So I'm watching Fahrenhype 9/11 right now

[fnottr]

I believe in knowing your enemies. Anyway, this thing's supposed to be some giant rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11, but right now I'm 15 minutes into it and all they've done so far is justify * staying in the classroom for after hearing about the attack, show that Moore exaggerated a headline on a new paper for "1 second of footage" and then recap what happened on 9/11 for 10 minutes.

I'm thinking they haven't even attacked the actual thesis of the Fahrenheit, is this all they've got?

[T Town Jake]

1. It's right-wing propaganda of the worst sort...

...why bother? :shrug:

[fnottr]

5. well I knew that.....

but I'm sure I'm going to be seeing the arguments in it thrown at me wheneven I argue polics with a neo-con, so I want to be ready.

[Telly Savalas]

74. Why would you want to argue politics with a neocon?

Someone stupid enough to be a neocon won't be influenced by any argument you might make. Arguing with such folks only leads to anger and frustration.

Your time would be better spent smoking pot and watching reruns of "Three's Company".

[gmoney]

2. Wow, what a coincidence...

I just popped it in myself... almost launched a thread myself.

Good to see they have a lot of unbiased sources like Coulter, Zell, and various RW "think tanks".

[fnottr]

6. LOL, I know

have you noticed Coultier's Adam's apple?.....It's a maaaaaan baby.

Favorite quote yet, "It's not Norweigen women in wheel chairs attacking us, it's Islamic fundementalists."

Like the one's in Iraq? Hmmm?

[gmoney]

14. Lots of claims...

One is that Soros was one of the founding investors in Carlyle Group, and that the Bin Ladens divested before Bush Sr joined the board, and that there's as much or more Dem involvement in it as Rep...

One is that Bush was "instructed" with a handmade sign from the back of the room to stay seated in the classroom while his team figured out what to do...

And when Porter Goss says he has an 800 number for people to call, Moore says he doesn't... Ron Silver says it's actually a 877 toll free...

Claims the Patriot Act allowed us to catch an Al Qaeda guy who was planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge...

Claims the French, German and Russians had deals to get oil from Iraq once the sanctions were lifted, which is why they all voted to lift the sanctions...

It's strange... it's as if Moore makes assertions in multiples of twos, and this thing makes assertions in multiples of three, so they only really intersect on every sixth assertion.

Of course, I'm highly suggestible...

[sonicx]

20. that first claim...

MM doesn't care if Dems were involved. He's not a Democrat and slammed Clinton's admin all the time.

[Flammable Materials]

42. Handmade sign at the back of the room.

"Sit down, shut up. We're running things. Just finish reading your book, and you get a cookie later."

[ima_sinnic]

55. really. since when is the President of the US "instructed"

about what to do or not to do in a crisis situation?? can you imagine Clinton being so lame as to have to have "instruction" from handlers?
this supposed sign is supposed to be a good thing? if it really did exist it is just further proof of how absolutely INCOMPETENT and clueless our "leader" really is.
morons!

[Nikepallas]

3. You are a brave person to sit thru it I would be

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: and beggin for mercy or a :hangover:

[JanMichael]

24. Delete because I'm drunk and misread the movie name.

My bad...

[Dez]

4. I haven't seen it, but

I bet it's all lies.

[fnottr]

7. it's not even lies, since they don't even bring up any actual real points

just....'watch out for the terrorists, terrorists are going to get you'

[Dez]

8. The way they manipulate people, makes people seem so stupid!

I don't really understand how these RW's can be soooo stupid. In other areas of their lives, I think they show some intelligence, but when it comes to politics, they have no intelligence at all.. they want to hear someone tell them what to think, who to fear, and fear is what drives Bush! His ability to manipulate millions to have so much fear, really incredible!

[BamaLefty]

10. Justifying him staying in the classroom eh?

WTF does that matter? A point please? I mean... they do have a point right?

Oh yeah, they are righties. :eyes:

Keep us informed.

[BigAlex]

18. Aren't simple disagreements possible?

Dez -

when it comes to politics, they have no intelligence at all

I understand your point, but isn't it possible to not agree on political views, and simply chalk those disagreements up to a basic difference of opinion, instead of "stupidity"?

For example, many people have a preference for either Coke or Pepsi, and both types think their cola is the best. Is it reasonable to say that a Coke supporter should claim that all Pepsi drinkers are stupid? Different people have different tastes -- intelligence really isn't part of it, in my humble opinion.

His ability to manipulate millions to have so much fear, really incredible!

As far as Bush manipulating millions of people -- I simply don't see how that is the case. Bush does what _he_ wants to do, without needing millions of people to approve. The millions that do follow along with Bush's thinking probably fall into one of the following categories:

• They genuinely believe Bush is right
  
• They want to support the President, even if they don't agree 100%
  
• They don't want to be left behind, so they just follow the crowd
  

I would venture to say that the only truly stupid ones would be in the last category...

[mhr]

41. NO - Not When One Side Controls The Megaphone, i.e. The Media

eom

[BigAlex]

65. But the media is liberal...

mhr -

The majority of the media is liberal -- they're simply not controlled by the right-wingers. As a matter of fact, the media is the only thing keeping tabs on Bush, forcing him to at least pretend to have a "middle of the road" strategy, instead of just dictating policy.

The media constantly give more attention (and good press) to liberal causes, liberal candiates and liberal positions than conservative ones, so I really don't understand your argument.

If the media were controlled by the right wingers, we never would have seen the photos of the Abu Ghraib prision scandal, just to mention _one_ of the many things that a Bush-controlled media would have gleefully supressed...

[Debs]

68. The Media is NOT liberal

It is however more complicated than that simple statement. The media has two agendas, first to serve power that is a conservative agenda, only in economic, and therefore foreign policy arenas. In social arenas they are somewhat liberal because so are the ruling elite. I mean a rich CEO want his daughter to have an abortion if she wants one. Since they control what is said in the important areas they approve of free speech, they wouldnt want their children censored or their agenda censored by government. The second agenda is to be seen as doing their job as a watchdog of the government. If they were to lose that illusion, they would cease to effectively serve power. This dynamic is complicated because the media like everything else is made up of individuals and many of them have ethics. There is simply NO POSSIBLE way to burry the Abu Grhaib photos and maintain any semblence of integrity. Even so we have only seen the tame photos. According to Senator Lindsey Graham, who has seen all of them some of the ones we havent seen show RAPE AND MURDER. Think about Clinton lying about his private sexual practices. And the Media pilloried him for years and played this to the hilt, yet Bush has LIED about Iraq, our involvement was spurred by lies and yet the media will not call him a liar much less play up the story one tenth as much as they played up Clintons lie which cost no one their life. What skewers the table toward conservatism among the media is that left wing journalists consider themselves journalists first, and conservatives never lose site of the agenda, this is a paraphrase of what Tucker Calrson said and he is a conservative journalist.

