What an idiot!!!

[Guest saintjohn]

if i am not mistaken Kerry at least had the decency to not attack the union of same sex couples, the way W did.

i assume you mean the federal marriage amendment. bush already had the "evangelical" vote - backing that reactionary, discriminatory legislation didn't win him any votes, but it certainly helped mobilize the gay community against him. it was politically stupid, and - more importantly - morally wrong.

interestingly, days before the election, bush said he could "live with" domestic unions (gee, thanks, btw). i don't know if this was a last-minute attempt to win over gay conservatives (both of them) or just another classic bush mis-statement. it's possible, though, that his position has evolved further than kerry's. maybe mary cheney has had more of an effect on this administration's policies than we yet realize. or maybe it's just more of my wishful thinking.

and president Clinton at least changed the gays in the military attitude.

"don't ask, don't tell" has been a disaster for the military. existing regulations prohibiting "fraternization" would've been enough to keep professionals in line, regardless of orientation/preference, if the commander-in-chief and the pentagon had willed it. instead, clinton's half-hearted "reform" sent mixed signals to commanders in every branch, and it's still hurting military readiness and combat effectiveness.

unfortunately, bush isn't likely to move beyond the current policy, and, as a result, some dedicated patriots are still being denied their right to serve in the military. after 9/11, can we really afford to lose translators over a private issue that doesn't effect job performance or unit cohesion/morale?

[Guest shannon_coolj.]

when you start getting your news from movies, you have problems.

and judging by those reasonings, you dont really have a factual grasp of most of those issues.

oh, and when you get your facts from the President of the United States, politicians, the media and the Internet, that's better?

This was a DOCUMENTARY, with actual paperwork proving his claims. What documentation has your President given you?

Just the fact that you refer to F9/11 as a documentary is a joke. Wake up!

You liked the 17 points? How about the one talking about Cynthia Mckinney? She is an anti-semitic moron who cant form sentences that sound like the English language. Great 17 point presentation. Very helpful to Moore's minions of 100s.

As for the "only thing you can say is that he is fat" comment, get over it. I have plenty to say about people who matter. Moore is just a liberal guy in the field of entertainment who has a socialist agenda and hates America. If he had something important to say, I would address it. Fortunately, nothing important comes out of the Hollywood camp--Moore included.

Documentary--hahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

Tres-b, what makes you think that someone who is criticizing things going on in America hates America?

We all criticize things going on in this country, me included. That doesn't mean I hate my country. And even if I did, so what? There's that thing called freedom...

[Guest saintjohn]

days before the election, bush said he could "live with" domestic unions (gee, thanks, btw).

nevermind.

President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

grrr.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041107/2004-11-07T172626Z_01_N07408175_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-AGENDA-DC.html

[Guest tres-b]

if i am not mistaken Kerry at least had the decency to not attack the union of same sex couples, the way W did.

and president Clinton at least changed the gays in the military attitude.

Clinton also told Kerry that he should back the bans on gay marriage. While I respect Kerry for not taking the advice, I think it is interesting what President Clinton would be willing to do to get elected.

[Guest JMT]

days before the election, bush said he could "live with" domestic unions (gee, thanks, btw).

nevermind.

President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

grrr.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041107/2004-11-07T172626Z_01_N07408175_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-AGENDA-DC.html

what about this St. J? this was also in that article.

"CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

[Guest saintjohn]

what about this St. J?

well, it's better than nothing.

"civil unions" seem like "marriage lite" to me. we're tearing society in half to protect the "sanctity" of a word, not an institution. whether rove likes it or not, gay marriage, regardless of what it's called, is going to become a reality, and sooner than he expects. unfortunately, it's going to be an ugly, expensive, and hurtful process.

i'd prefer if government only recognized "civil unions," and organized religion took care of "blessing" marriages. that way, consenting adult couples of any variety could enjoy the legal protections currently afforded certain straight couples (even those couples of convenience whose so-called unions are obvious shams), and the mean-spirited wrangling over the definition of word "marriage" would be left to the clergy and anyone else who believes that the almighty really cares more about a particular expression of love than love itself.

but it doesn't really matter what i'd prefer, does it? society will find its way, eventually, but until then i wish the evangelicals (and those who wish to curry favor with them for dubious political gain) would try to have some perspective on the issue. we're at war. further sub-dividing our society isn't going to help defeat those who wish every american - straight, gay, or otherwise - dead.

[Guest web_norah]

interestingly, days before the election, bush said he could "live with" domestic unions (gee, thanks, btw). i don't know if this was a last-minute attempt to win over gay conservatives (both of them) or just another classic bush mis-statement. it's possible, though, that his position has evolved further than kerry's.

how sensitive of him.

i disagree that has achieved no evolvement as far as i am concerned. that's just a desperate move to crowd please, i dont know any gay people who support Bush.

