russian guy: ''Same here. In my country every one of us has the right to criticize your president.''

That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:49 pm
Sign of the times... Kerry was somewhere, preparing to deliver a stump speech (I actually think it may have been before or during his midnight speech to help get him back in the spotlight the night of the GOP Convention...)

An aide hands him a message, stating that Clinton was (sadly, yes) being admitted to the hospital for a bypass (and garnering the lionshare of the press for the 24/48 hour cycle....)

Kerry, obviously frustrated, put his hands on his hips.

Leave it to Clinton to steal Kerry's thunder--intentionally or not--at every turn.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 05:22 pm
As I did not listen to Bush's speech (no longer any credibility with me), I do not know but will assume that he mentionned "families" and "compassion". Just a guess on my part.

So, then, how does anyone reconcile those expressions with his actual ACTIONS during his term in office? The appointments listed below tell us more about Bush's true nature and agenda than any speech ever could. As most of these appointments fall way way below the radar screen of any media coverage, allow me to share them with you.


Bush chose Nancy Pfotenhauer, president and CEO of the right-wing Independent Women's Forum, to serve on the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. The IWF actively opposed the Violence Against Women Act. According to IWF's web site, "The battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings."


Bush appointed Wade Horn as assistant secretary for family support in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. As president of the National Fatherhood Institute, Horn said that low-income kids whose parents aren't married should be last in line for Head Start and other benefits. Horn tried to back away from tnese statements at his confirmation hearings. Then, after Horn's appointment, HHS began to offer special services to welfare recipients - if they agree to marry.


President Bush chose Leon Kass, MD to head the President's Council of Bioethics. Kass has written, "For the first time in human history, mature women by the tens of thousands live the entire decade of their twenties - their most fertile years - neither in the homes of their fathers nor in the homes of their husbands; unprotected, lonely, and out of sync with their inborn nature."


In June 2004, Bush re-appointed Dr. W David Hager to the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Hager has written about Christ's ability to heal women's illnesses and reportedly refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager was the leading force behind the FDA's rejection of over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception, over the overwhelming recommendation of two FDA advisory panels.


The Senate in July 2004 approved Bush's nomination of James Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas. Bolmes, an anti-Abortion Rights activist, supports a Constitutional amendment to ban all abortions and said that "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has also spoken out against the separation of church and state, and co-wrote (with his wife) an article proclaiming that, "The wife is to subordinate herself to the husband... and... place herself under the authority of the man." Holmes' views on women's rights can be summed up in his belief that supporting feminism ultimately contributes "to the culture of death."



www.emilyslist.org
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 05:38 pm
Incredible ! Bush has appointed people to positions on various councils of government who hold views opposed to those of Democrat interest groups. Worse, they are not endorsed by the authors of "Emily's List".

Gosh !
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 05:46 pm
Are they positions with which YOU agree ?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 05:47 pm
angie--

Why have you posted this article in three different threads?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 06:15 pm
It's relevant, don't you think?

And why, Sofia, have you chosen not to respond to the contents of the list ?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 06:25 pm
Its not relevant times 3. I think it's poor manners to post the same thing several times in different threads.

I've seen little bits gathered like this plenty of times. Its not worth my effort. Take the one that has Bush appointing a woman to the VAWA. So, obviously, Bush likes his women beat down, eh? Is that your gist? Bush: Pro-violence against women. Get real.

Most of the time one or two points on a list like that may have substanitive merit, and the rest are just spin. But it's NEVER as bad as Emily's List or Planned Parenthood, or MoveOn try to make it sound. To find out which is partially substanitive and which is utter bullshit --I have to devote my time researching...

As I know how it will turn out--generally--I won't waste my time.

I did look in on the VAWA appointment and the Holmes thing.

Both BS.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 06:29 pm
The Violence Against Women Act is crap to most Republicans and individualists, and people with common sense.

There is already a law against violence. It should cover men, women, gays, children, blacks, ugly people, mothers... Just enforce the existing laws--instead of writing separate laws for ever possible demographic known to man. This is political grandstanding by Democrats to give their usual PACs a reach around.

They love to make new laws, but hate to enforce them. Useless!
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 07:39 pm
"I think it's poor manners to post the same thing several times in different threads."

And are you the A2K manners police?


If you believe the information given in the list is BS, so be it. I have a feeling many/most women would have a different view.

Goodnight all !
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 07:45 pm
Oh. She really got me with that manners police line.

While leaving in a lightning fast bolt--and not explaining why there is a need for this Violence Against Women Act...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 12:25:15