[CatWoman]

96. courtesy of Bartcop -- read and learn. Then think about it.

The Myth of the "liberal" media

Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.

What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?

I'll tell you what would happen:

The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.

Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Still with me? We're close to the end...

BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.

John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?

Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.

Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.

OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."

Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.

My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"

When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?

Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.

There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.

I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

101. Eva Von Zahn-I love it!

Great post Catwoman!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

70. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was quickly squelched

I saw Seymour Hersch, the independent journalist who broke the story, speak at Faneuil Hall in Boton a few weeks back. He said that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg of prison abuse that goes on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantamo.

It's laughable that you would even imply that the media is liberal.

the 'liberal' media doesn't show body bags coming home from Iraq.

the 'liberal' media lies about the atrocious state of the economy

the 'liberal' media doesn't do investigative journalism anymore, unless it involves tabloid murders or sexual wrongdoingd by Democrats.

the 'liberal' media gives Bush a free pass.

I suggest you read Joe Conason's book "Big Lies" and David Brock's books "Blinded by the Right" and "The Republican Noise Machine".

[BigAlex]

73. Quickly squelched? Nope -- went on for months

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was in the front pages of the news for a couple of MONTHS! I don't see how that can be considered "quickly squelched", by any stretch of the imagination...

I remember seeing all sorts of machinations by the Bush people to stop this story, and yet it kept running and running and running. Explainations came out of the White House, military people tried to explain it away, and yet the press wouldn't let go and kept reporting, and reporting and reporting -- and showing more and more photos...

The liberal press (it's laughable that you would believe it isn't) did its best to hold Bush accountable. I don't think the press succeeded, but at least it tried...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

76. No way. the press tried to blame it on peons-not RUMSFELD

Have you read Seymour Hersch's "Chain of Command"? He was the journalist who broke the story.

A bunch of low-level peons were sent to prison, and Rumsfeld and the Bush admin were absolved.

How about 9-11? Do you think the press did an adequate job there? They LAMBASTED Richard Clarke and critics of the administration.

You must watch the news through Rush-colored glasses. Or you must get second-hand reports from Fox News. :eyes:

[BigAlex]

77. Insults already?

Kathy -

You must watch the news through Rush-colored glasses

Starting with the insults already?

I think the media is largely ineffective; this doesn't make them conservative.

The media is liberal, and a bunch of ineffective liberals at that... I think that if they were better at their jobs, or had any backbone whatsoever, more people would have been held accountable...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

80. "The media is liberal"

point to me specific examples of a liberal bias.

I can point to thousands of examples of a conservative bias. Do I really need to educate you? it appears that you were asleep during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, during the blackout of the anti-war protests worldwide that were barely covered by our media, and during many other events where the media outlets-which by the way are owned by FIVE LARGE COMPANIES WHO ALL GIVE LOTS OF MONEY TO REPUBLICANS-sensored the news in Bush's favor.

Why aren't we hearing about our own election mess here? Instead we're focusing on the Ukraine.

I would welcome you to DU, but your intent here is obvious.

[BigAlex]

85. Please, educate me...

Kathy -

Please, I would like to be educated as to the conservative bias of the media. As I've stated earlier, I think you are mistaking incompetence in the media for conservative reporting...

The news media are owned by 6 large companies, not 5:

Vivendi
News Corp
AOL Time Warner
Viacom
Disney
Bertlesmann

Of those, only News Corp (owner of Fox) is blatantly conservative in its reporting and news channel reporting.

By the way, I would like to know what my "intent" is -- since you seem to know better than I do. I thought I was coming here for some open discussion. Since that's not the case, please tell me why I'm really here... Thanks.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

87. Mediamatters.org,

http://www.robertmcchesney.com/ are sites where you can find some information. As I mentioned above, David Brock, Joe Conason and Al Franken have written bookd on conservative media bias. Have you read any of their books or checked out these websites? Didn't think so.

If you think the media is liberal, I don't have the time or inclination to argue with someone who is obviously here to start trouble. Did you read the forum rules before posting? This site is for Democrats and other progressives. Just an FYI.

[BigAlex]

90. I've read Al Franken

Two of his books, actually - the one about Rush Limbaugh being a big fat idiot (which I thought was actually a pretty funny book), and the one about the Lies and Lying Liars..

I haven't read anything from the other two authors you mentioned.

I have no intention, desire or aspiration to start any trouble... However, I am not a democrat. I am registered as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter, and I do consider myself a progressive.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

102. Well *I* know why you are here

it seems to be to convince us the myth of the liberal media is actually true.

Enjoy your stay! :hi:

By the way, people, it's a little button, to the bottom left of every post.

[BigAlex]

103. Nope - that's not it...

I just wanted to engage in some reasonable discussion.... If I wanted to convince you of anything, it would be that the media is incompetent and isn't fulfilling its role of the 4th estate -- keeping tabs on government and big business...

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

106. Well that I agree with

but the media is liberal?

Come on, even my repuke friends admit it's not. When they are being honest, which admittedly isn't too often. But I've had them say it to my face: it's NOT liberal.

[BigAlex]

108. Well then, they _should_ be

Ok, fine -- even if the media isn't liberal now, they _should_ be....

But first, they need to grow a backbone and start doing their jobs...

[sonicx]

82. please go to...

mediamatters.org. It covers everyone...NYT, WP, MSNBC, CNN, etc.
The media is not liberal.

put the Kool-Aid down...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

84. Seeing life through Rush-colored glasses or drinking Kool-Aid

it's all the same...

;-)

[sonicx]

89. Kool-Aid tastes sweeter...

:beer:

[Debs]

78. The Press is NOT liberal

The idea is ludicrous, they are big bussiness for goodness sakes. Try What liberal media by Eric Alterman or the books suggested earlier. That is simply a right wing canard that you have to be dense to believe. Where is there someone on the left like Rush? Hannity? Scarbourough? Olberman is closest and he is stridently non partisan. When you see a panel they put a Coulter on with a middle of the road democrat ready and willing to bash the left to counter a coulter you would need Noam Chomsky. I tell you what if you really want to understand the media the book is Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky

[Kathy in Cambridge]

81. Thank you.

one would have to have their heads up their arses to think that the media is liberal.

The Fairness Doctrine died under Reagan in 1987, and from that point on the right wing began to gobble up TV and radio stations. The consolidation has lead to the erosion of the Fourth Estate in this country.

Anyone that thinks the media is liberal, well, see my response above.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

100. MONTHS?

They have a name for people suffering from your condition:

Delusionoid.

[Redleg]

111. Excellent rebuttal.

Good job.

[GingerSnaps]

91. Rush Talking Points?

The media is Liberal my GD ass it's Liberal!

[Califooyah Operative]

95. Look in a political science book, they usually admit that even though

conservatives say there is a liberal bias, and there's surveys or study's, that show more journalists are liberals or democrats, they point out to to counter it that gate keepers, Company owners, and big shots within the news and business arena's are republicans.

[DS1]

98. The "media" has yet to ask Bush a tough question

The "media" has yet to ever follow up on a softball question.

The "media" has always sucked it up and liked it when Bush said "No more questions". But then, you see that as power. You love power.

[Redleg]

105. Bull.

Just because the media showed pictures of Abu Ghraib doesn't make it liberal.

[miss_kitty]

118. "But the media is liberal..."

Buwahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLMAO best laugh I've had in ages, sonny.

here. grab you a edjykashun:

http://www.fair.org/

http://mediamatters.org/

Buwahahaha!
:7

[BigAlex]

120. Thanks for making me feel welcome

It's nice to have my viewpoint respected, and to engage in reasonable debate, so that critical thinking can pursuade and carry the day...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

122. None of your posts show critical thinking

they show just how easily you're swayed by RW talking points.

Liberal media! :boring:

[BigAlex]

126. Well, I guess I need to work on it, then...

Kathy -

I make up my own mind, based on what I see in the media (from various points of view). I try to look at all sides of the issues and see where people are trying to be honest, and where they're trying to spin a certain viewpoint...

One of the more interesting news sources that I read is Pravda (yes, the Russian "truth" newspaper). They've had an english edition online for quite some time now, and they offer some very good counterpoints to convervative newsmakers, like Fox and O'Reilly.

Just because I don't agree with you 100% doesn't mean I'm swayed by someone else -- it just means we don't agree...

[miss_kitty]

129. sorry i was rude

but really liberal media is a neocon/rightwing meme that lets the right get away with their screaming ranting and raving. This "I don't understand" stuff is weird and indicative of another type of visitor to this site.
You bring up critical thinking. A critical thinker would see that the media, the mainstream media are not left or centrist entities, but readers of governmental press releases. Read at the links I provided. The media 'being liberal' and "should be" liberal are two different things. Completely different

[Kathy in Cambridge]

133. You said it better than me-it's the typical RW meme

I didn't mean to jump all over our visitor, but the 'liberal media' meme sets me off too. Catwoman's thread explains it perfectly above. We have Air America and Olbermann on our side, they have everyone else.

[miss_kitty]

136. ahhh! It's the oldest meme

they broke down the media first. That was done in order to control the education of the masses. Can't have a pesky little thing like the truth messing up a crypto-fascist scheme...

[high density]

144. If the media was liberal, Bush would not have been "re-"elected

It just wouldn't have happened. The liberal media would have been hammering the facts about Iraq and the economy instead of talking about Heinz Kerry saying "shove it" or Kerry mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter. They would have dispelled the Iraq-9/11 linkage myth by now. People would know that Iraq doesn't have WMDs. If they were liberal, they wouldn't have taken Bush lies and broadcast them without some sort of fact check. Most of the "fact checking" they did during the campaign was to air a Bush clip followed by a Kerry clip and then they expected people to be able to digest the truth out of five second comments by partisans.

Of the words I would use to describe the media, liberal is not one of them.

[newyawker99]

52. Hi BigAlex!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BigAlex]

66. I like NYC

newyawker99 -

Thanks for the welcome! While I'm not from New York, I did live many years in the city -- I had a very, very small apartment, just off of 27th and Lex. It's a great place, and I really enjoyed the diversity of people and cultures there, but in the end, the cost of living was just too high and I ended up moving away...

[TahitiNut]

64. Assault is not a 'simple disagreement'

Let's look at today's ideological divide using a two-person model. Chris is a typical Busholini neoconservative (i.e. crypto-fascist) and Pat is a typical middle-of-the-road liberal (i.e. an Eisenhower Republican who now votes Democratic).

Chris says "You are not allowed to have an abortion." Pat says "It should be my choice, not yours!" Please note that Chris has no direct interest, no personal cost, no personal liberty at risk, and absolutely no tangible impact ... but engages in an assault on the choices Pat can make. This is very much akin to a Hindu vegetarian going into their neighbor's home with a gun and telling them not to eat meat. Nobody is threatening Chris's religious and civil liberties, just like nobody is trying to force the Hindu to eat meat. It's a one-way assault, not a 'simple disagreement.'

Chris owns the business that employs Pat. Chris profits from Pat's labor and takes it in dividends which are taxed at a 17% rate. Pat receives an income equal in value to Chris's dividends and pays income tax at a rate of 35%. Same income, double the tax rate. But Chris doesn't work ... preferring instead to stay home by the swimming pool. Then Chris says "I want more income, so I'm lowering your salary, Pat." Pat has a choice: be unemployed or work for less. Chris does no work and pays less tax. It's a one-way assault, not a 'simple disagreement.'

Virtually every "issue" raised by the crypto-fascist right is an assault on the economic and civil liberties of the non-privileged - the least wealthy and the least powerful. There is no risk whatsoever to them, even if they don't succeed in battering those they're assaulting. It's like bombing innocent civilians from 30,000 feet - an assymetrical waging of war. It's not a 'simple disagreement' any more than the people being bombed merely 'disagree' with the crew of the bomber.

[BigAlex]

67. clarification, please...

TahitiNut -

Could you please clarify what a "crypto-fascist" is? I'm not familiar with that term...

Chris owns the business that employs Pat. Chris profits from Pat's labor and takes it in dividends which are taxed at a 17% rate.

Actually, this isn't possible. If Chris owns a business, the only way he could receive "dividends" from the business would be if the business were a regular corporation that paid a lot of money in income tax -- and then Chris would pay tax a second time (double taxation) on the dividends. In this scenario, Chris's income from the business would most definitely be taxed at a higher rate than Pat's labor.

The most likely situation is that Chris would own the business as an S Corporation, and receive his profits as regular income (just like Pat), or as corporate distributions -- which would be fully taxable as regular income (just like Pat's), with the only exception that the distributions wouldn't be subject to Social-Security taxes...

So, the "same income, double the tax rate" scenario you've outlined just doesn't square with reality.

By the way, if Pat is receiving income enough to warrant a 35% income tax rate, he's making an awful lot of money. With the standard deductions available to most taxpayers (and especially homeowners), you would have to be making well over $100,000 a year (and closer to $200,000) to be paying out that much in taxes.

Granted, our present tax system is very unfair, and grants loopholes to people who probably don't deserve them, but it isn't as skewed as you've presented it.

Finally, I would just like to say, as someone who has managed a small business, the business owners just do NOT decide to arbitrarily reduce someone's salary just so they can have a few extra dollars in their pocket -- that would be absolutely stupid and suicidal. Every successful businessman knows that the key to success is to have good people working for him. If you're making a lot of money as a busines owner, would it really change your standard of living to make an extra $10,000 per year? I seriously doubt it.

But, if you cut your key employee's salary by $10,000, you can be guaranteed that you WILL lose that employee when a better offer comes around. It may not be for a few weeks or a few months, or even a couple of years, but you will lose that person -- and the loss of a key person to a small business is catastrophic. I've seen businesses lose 1/3 of their customers after a key employee leaves, and I've seen others shut down completely...

The scenario you've outlined with the greedy boss just doesn't happen...

[Debs]

69. Overall I agree

Message:
I would dispute one thing, you said the corporation paid taxes and therefore when Chris recieves his dividend and pays a tax its double taxation. No its not. The corporation paid taxes on its income paid out dividends then when Chris recieved his cut it became Chis income and he pays HIS tax on HIS income. If this were true then when I pay my gardner or mechanic on income I already paid taxes on THAT would also be double taxation, in truth money is taxed many times. And each time a person gets some money it becomes HIS income to be taxed dont let the right insinuate their dishonest manipulation of language into even progressive discussions

[BigAlex]

72. double taxation exists

Debs -

Here's a simple example: let's assume we have a corporation that has $1,000,000 in profits, and see how it works out for a C corporation vs. an S Corporation.

C Corporation: will pay about $300,000 in taxes on the income, leaving $700,000 left over, which it then distributes to its shareholders. The shareholders then pay another $150,000 on the dividend income.

Total tax paid: $450,000

S Corporation: the owner takes half as salary, half as distribution, and will pay approximately $350,000 in taxes.

Difference: the income that flows through the dividend route will pay $100,000 more in tax than the income route.

The "double-taxation" that I'm referring to is when a single person (or small group of people) own a business. First they're taxed on the corporate income, and then taxed again on the dividends, effectively paying taxes twice on the same amount of income...

The reason that all business aren't S corporations (which have lower taxes) is that there are different rules for C and S corporations, regarding deductions and a few other things -- and sometimes, those "other things" make it necessary for people to bite the bullet and use a C corporation, even if it means paying more in taxes.

[Poor Richard Lex]

83. BS

C corps are formed so that the company can trade publicly, which you cannot with an LLC, and S-corps allow only a few shareholders.

My state taxes corporate income at 3% so Id love to see where you get that 40% figure from.

Also you forget that the money is taxed AFTER the "business expenses" are deducted. If you want to see a RW suddenly become very "liberal" in his thinking, watch him deducting business expenses.

Double taxation of corps is a canard.

[BigAlex]

86. Not BS - the Federal tax rate is high

The Federal tax rate for corporations is quite high -- that's where I was getting my numbers.

The amount of tax charged by most states is very small, in comparison to what the Feds take.

As far as paying taxes after "business expenses" are deducted -- how is that any different from paying personal income taxes after "living expenses" are deducted? (Or don't you write off your property taxes, interest paid on your mortgage, charitable deductions, or take your child tax credits???)

[Redleg]

114. Yeah- it's quite high- just like you must be to write this bull.

Gimme a break. Large corporations often don't pay squat in taxes- they even get money back sometimes. You're breaking my friggin' heart Big Alex.

[BigAlex]

116. You're confusing the issue

Redleg -

You're confusing the issue here: the corporate tax rate is rather high, in terms of percentages... However, this only applies to net income.

The fact that corporations are able to lower their net income, sometimes to the point that they don't owe any tax at all, is due to the large amount of loopholes in our current, unfair and extremely messy tax code.

Both democrats and republicans have written in loopholes for their favorite corporate clients -- this isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue.

It's a fairness issue, and it can only be dealt with by removing all of the loopholes in our system, and moving to a simpler, more straightforward type of taxation system.

[Redleg]

145. It doesn't make sense to separately discuss tax rates and tax loopholes.

EOM

[Redleg]

147. I see you got your ass tombstoned. Too bad.

Assface.

[TahitiNut]

94. Interesting choice of words.

"... they're taxed on the corporate income ... "

No. The corporation is taxed on its taxable income, "they" aren't!


"They" often get other (non-taxed but not non-taxable) 'compensation' ... like the use of season tickets to professional sports, the (unaccounted) personal use of a corporate car, personal use of a corporate cell-phone, company-purchased home computers, and other goodies that're "expensed" to the corporation (reducing corporate taxable income) and not reported as salary or benefits to them.

I have known and know people who do this. It's a "wink and a nod" thing -- common enough that they casually exchange ideas over lunch on how to do it in other ways.

[BigAlex]

97. Why interesting?

TahitiNut -

Which words were the "interesting choice" ???

When I said "they're taxed", (and you corrected with "the corporation is taxed"), I was referring to small business owners who own all of the shares of their corporation -- essentially making the owners and the corporation "one" entity, even though they're split out for tax purposes.

I'm not going to argue that the tax code is fair -- it isn't (and I know more about the tax code than most people here, it's my business to know), and I know that lots of people write off shady deductions like sports tickets and such... This still doesn't change the fundamental problems of multiple taxation.

As long as businesses are allowed to deduct expenses, you will _always_ have people writing off things they shouldn't. It's simply unavoidable unless you can afford to hire 20 million IRS auditors to examine every single deduction taken by every single company in the country...

The decision is really quite simple: either corporations pay tax, or they don't. If you decide to tax them, you really don't have many choices:

- tax them on gross sales (not really a good idea)
- tax them on net income (and suffer with fake expenses)
- tax them on a percentage of salaries paid (similar to social security)
- create a value-added tax (VAT) on the products that they produce

All of these options have good and bad points, and all are subject to abuse...

[TahitiNut]

135. I'll update these after this week's NIPA release from the BEA.

These include 2Q2004 figures, as revised.

[BigAlex]

113. So what is a "crypto-fascist" ??

TahitiNut -

I honestly do not understand that term. Thanks.

[miss_kitty]

124. Crypto-fascist-I used a search engine called 'Yahoo'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism

"...the term "crypto-fascist" (is used) to describe an individual or organization that holds fascist views and subscribes to fascist doctrine but tries to hide this agenda from those outside of itself..."

[BigAlex]

127. thanks

It just seemed like a strange word... Does anyone really use this word in mainstream publications?

[miss_kitty]

132. No but then mainstream publications are owned and run by

crypto-fascists, who, by their very definition don't want the mainstream public to know what they are up to.
Are you using mainstream publications as your standard for vocabulary?

I first heard it in 'Red Dwarf'

[TahitiNut]

138. Yup. Wikipedia is an excellent resource.

[Redleg]

107. Damn right it does- every time I pay sales tax on a purchase I make

with earnings from work which have already been taxed (by the Feds and by the state).

[BigAlex]

112. Even worse...

If you happen to buy a car with your taxed money, then you get the privilege of paying even more taxes when you buy gas, and then even more on a YEARLY BASIS in the way of property tax on that car -- that's the one that really gets me, paying taxes on stuff I already own...

[logosoco]

9. you're brave

I agree with the "go see what the other side is saying" philosophy, but it is very hard to stomach some of that stuff.
Thank you and keep us posted!

[fnottr]

12. yeah it's hard to not throw things at the screen

they spend a lot of time attacking some of the more tin foil hat stuff he implies, but not the really POINT of Fahrenheit

[newyawker99]

53. Hi logosoco!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[StClone]

11. Coincidentally "Bowling for Columbine" is on

DishTV ch.330.

[Dez]

13. I LOVE bowling for Colombine!

Especially when MM goes to Canada!

[IndyOp]

16. Me, too - I love the part when MM goes to Canada

I love the part where he just walks into people's houses to demonstrate that they don't lock their doors. When he walks in on a guy in the foyer of his house the guy looks surprised, but then just talks to him in a really relaxed way. I was particularly amazed when MM interviewed the woman who said that her house had been broken into while she was home but that she still did not lock her doors because she just did not want to live in fear. There is lots of other good stuff too.

By the way, do you know what Canada's National Debt is? This is kind of a trick question... They don't have a national debt - none. They provide health care for everyone, support for people in poverty, good education and they have had a surplus for the past 2-3 years.

:wow:

[Astrad]

22. Rose coloured glasses

Not to quibble. But as a Canadian I wanted to point that Canada's national debt is around 500 billion. Population wise the U.S. is roughly ten times as large so on a per capita basis our debt isn't that much lower than yours (7 trillion I think). On the bright side we don't have a budget deficit and like you said we do have public health insurance.

[IndyOp]

50. Thanks for the clarification --

Thanks for the clarification about debt vs. budget deficit, I try to be accurate.

Hey - where in Canada do you live? Do you have any contacts who are professors or lecturers at a college? Do you know anything about getting provincial sponsorship for emigrating to Canada? What is the current attitude of Canadians toward people from the states who emigrate?

You can probably tell from my questions that I am seriously considering immigrating. I took the 'skilled worker' test and scored a 72 (67 is a pass). If I could find a job before I apply, then I would have an 82 on the test. If I can get provincial sponsorship then the expected time from application to landing is reduced from about 28 months to about 6 months.

I am feeling like a traitor to my people even considering leaving the country at this point, but I am the low person on the totem poll in my department at work and if I loose my job here (if the economy collapses here, as expected) I will have to move to get another job. I don't have family in the states so I am free to go wherever I can find work.

[newyawker99]

54. Hi Astrad!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[fnottr]

15. BEST QUOTE YET!

"I think the image and the thesis that underpin the film, that President Bush was only too happy to provoke a war with Iraq and wanted more than anythign in the world to go to war, and seised upon the pretext of 9-11 to have the war he wanted to have is simply a fabrication."

uhhh.....
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

anyone?

[tuvor]

17. Gotta disagree with everyone suggesting it's not worth their time to watch

Otherwise, we can't bitch when a neocon says that F9/11 is garbage.

And as we know, every last bushkisser who disses F9/11 has not seen it. At least every last one I've come up against.

Let them play the hypocrisy game. I for one don't care to see it here.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the DVD in small town, Canada. If I see it, though, I'll be sure to rent it.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

[fnottr]

19. To Ann Coultier

"No liberal will mention the Kurds" she says

Watch me,

Yeah Saddam was terrible to the Kurds, he killed hundreds of thousands of them, he was a horrible horrible man. However, we've killed over hundred thousand INNOCENT Iraqis ourselves at this point, with no end in sight. I though we were supposed to be better than that?

[sonicx]

21. Did Ann the Mann mention Raygun arming Saddam?

[fnottr]

23. Of course not

Maybe that's something that SHE would never bring up

[Arkana]

34. Mann said that?

Here I go!

Yeah, Saddam gassed the Kurds--with weapons we gave him. So you see, it actually kinda hurts your side. Plus, I figure we've balanced it with all those civilians we've brutally murdered in the name of "democracy."

[Debs]

71. Where was Coulter

When I was talking about the Kurds in the early nineties? When Turkey was killing and uprooting them by the thousands? Conservatives will only talk about attrocities when committed by official enemies. Where was Coulter when I was inscensed by Saddam gassing the Kurds? We didnt care beans, we sold him more precursers to make more chemical and biological weapons and a one billion dollar loan AFTER Halabja, where were the conservatives then? It served no propaganda purposes so they didnt care the slightest bit. Coulter is a hypocrite

[rainbow4321]

25. Video store mixing the two movies together??

I saw the below post elsewhere..wouldn't have thought much of it except when I was in Blockbuster last night, a lady in front of me was trying to rent Fahrenheit 9/11 when she she noticed as the clerk was scanning it that it was the "hype" version. She said it had been stacked in with Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD rentals. She went and got the REAL one that she wanted. I commented to her that Fahrenheit 9/11 was really good..the clerk then glared at me and said "I thought that they were BOTH GOOD". Ok, whatever. Anyway, after that incident, the below post it kinda makes you go "hmmmm" if only for a a nanosecond.

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1529

The other day my daughter surprised me by renting the acclaimed Michael Moore documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. She knew that I was very anxious to see it, so she went to one of the local video rental stores and rented three movies of which Fahrenheit 9/11 was supposed to be one of. Her intention was that we could watch it as a family.

Well, you can imagine how upset I was to find out that the people in the video store in Concord, New Hampshire had rented out something other than Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. They deceived her by renting out an movie entitled Fahrenhype 9/11, which is deceptively packaged to look exactly like the MooreÂ’s Fahrenheit 9/11.

Notice the deceitful tactics that the Zionists are using in order to prevent the American people from getting educated about the realities of the events of 9/11. Besides using Moore's photo on this DVD, they changed the spelling of Fahrenheit ever so slightly, just as the Mafia used to do years ago when they sold their phony watches and perfume. There obvious isn't much difference between the two!

[fnottr]

26. that's just too funny

considering they spend so much of the movie trying to denouce Fahrenheit 9/11 as propaganda.....sound's like they're the propagandist's to me

[Dez]

28. Who put out this Fahrenhype film?

I think I might be interested in renting it. I also believe it's good to know who your enemies are, know about them. I try to figure out how their minds work, but I can't .. it's just too distorted, and I'm not a Christian.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

35. What does being a Christian have to do with anything........

with regard to understanding this film?

Unless of course you're going the 'lowest common denominator' route in which one lumps everyone on the right (or who simply think Michael Moore is the Left's best propagandist) together.

[Flammable Materials]

43. Dick Morris. n/t

[ilovenicepeople]

47. When you say Christian ,you mean

the Satan worshiping Fake Christian and not the real christian right?

[fnottr]

27. Alright, so the pain is over now

Basically, here's what I got from the movie.

A) All they could do is bring out attack a few of the incidental points in Moore's film, and show that not everyone he interviewed in F9/11 totally agrees with him. (But we knew that already)

B) Terrorists are out there.....there going to get you.....be afraid.....Bush will protetct you

C) They kept bringing out the same cast of characters for each part of the movie, notably Zellout Miller, Ann the Man, Ed KKKoch, and some other a few others, where as Moore brought out different people for each part of the movie, the only person he really brought out heavily was the mother at the end.

Basically what I expected, I still want to see Celsius 4/11, but I don't think I could stomach it for awhile:puke:

[Dez]

29. I don't know if I could stomach watching

Coulter, she is really revolting to me.

[Dez]

30. What did they say about the fact

that 9-11 happened on shrub's watch??

[fnottr]

45. basically that it was Clinton's fault

typical

[jonnyblitz]

31. the thing i remember most about that movie

when i watched it ( I downloaded it online, via bit torrent, a few weeks after it was out)was that it seemed it was mostly DICK MORRIS talking through the whole fucking thing. More Dick than the others you mention...I noticed DIck Morris' name in the credits, too. :puke:

[OneMoreDemocrat]

32. Morris more or less 'hosted' it.........

.

[fnottr]

33. yeah there were a few others I didn't mention

mostly b/c I didn't catch their names, he was probably one of them

[jonnyblitz]

36. I have a special seething DISTASTE for him...

that could be why HE sticks out in my memory in regards to that movie more than the others. To think he used to be a Clinton advisor just irritates the crap outta me.

[finecraft]

37. My local radio station did a review of this movie

The only thing they said the movie proved? bush was not holding the goat book upside down as he read along with the kids in the classroom. :)

[OneMoreDemocrat]

38. I thought it was interesting...........

There were things in F9/11 that were misleading, and Fhype9/11 pointed them out.

This of course is not to say that the overall point that Moore was making wasn't a good and just one, but that he did take a few liberties while presenting his case. My only problem with him is that he does some underhanded things in his films when he really doesn't have to....he seems to misrepresent things to highlight an idea, when he could do it in another way which would end up saying the same thing and would be unimpeachable.

[fnottr]

39. I do wish Moore would tone down some of his Hyperbole at times

It gives people like these shit to point out. I think he does it because it gives his works the visceral impact that say, the Kerry campaign, lacked (not a slam on Kerry, he would have been eaten alive if he used Moore's tactics). Moore's ascertains are still correct, and rarely does he exaggerate anything crucial to his point, but it's still kind of a sad reflection of society that Moore must sensationalize certain things to get people to pay attention to the truth.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

40. No Doubt............

I love Moore and I think that he is one of the most important voices in the vast American media landscape, it's just that he has this way of going too far in trying to get his message across and as such opens himself up to having people come along and find those one or two instances where he stretches the truth a bit and then people point to that and say "see he has no credibility' and tune him out rather than seeing the overall message in what he is presenting.

[fnottr]

44. exactly

there was one point in fahrenhype where they show how Moore enlarged a headline that said Gore would have won the recound for a really quick shot of it, and I was just thinking, 'Damnit Michael, you didn't have to do that and give them a free shot'

[Sterling]

57. What did he sensationalize. In fact he omitted key parts of the story.

Like PNAC and Peak oil. These are totally relevant to 9-11, why do you think he did not address them? Yet you think he blew things out of proportion?

It seems obvious he went out of his way to tone it down for people who can't handle the truth. That is pretty much what all the complaints about the film amount to, people who don't like to face hard facts.

[Sterling]

56. Be specific or your just a puke in sheep's clothing.

What specifically do you take issue with in this movie. Many a fresh has joined up here bumped up a hundred or so posts and trashed MM.

None of them however have every won an argument here and none can produce any REAL examples of Moore misleading people in the movie. Go ahead and try.

All the points that have been posted from Fhype 9-11 have been discredited. Most are obvious obfuscation anyway.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

58. Put your accusations back in your suitcase............

they are not needed, and indeed getting tiresome.

The kid that had his arms blown off was quite upset that Moore used his story because his personal feelings (even being armless as a direct result of the war) were diametrically opposed to Moore's thesis that the war was elective and unjust....he was proud to do what he did and looked as his loss as a sacrifice for his country.

The trooper in Oregon who was supposedly the 'only' one patrolling the entire coast never met Moore and was a little peeved that Moore used his story to distort things, in fact he had no idea that he was going to be in a Michal Moore film until it was released....State Troopers are not there to guard the Coast, that's the Coast Guard's job and the Coast Guard does indeed do it's job. Moore made it seem like because of Bush's budget cuts the coasts were unguarded.

The Al Smith dinner from which Moore took a segment of Bush's speech ("The haves and havenots" part) out of context to make it seem like it was a Bush fundraiser, when in reality it's a tradition in Washington during which the candidates get up in front of the crowd and make fun of themselves.....Gore was in attendance and made the same sort of speech.