[tgibson]

i actually liked moore's 17 reasons not to slit your wrists. damn, i feel like that right now!

i find it funny that the only insult conservatives can come up with to attack moore is that he's FAT. big f'ing deal.

this country is headed for destruction. did anyone actually watch Fahrenheit 9/11. If you did, did you just cover your ears or ignore all the evidence of the bush family dealing with the Saudis? Or that James Bath (who was with Bush during his National Guard Service) served as the go-between linking the Bushes, Bin Ladins and Saudis?

Why are we in Iraq guys? Tell me the reasons. Why are all of our military over there dying? What about Bin Laden (who, according to Bush, was the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks)? Why haven't we gone after him?

Lies, lies, lies, lies.... that's how I'll remember first Bush administration and that's how I'll think of the second.

Aside from that, I suppose you conservative people are against women's rights (abortions will probably be illegal by the time Bush gets out of office) and homophobic (thanks guys, now homosexuals can't get married - Bush is in office again!), and have absolutely no concern about education or the environment (which Bush has done almost nothing for since going into office four years ago).

OPEN YOUR EYES!

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

If you truly believe what you've seen in Fahrenheit 911, you should want to read this. It may take you a half-hour to get through it all, but it's worth it.

[Guest saintjohn]

i dont know any gay people who support Bush.

maybe you don't know any gay people who admit to supporting bush. given the current political climate, it's easy to understand why bush supporters would choose to stay "in the closet" about their political views, especially in the pc gay community. according to the washington blade, almost a quarter of self-identified gay voters supported bush in the recent election:

Perhaps the most surprising news for gay observers of the presidential election is that exit polls show President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago. This despite the president's vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.

mind you, this data comes from the same sort of exit polls that greatly over-estimated kerry's support early on, so it's quite possible that bush won an even higher percentage of the gay vote.

source:

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?start=10/28/04&end=11/4/04#155

in case anyone's curious, here are some pro-bush and/or conservative gay websites:

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html

http://gaypatriot.blogspot.com/

http://queersagainstterror.blogspot.com/

http://queer-conservative.blogspot.com/

http://www.boifromtroy.com/

and, even though he endorsed kerry, the brilliant andrew sullivan:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

[Guest web_norah]

yes of course there are gay republicans...

but the overwhelming majority dont support Bush.

i often forget that Bush is a "values" "family" man ...

[Guest JMT]

interestingly, days before the election, bush said he could "live with" domestic unions (gee, thanks, btw). i don't know if this was a last-minute attempt to win over gay conservatives (both of them) or just another classic bush mis-statement. it's possible, though, that his position has evolved further than kerry's.

how sensitive of him.

i disagree that has achieved no evolvement as far as i am concerned. that's just a desperate move to crowd please, i dont know any gay people who support Bush.

i know of 2 gay individuals who are against gay marriage. they dont want to have to deal with that added element to a relationship. seriously.

[Guest Seb]

I haven't seen Farenhype 911 yet but what I find interesting is that when Farenheit 911 came out there wasn't really any investigation of some of Moores claims of Bush having ties to the Bin Laden family. I would think that would be something that the media and news would be all over. True or not, its wierd that the media didn't support or refute those claims. Wierd don't you think?

[Guest JMT]

I haven't seen Farenhype 911 yet but what I find interesting is that when Farenheit 911 came out there wasn't really any investigation of some of Moores claims of Bush having ties to the Bin Laden family. I would think that would be something that the media and news would be all over. True or not, its wierd that the media didn't support or refute those claims. Wierd don't you think?

the reason is mainly bc there is no way to prove or disprove things like that. the movie established a connection to the saudi royals, not necessarily the bin laden family. its "he said/he said."

[Guest Seb]

I haven't seen Farenhype 911 yet but what I find interesting is that when Farenheit 911 came out there wasn't really any investigation of some of Moores claims of Bush having ties to the Bin Laden family. I would think that would be something that the media and news would be all over. True or not, its wierd that the media didn't support or refute those claims. Wierd don't you think?

the reason is mainly bc there is no way to prove or disprove things like that. the movie established a connection to the saudi royals, not necessarily the bin laden family. its "he said/he said."

That doesn't make sense to me. You look at the facts and you investigate them there should be a way to prove or disprove. I just think its wierd that when one president is rumoured to get a blowjob in the oval office the media is all over that for years. Another president is rumoured to have direct financial ties to the biggest terrorist in the world and not a word is said about it. I don't care what side of the spectrum you are on that's wierd.

[Guest saintjohn]

sorry for all of my off-topic replies to this thread.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

[Guest web_norah]

**interesting point Sebastian**

thumbs up. good luck trying to make a case of it here.

[Guest JMT]

I haven't seen Farenhype 911 yet but what I find interesting is that when Farenheit 911 came out there wasn't really any investigation of some of Moores claims of Bush having ties to the Bin Laden family. I would think that would be something that the media and news would be all over. True or not, its wierd that the media didn't support or refute those claims. Wierd don't you think?

the reason is mainly bc there is no way to prove or disprove things like that. the movie established a connection to the saudi royals, not necessarily the bin laden family. its "he said/he said."

That doesn't make sense to me. You look at the facts and you investigate them there should be a way to prove or disprove. I just think its wierd that when one president is rumoured to get a blowjob in the oval office the media is all over that for years. Another president is rumoured to have direct financial ties to the biggest terrorist in the world and not a word is said about it. I don't care what side of the spectrum you are on that's wierd.

again, in the movie the financial "ties" mentioned were to the saudi royal family, not the bin ladens. why wouldnt mainstream news run it, since we know they are biased? the answer is most likely there is no real proof. welcome to the world of michael moore.

[Guest saintjohn]

you can't handle the truth:

The film next makes clear why Moore goes to these lengths to try to imply some wrongdoing with the flights of Saudis: he wants to suggest an improper relationship between the family of George W. Bush and the Saudis (or even specifically the Bin Laden family). Moore then proceeds to unroll a convoluted scheme by which he seeks to connect Bush and the Bin Ladens. He begins by telling us that in early 2004 he (Moore himself) had called Bush a deserter in a speech and that “in response†the White House released copies of Bush’s military service records. (The arrogant notion that these records were released in response to Moore’s particular charge is ludicrous; they were actually released in response to an Associated Press Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that had nothing to do with Moore’s remarks.) In any case, Moore argues that the records had a name blacked out which had not been blacked out in a copy of the same records he had obtained back in 2000. The name was that of James R. Bath. Moore asks: “Why didn’t Bush want the press and public to see Bath’s name on his military records? Perhaps he was worried that the American people would find out that at one time James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Ladens.†Well, actually the reason Bath’s named was blacked out is that privacy laws prohibit the government from releasing the records—especially medical records, like the documents in question—of persons without their permission (http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm). Bush gave permission to have his records released, but Bath had not done so (and had not been asked to do so, since the Freedom of Information Act request had nothing to do with him), and so his name had to be removed from common records.

[Guest saintjohn]

continued:

Moore then says, “Bush and Bath had become good friends when they both served in the Texas Air National Guard. After they were discharged, when Bush’s dad was head of the CIA, Bath opened up his own aviation business, after selling a plane to a man by the name of Salem Bin Laden, heir to the second-largest fortune in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Binladin Group.†He next tells us that James Bath was hired to manage money for the Bin Laden family in Texas, and then that when Bush tried his hand at the oil business, he got an early investment from his friend James Bath. We are supposed to conclude, of course, that Bath invested the Bin Ladens’ money in Bush’s company. Moore never actually says so, but he implies so. He fails to mention that Bath himself has plainly said the money was his own and not the Bin Ladens’. In fact, Craig Unger, who is interviewed in the movie, and whose book House of Bush, House of Saud is the source for most of Moore’s absurd assertions in this part of the movie, himself doubts any connection here. Here is how Newsweek put it:

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger’s book—fails to note the author’s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The “Bush-Bin Laden ‘relationships’ were indirect—two degrees of separation, perhaps—and at times have been overstated,†Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto [bush’s company] through Bath, Unger notes that “no hard evidence has ever been found to back up that charge†and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. “One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine,†says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger’s book. “It was a purely personal investment.†(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/)

[Guest saintjohn]

still reading?

But Moore just moves right along, leaving behind the Bin Ladens and pointing out that years later Bush was given a seat on the board of a company called Harken Energy, which had bought one of Bush’s oil companies. Harken also received some Saudi investments, and the film shows Unger saying: “Harken had one thing going for it, which is that George W. Bush was on its board of directors at a time when his father was President of the United States.†No further proof is offered to suggest that this is why the company received Saudi money, or that any of this has anything to do with the Bin Laden family issues discussed just moments before.

Moore then shows a snippet from an interview with George W. Bush in 1992 in which he says, “When you’re the President’s son and you’ve got unlimited access combined with some credentials from a prior campaign, in Washington, D.C., people tend to respect that.†The interview is from the CBS Morning News on August 21, 1992, from a story about George W. Bush’s work assisting his father’s 1992 reelection campaign. The interview is about Bush’s work on the campaign, and has to do with campaign advice—it is completely unrelated to peddling influence or access for profit.

[Guest saintjohn]

almost done:

Then—without offering any evidence that Harken received investments because of Bush’s connections, or that Bush ever used his influence in any untoward way—Moore moves on and says, “Yes, it helps to be the President’s son. Especially when you’re being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.†Moore then shows a television report from CBS reporter Bill Plante which says, “In 1990, when [George W.] Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million.†Moore fails to mention that Bush cleared his sale with those same “company lawyers†and that Bush was cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071002.asp). Instead Moore tells us that Bush “beat the rap†with the help of a lawyer who was later named ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Again, no actual accusations are made, only unsupported insinuations (in this case, some kind of quid pro quo) with absolutely no foundation, and no attempt to provide one. Moore just throws out a few unconnected and misleading charges and hopes they add up in viewers’ minds to some sort of impression.

[Guest saintjohn]

just a few more paragraphs:

Once again, without a logical transition, Moore moves on—this time, to talk about the Carlyle Group, on whose advisory board both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush sat at different times. Moore tells us that members of the Bin Laden family were at one point among the investors in the Carlyle Group. We are told that the Carlyle Group was holding an investor conference in Washington, D.C. on September 11, in which the elder Bush participated, as did one of Osama bin Laden’s many half-brothers. (To give a sense of the size of the Bin Laden family, the 9/11 Commission Report points out that Osama was “the seventeenth of 57 children†of the Bin Laden patriarch, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 55.) Apparently the fact that Bush’s father and a member of the Bin Laden family were together that day is expected to have a major effect on us, though no reasons are given for why it should. We are only told that the elder Bush has a lot of influence with his son … so again, as we were told earlier in reverse, the influence of one George Bush upon the other is somehow sinister, and connected to evil Saudis. But how?

In this segment Moore also says that the Carlyle Group and their Bin Laden investors profited from September 11, by taking a subsidiary named United Defense public in October of 2001. It is not made clear why the stock offering is related to the 9/11 attacks. Moore also fails to mention that United Defense actually lost about $11 billion as the result of a decision by George W. Bush’s administration to cancel the company’s Crusader artillery system, one of the only defense programs the Bush Administration cut (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/). In addition, Moore fails to inform us that George Soros, the left-wing icon, is also a major investor in the Carlyle Group, and former Clinton chief of staff Mack McLarty is also a senior advisor—so the company is hardly a global conspiracy of right-wingers. Moore also suggests that “sadly, with so much attention focused on the Bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the Bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw,†implying that they withdrew after the IPO he has just described. In fact, they withdrew before it (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/278rxzvb.asp?pg=2).

[Guest saintjohn]

there's more, but let's quit here:

Where is all this going? Moore soon tells us, by unfurling one of his most absurd and insulting slurs. He asks:

Okay, so let’s say one group of people, like the American people, pay you $400,000 a year to be President of the United States. But then another group of people invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses $1.4 billion dollars over a number of years. [Footage of former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, and Vice President Dick Cheney.] Who you gonna like? Who’s your daddy? Because that’s how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends, and their related businesses in the past three decades. [Footage of President Bush and Saudi Prince.] Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up in the morning they might be thinking about what’s best for the Saudis instead of what’s best for you? Or me? ’Cuz $1.4 billion just doesn’t buy a lot of flights out of the country, it buys a lot of love.

This is accompanied by pictures of both Bushes—as well as James Baker, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld—shaking hands with various individuals in Arab dress. Here again Moore makes no specific allegation, but he suggests that both the current and former presidents and their Secretaries of State and Defense are simply for sale to the highest bidder. He conveniently ignores all the ways in which the Bush foreign policy is opposed by the Saudis (they objected, for instance, to the American invasion of Afghanistan, and to the newly assertive American role in the region more generally). And as ever, Moore’s facts, let alone his implications, are completely wrong. As Newsweek put it:

Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud. Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush. Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.†The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,†said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.†(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/)

[Guest saintjohn]

the above is from the ethics and public policy center website:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2199/pub_detail.asp

[Guest Seb]

Bush gave permission to have his records released, but Bath had not done so (and had not been asked to do so, since the Freedom of Information Act request had nothing to do with him), and so his name had to be removed from common records.

Makes sense but why is it that this guy Bath was not blocked out in 2000. Was it that they made a mistake in 2000 and just realized that they should have blocked his name out in 2000 so they made up for it later. Weird coincidence that after 911 they just happend to catch that mistake. BTW appreciate all the facts, someone has definately done their homework. ;D