Talkhard

Here's what Kerry had to say yesterday . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug19.html

A few questions, Mr. Kerry:

When Michael Moore came out with "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was full of lies and distortions about Bush, why didn't you "denounce" him?

When Hollywood came out with other films like "Embedded" and "The Manchurian Candidate," which were thinly disguised attacks on Bush, why didn't you stand up and cry "foul!"?

When Whoopi Goldberg made dirty jokes about Bush's name at your Democratic fundraiser, why didn't you criticize her, instead of saying she represented the "best spirit of America"?

When George Soros spent over $15 million in the last year to promote attacks on Bush, why didn't you protest against that?

When the Democrats produced a TV ad about a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck, and blamed his death on Bush, why didn't you distance yourself from such dirty tricks?

The fact is, Mr. Kerry, you are getting what you deserve. You never stood up against any sleazy campaign tricks done in the name of Democrat causes, but now you are suddenly alarmed when YOU are the victim of a negative PR campaign.

As the old text says, "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap."

__________________
"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." --Jay, lifelong Pacers fan

I_HateDamon

Talkhard, you da man.

Perfection

Why should Kerry denounce Moore when the President doesn't denounce these "Swift Boat Veterans", or Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and the rest of the conservative media on Talk Radio and Fox News that do nothing but push for President Bush.

The Republicans (by which, I mean Karl Rove) are very, very good at running a smear campaign that attacks political opponents (whether it be Kerry or McCain in 2000). Is Kerry just supposed to sit back and take this abuse. They have to fight back in some way....and with Bush as the opponent, they have some pretty good fodder to fuel major criticisms.



Personally I have nothing wrong with Kerry or any celebrity that wishes to express their 1st amendment right to criticize our president. What I do have a problem with is when the political party and media spreads lies or misleading information.

I mean, whether it be Kerry's Purple heart's under attack, or anything else, it seems that the Reps. and their media friends are doing a pretty effective job of getting people to follow the crap they throw out...hook, line and sinker. How about we'll talk about the Democratic National Convention...OH WAIT...Now we have a Terror Alert Orange (What BS...it'll NEVER go below Yellow).

I'm really getting sick of all the lies and misinformation spread throughout this campaign...by both sides, but Primarily Bush (since they lie about more...and they need to to win).


If you want to call Kerry on his record, then by all means do so. I have no problem with someone that supports a woman's right to choose, supports civil unions, and providing services to those that are less fortunate (I'm sorry if I'm humanitarian enough to give up a little extra money so that hungry people can get food and children can learn to read).

But at the same time, look at Bush's record...his stance on the war (A resounding middle finger to the rest of the world), abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, TAX CUTS For the Wealthy (Trickle Down "Voodoo" Economics DO NOT work!!!). Bush is a terrible leader. He was considered a failure in life until he was 40. Heck, he's even considered the Black Sheep in his family and doesn't get along with his dad that well. Overall, the man is being driven by the political machine, despite the fact that he is incompetent. I'm certain that I could do a better job at running the country with my limited knowledge at 19 years old (even though I do have VERY good critical thinking skills).

I mean, the guy is trying to keep any (Non-Christian) religion out of Iraq's government at all cost, while at the same time he is trying to insert it into our government through topics such as gay marriage and abortion.

Personally, I just recently spent a month in Europe, and everywhere I went people wanted to know if I liked Bush. Thankfully, I didn't have to lie in telling them that I hate the man, as I would have been pretty embarrassed if I felt any different. The rest of the world despises America because of Bush and what he has done in the last four years. He took America from being a globally-respected nation, with a record national surplus, to having one of (if not the largest) national debt of all time....and he wants to give tax cuts to all of his Big Business CEO friends.

Goodness. That's more then enough for now.



Oh, and is it just me because very time I logon to this board I see another topic that Target starts that says "OT: Another Flaw with Kerry".

Blazerfan024

Since when does bush support gay marriage?

Thats your boy kerry you are thinking about.

__________________

The Pup

Everytime I find something on his record, I find the exact opposite....on his record. I would like him much more if he would just make up his mind (whether a agree with him or not) and stick with it.

I may not agree with W. but at least I know where he stands. Kerry is waffling more than William Jefferson used to. Pretty soon it will be...."it depends on the definition of injury as to how I got my purple heart."

All I know is that more people in the military photo that Kerry proudly boasted about disagree with him or adamandtly say he is lying than agree with him and support him.

The Senator says we are suppose to listen to the 3 men who agreed with him and ingnore the 19 that said he was full of ...it.

Hmmmmm.........that strikes me as very curious.

__________________
If only I could tell you.....

SodaPopinski

Please, share with us what these "lies and distortions about Bush" were from the film. Surely you can come up with just a few, considering the length of the film that was apparently "full" of them.

LOL. Yeah. Kerry is going to commit political suicide and take a wild guess that your crazy conspiracy theory about these two films is correct and denounce them. That's a ridiculous comparison. The swift boat commercials were an obvious spit in the face of a war hero. The democrats have taken the high road this entire campaign. But oh, you're right, they're secretly pumping money into Hollywood for these anti-Bush films.

By the way, "The Manchurian Candidate" is a remake of a movie from 1962. Nice theory, but it doesn't hold water that this movie is somehow a Bush-trashing movie.

Why is he getting "what he deserves"? Because he doesn't think like you do? Kerry has been waiting for several months to debate Bush ON THE ISSUES facing this country. Bush wants to ignore the multi-million jobs that have been lost during his tenure. He wants to ignore the rising cost of health care. He wants to ignore the fact that he lied to hastily get us into a war with Iraq, then declared "mission accomplished" as hundreds of traumatized American troops were to be killed in the following months.