Again, I have a problem with this sort of thing because it allows people to point to them and say "look he's taking things out of context to make a point, which is dishonest, therefore I must now tune him out", rather than to listen to the overall message which is important for them to hear. There are so many other ways to point out the Bush administrations incompetence that are rock solid that I just wish Moore wouldn't settle for things which can easily have their creditability impeached.

That's all.

[Debs]

75. I take exception to these attacks on the film

First whatever the kid thought about the war,(and I am sure the political dynamics of this war are clear to a what 10 year old?) are irrelevant to the point, which is the kid had his arms blown off was NOT a terrorist and lost his whole family who also were not terrorists. I dont even see what the kid thought of the war has to do with anything

Second, was he the only patrolman or wasnt he? Isnt he a first responder? Didnt there used to be more than one? Again his personal political positions vis a vis Bush are irrelevant to the point. I didnt get from the movie that he was supposed to be guarding the coast but that he was a patrolman, a first responder, and he is overstretched.

Third the point of what Bush said had nothing to do with whether or not it was a fundraiser, but that they are the elite and he called them his base. That was the point was it wrong? Was what he said taken out of context to the point that it totally reversed this position? Of course not they ARE Bushs base, we know that, leave the nitpicking to the right. Stop the internecine warfare. In each of these cases Moore made a point and it was correct

[tabasco]

88. I agree. That was a pretty weak critique.

The point of the movie is not the personal opinions of those appearing in it, as "OneMoreDemocrat" seems to think.

I agree with your rebuttal.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

92. It wasn't meant to be a critique "tabasco".............

I was asked to explain why I feel the way I do about Michal Moore and F9/11.

Not once did I ever say that he made things up or that there are malicious lies interwoven in the narrative. Rather, I simply pointed out that there were things that Moore presents as facts (which aren't) in order to leave the viewer with a certain impression, and all too often he misleads in trying to prove his point. I wish he wouldn't do it because (for the fourteenth or so time) he makes it easy for people to dismiss the entire thesis out of hand once one small instances can be discredited.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

99. Since it seems doubtful that you saw FHype9/11.........

responding to you may be a little difficult, but I'll give it a try.

First point: The 'kid' in question wasn't an Iraqi, he was a Marine who lost his arms in Iraq while on the battlefield. Upon his return to the states he was interviewed by Brian Williams for an NBC piece on the war wounded. Michael Moore got a hold of this footage and put it (unknown to the Marine of course) in F9/11 to show use an example of how horrible this war is. The Marine, once he found out his image and story were used in this manner objected to said use because a) Moore never asked him, and b) He didn't feel about the war the way the footage would make one think he felt. He didn't think his sacrifice was in vain, he believed that he was doing the right thing and that losing his arms to defend America was for the highest good. If you want to argue with his beliefs, then go ahead; don't argue with me.

Secondly: Whether or not he is the only patrolman on duty, guarding the highways along the coast of Oregon is kind of irrelevant. You saw F9/11, and you know the message Moore was trying to portray which was clearly that this guy is all by himself trying to keep the West Coast free from a seaside attack from terrorists. This is of course bullshit. Further, this guy never even met Michal Moore and as such was more or less surprised and not a little bit pissed that he was used (misleadingly) to make it seem that the coasts are insecure.

And finally, Third: You and I both know that Bush considers the elite his base. There are a lot of ways to illustrate that rather than to cherry-pick an already out of context speech given by Bush. When Moore uses this technique he makes it really easy for the right to point to little inconsistencies here and there and convince people that he is lying across the board....people then call Moore a liar or a propagandist and disregard the entire film; I simply think this is a shame because people need to 'get' the point of his films.

[ConsAreLiars]

104. Got a link? ??? NO? Here's one about how Ali Abbas felt

From http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_828377.html
------------------------
Ali said he still had vivid memories of the night of the strike that killed his parents and 13 other relatives. He said: "I keep asking myself: 'Why are they bombing Iraqi people? What have we done to them?. I hoped that the pilot who hit our house would be burned as I am burned and my family were burned."

The youngster said he had mixed feelings about the British following his ordeal. "When I was in the hospital they sent me letters, but they still helped the Americans," he told ITV1's Ali Abbas - Child of Hope, A Tonight Special to be screened this evening.
------------------------

Calling on that poor child to justify your criticism of Moore is both dishonest and base.

Defending Chimpy's reference to "his base" because it it was said in that particular context in no way detracts from the core truth underlying that "joke." You think Kucinich or Clark or Dean or Kerry could have ever said such a thing and thought it clever?

You denounce Moore and defend Bush. I'm sure your mentors are proud.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

109. Either get your head out of your ass long enough to read..........

what I write or simply put me on ignore.

The 'Kid' who lost his arms in Iraq and who was intervied in FHype9/11 was NOT an Iraqi, he was an AMERICAN SOLDIER....I was in no way referring to this Ali Abbas person who you obviously want to pretend that I was.

I didn't denounce Moore, but more than that I would love to for you to find ONE instance where I defended Bush.

Go ahead, give it a try.

[ConsAreLiars]

121. You "excused" Chimpy's little joke about his base

by arguing context. You condemned Moore for using that clip. You agreed with the producers of that Con flick that it did not reflect Chimpy's true beliefs accurately. You are wrong in defending The Idiot Son of an Asshole on this count.

As for the armless kid -- there are way too many, and I didn't see the Con film you agree with.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

130. Yes I did disagree with Moore's usage of that clip..........

I however never said that it didn't reflect Bush's true feelings, in fact I said that the joke was a truism. I defended no one.

Secondly, you didn't see the 'armless kid' because you didn't see the film about which this thread was created, perhaps you should therefore at least have some idea what others are talking about before throwing around your baseless accusations.

Life would be much simpler.

[underseasurveyor]

110. Oh gee

I wish I could poke fun and laugh at myself and my friends for being one of them haves and have more's. Goddamnit that would just be a rip roarin' kneeeee-slappin' roast by golly, laughing at my friends like that cuz they are stinking filthy rich.

Bush said, it's nice to be here with "the haves and the have more's.....", then continued to go on saying, some people call you the elite but I call you my base. Yeah that's really making fun of them alright. geeeesh.

bush didn't say' the haves and have not's'. :eyes:

[OneMoreDemocrat]

115. It would seem that if he would have said............

"the haves and have nots" then it wouldn't have been a joke.

But since he didn't, it was.

Joke or not, it's not the point. The point is that everyone (at least on the Left and the actual 'have mores' on the Right) clearly know it's a true statement, and there are a million different ways to illustrate it rather than to mislead the viewship into thinking that Bush wasn't poking fun at his image (which he was), but rather saying these words at some Republican fundraiser. Moore made it seem that Bush was showing his 'true-self' to a room full of the wealthy, and in reality that wasn't the case at all.


:eyes: right back at 'cha.

[underseasurveyor]

134. But you wrote

"The Al Smith dinner from which Moore took a segment of Bush's speech ("The haves and havenots" part) out of context to make it seem like it was a Bush fundraiser, when in reality it's a tradition in Washington during which the candidates get up in front of the crowd and make fun of themselves.....Gore was in attendance and made the same sort of speech."

Why did you change it to "havenots" when that is clearly NOT what the giggling murderer said? Careless, careless. tsk tsk. No wonder you're so easily confused.

Plus I don't give a crap if gore was there or what he said. Gore isn't running this country now is he!, AND Gore is also not the one running this country into the fucking ground now is he! Chimpy-Boy is!
So what do I care what gore says. Cheap attempted use of 'trump' on your part. tsk tsk.

And then you say the room WASN'T full of the wealthy and those aren't really bush's true colors? That wasn't the reality at all, you say. Trying to imply that my eyes somehow decieve me. tsk tsk

Thanks for playing. Wow that was one of the quickest. I think that makes you the new red-ass record.

This keeps getting easier and easier all the time.
Is this all these guys got?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

137. You're right, you win.............

I couldn't possibly defend myself now that I've been so utterly, utterly exposed.

Your post (aside from the mangled sentence structure) is amazing.

[liberalequestrian]

46. I was asked if I saw this movie...

no doubt by a pug in a liberal town. Was standing in the checkout line, ohhed over the fact that they carried MM's movie, commented that I had just purchased it. Pug checker asked me if I would be seeing Fahrenhype... Just looked at him and said, "Not in this life".

Good for you tho... I don't think I could stomach it. FAUX is about all I can handle.

[fnottr]

48. I'd encourage everyone here to see it

as a show of personal stregnth if nothing else.

[Dangerman]

49. Look, I love Michael Moore...

I HATE FarenHYPE 9/11! It's 100% pure crap. I would rather have lunch with Osama bin Laden than to watch that RW piece of cowpie!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

51. How do you know, if you haven't seen it?

It seems to me that the whole "I haven't seen it, but I'm sure it's all lies" nonsense is precisely what we thought was so fucked up about the right when they referred to F9/11.

FHype9/11 is actually worth watching, regardless of your suppositions.

[geomon666]

59. Sorry but...

I don't give my money to rightwingers or at least, I don't try to. But you go right ahead, knock yourself out.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

60. I own both films and believe it or not..........

I have yet to lose consciousness.

These films are essentially mirror images of each other, they just present different points of view....nothing to be afraid of.

[Dangerman]

61. Sorry...

But it's a bad choice if anybody bought that crap. (referring to FarenHYPE 9/11)

[OneMoreDemocrat]

62. Thanks...........

Your judgment of my choices is much appreciated.

I'll be sure to run any future purchasing ideas by you prior to seeing them through.

[geomon666]

63. No, I'm not afraid of it...

because I know they'll do and say anything to get their point across. I don't need to see it to know that they are saying Bush did nothing wrong. We all know he did. What I was saying is that I don't give my money to the Right Machine so they can produce and sell more books and movies and ads that will only be used to spread the same lies over and over again.

[sonicx]

79. why would a democrat want to *own* a RW movie?

renting or bootlegging....maybe. But give Republicans $15-20 of my money? :eyes:

I might as well watch FOX News for a day while i'm at it. My mind won't mind the abuse. :crazy:

[OneMoreDemocrat]

93. I can't speak for anyone else............

but my reasoning in owning a "RW movie" is because I am a huge fan and maker of documentary films, as such I watch and/or buy as many as I can get my hands on.

Good enough for you?

[sonicx]

117. not really, no...

I'd rather my money not go to the Crime Machine.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

119. This is precisely why more than just one flavor of ice-cream.........

is made, so that each of us can make our own decisions, you get what you get according to your tastes and I am able to do the same.

If you'd rather not do what I do, then don't.

Just try to keep your judgements to yourself, as I don't find them particularly useful when making up my mind with regard to my actions.

[sonicx]

123. "If you'd rather not do what I do, then don't."

too late.

you can do whatever you like, but that doesn't exempt you from criticism. all tastes are not good tastes.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

125. Certainly not.........

but my tastes are my tastes, and I don't recall asking you for a critique of them.

[sonicx]

128. too bad

but i'm sure the chimp would be proud of ya.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

131. Ooohhhhh, good one..............

So far that's the third baseless accusation that's been hurled at me because I've strayed from the beaten down path that is the party line with regard to Michael Moore.

But at least you're trying.

:hi:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

146. One is an opinion piece (Fahrenhype) the other is based on fact

I guess you have a difficult time discerning between fact and fiction...

[Medium Baby Jesus]

139. I can't believe you are still here

And what else did Rush say about F 911?

:puke:

[OneMoreDemocrat]

140. Oh great, another one...........

I have no idea what Rush said about Fahrenheit 9/11, I was referring to a film called Farenhype 9/11, a film that you probably didn't see; of course that won't stop you from regurgitating what you think you should in order to ingratiate yourself with the DU community.

But I guess I should thank you for your inquiry. :hi:

[Medium Baby Jesus]

141. As a matter of fact I did see it.

I find Dick Morris to be a vile human being. Your RW talking points about MM are absurd. He did not mislead. That is just a conservative interpretation of the movie.

Oh, thanks for the wave. I would send one back but they don't have the smiley I'm looking for.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

142. Knowing that Morris was involved with the film.........

doesn't mean you saw it, and I doubt you did.

Otherwise you (like so many others in this thread) would have at least some basis in reality when you attack my 'RW talking points' as you so colorfully describe what is actually just my opinion....I do however realize that one's own opinion isn't always valued here on DU, especially if it isn't in lock step with the current narrow ideological construct of the moment.

Michael Moore did mislead in parts of his film, and just because you are too afraid to tread too far away from the party line doesn't make those parts of anymore honest.


You're welcome for the wave.....just curious, what smiley were you looking for?

Something manly and tough I'm sure.

:eyes:

[thebigidea]

143. So I guess its just a whimsical coincidence that your "opinion"

... just happens to resemble the squawking of a million right wing lunatics.

Three cheers for Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, and Ed Koch!