No, in fact, Bush would much rather just trash Kerry's service record (Bush doesn't have one, by the way - unless you consider several AWOL blemishes on his brief stint with the Texas Air National Guard a "service record"). That's exactly why a fellow war hero (and a Republican, I might add), John McCain, came out and criticized Bush's campaign immediately when the swiftboat commercials came out.

Bush talks this high-and-mighty talk, like he's such a morally upstanding person who knows how to lead this country. BS. He had four years, and we're in deep crap more than we've ever been in the past two generations. And what's he doing rather than focusing on the issues? Insulting his opponents like a measly third grade reject.

Get him the hell out of Washington. There are plenty more golf balls to be hit, horses to be ridden, fish to be caught, and morons to be duped in Crawford, Texas, than there are in DC.

Bye-bye, Bushie. You have until January.

-Pop

__________________

Masbee

Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.

The only American's that take Michael Moore seriously are certain elements of the reactionary, emotional, far left and those that haven't much studied the issues involved.

Michael Moore is an outstanding filmaker. Michael Moore has a knack for uncovering some interesting things, getting juicy quotes, etc. Michael Moore is not interesting in being a journalist to aid in the discerning of "truth". Michael Moore has already made up his mind what is truth in the world. He just wants everyone else to think that way and he thinks clever and entertaining propoganda is the way to do it.

It certainly has gotten him a lot of attention and made him a lot of money.

Here is one of MANY articles which are all too happy to list the errors, lies and distortions of Mr. Moore. This one written by a member of the left:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

a little taste:

The Pup

That article is a very good read. I'm sure some of my caucasian friends along with many of my african american friends who are quite liberal will have a different view of Moore after I forward that article to them.

The bravery shown by anyone on that plane that was brought down by the passengers and the terror felt by all those who died that day is moronically dismissed by Moore in his unending pursuit of his clearly non-objective agenda.

Opinions are great.....they are some the freedoms of our great country. Chosen ignorance is to be laughed at and bigotry in all forms is unnacceptable.

Masbee....thank you for the link.

__________________
If only I could tell you.....

SodaPopinski

Christopher Hitchens is a nutjob who was more or less kicked out of the UK because of his ramblings and knack for stirring up controversy. Any of his columns should be taken with a grain of salt. Michael Moore certainly has an agenda, but I'm not sure how you can argue with the facts put before you in F9/11.

I'm still waiting to hear the distortions and lies put forth in the film.

-Pop

__________________

Masbee

Ad Hominem alert!

There is an article to read if you click on the link. Attacking this left author who is critical of Moore by claiming HE is the nutjob who rambles with a knack for stirring up controversy seems a tad ironic, no?

As I previously stated, this is but one of many, many critiques of Moore's films. Just look and you will find them.

Ed O

Excellent post, Masbee.

It's interesting that I'd quoted from the Slate article you'd linked to in my .sig some time back:

Ed O.

__________________
"In the end, it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish last."

-- Sandy Koufax

keebs3

I hate to do this, cause generally I'm against Bush. The problem is, I'm against Kerry as well. I'm tried of the lies all around, and I've discovered it is hard to get a straight answer out of either side... kinda makes you want to give up. I know the film is long, but here are some misconceptions (not all direct lies, but definetly subjects that he wanted to munipulate) found in the first 10 minutes alone:

The scene of the Florida Celebration was not an actual celebration for Gore's victory, it was held earlier in the day, before the polls even opened.

Then he goes on to make it seem like all the channels had Gore the winner in Florida, then Fox news came along and said otherwise because Bush knew some of the network personel. But here are the times all the major networks called Gore, then Bush, as the winner of Florida:

NBC called Gore at 7:49
CBS called Gore at 7:50
Fox News (yes the same!0 called GORE at 7:52
ABC called Gore at 8:02

Then:

Fox called Bush at 2:16
NBC called Bush at 2:17
CBS called Bush at 2:17
ABC called Bush at 2:20

Fox had nothing to do with who won florida, all the networks reported a virtually the same time.

Then the issue of the African Americans not getting to vote for being black. After a review of state records, it showed no one was discriminated against... not to mention that Moore never said anything about Gore trying to toss out Military votes from people over seas.

Then he shows a news article that has the title: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." -This was a completly made up article by Moore, no such headline accured in that newspaper.

During the Senate scene, Moore directly said that one after another, blacks were told to sit down and shut up.. his is a cheap shot because they were never told this in any way.

Then, during the scene of his inauguration day, Moore said it was out of control, his limo got pelted with eggs, and no one had ever excperienced something like this on their inauguration.
First, someone did, Nixon had a protest of OVER half the amount of people during that Bush had protesting against him... and if you look at the crowd during those scenes, they look calm and orderly, plus ONE person threw ONE egg at his limo.

Then we have the comments on his aproval ratings and his vacation time, although Moore said his pre 9/11 ratings were 45%, they never dropped below 50%. Moore says he was on vacation 46% of the time, is what he doesn't say is that includes weekends, and time at camp david, where I'm sure he can get plenty done.

Ok, thats enough for now. Again, I'm not really arguing for bush or against moore, just trying to show all the sides, which is what more of us NEED to do. Again these were in the first 10 minutes of the film.

JMK

Masbee

There is no reason for me to make yet another list. Why reinvent the wheel.

The first link you didn't like, guess cause that author is very opinionated and writes in a forceful style.

As you like Moore, I assumed you liked that style. Didn't know you only like it when you agree with the direction of the argument.

Here is a link to something done in a "list" stlye. It is almost like a legal brief. And it is more neutral in tone. The author did vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, so I will save you the trouble of attacking his character for being so "crazy" to do such a thing by admitting in advance he is an unworthy person.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm