posted June 28, 2004 03:16 PM         

...and YES I am against executions in general...(murder in general, you might say, and that's why I'm anti-war....especially when unwarranted!)

I do have more to say, but needed at least to get those two things off my mind, for now....

I have other important things to do...my granddaughter from Tennessee is visiting me, and I try to spend as much time with her as possible....

I do want to get back to this, tho....

posted June 28, 2004 04:41 PM         

I just would like to see more facts backing up the opinions that are stated as fact. No one has yet commented on the article I posted or what jwhop has stated concerning the lies, twisted facts and bastardization of sound bites Mr. Moore has concocted and reported as fact.

Why is that? What has NOT ONE person challenged those facts? That is all I want to see - prove to me that you are right - that Bush is trying to kill innocents because he is "evil" or that Charleton Heston really spoke at the event in that manner as protrayed by Mr. Moore (we know it was actually a speech taken out of context, spliced together to sound like something else...similar to putting my head on jwhops body..hee hee).

For those that HATE the death penalty. We on the right are not blood thirsty. I would much rather we never had to use it, but for some reason our justice system lacks real justice. We have liberals legislating from the bench allowing murders to go free on commuted sentences only to commit more murders. This is a documented fact. So how do we change that? I say we put a law into effect that would hold the judge and parole board responsible for every other murder convicted by an early released felon.

But then I can hear the cries..'Oh that is not fair, the felon deserves a chance..he may be changed'. Most often they are not changed, can anyone say 'Dru Sjoden (sp)'. Where is the justice there. If people are so against murder, what about the innocents that are murdered everyday by nutbars here in the US?

posted June 28, 2004 07:09 PM         

Fahrenheit 9/11 filmmaker burns Harper
Last Updated Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:55:23

WASHINGTON - U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore sounded off Wednesday on Canada's election, warning voters not to elect a Conservative government.

Moore, in Washington for the official American premiere of his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, said he hopes his film will convince Canadians to bypass Stephen Harper.

"You've got four days after it opens, to get people out to the polls to make sure that Mr. Harper doesn't become your next prime minister," he said.

"We're trying to get rid of our conservative, you know. We're going one way, you guys shouldn't be going the opposite direction," said Moore, whose new documentary takes a critical look at U.S. President George W. Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war.

"You should be saying, 'You know what? We don't want this country, Canada, to become like Bush's America,'" he said.

When asked why he's concerned with Canadian politics, Moore responded: "Well first of all, I live on the Canadian border. I don't want to have to look across the border and see you guys going our way."

Moore said he's trying to convince Americans to be more like Canadians, and praised the country's "ethic."

"And that ethic says: 'We're all Canadians, we're all in the same boat. If one of us gets sick, that person should get health care 'cause we're all affected.'

"The American way is pull yourself up by your bootstraps: 'Me, me, me, me, me. It's mine. It's mine.' You know? Don't go that way. Your Conservatives are trying to take you that way."
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/24/canada/moore040624

posted June 28, 2004 07:14 PM         

Oh, and please make room for Alec Baldwin too. He's already more than 3 years overdue to leave the US as he promised if Bush won the 2000 Presidential election.

DAN BROWN:
Michael Moore doesn't belong in Canada
CBC News Viewpoint | June 23, 2004 | More from Dan Brown

The official release date for Fahrenheit 9/11 is June 25. But it feels like the anti-George W. Bush documentary has been out for weeks already, which is due to the fact that the film's director, Michael Moore, has been promoting it to death in the last few weeks, and we in the media have obliged by giving the controversial filmmaker saturation coverage.

posted June 29, 2004 12:25 PM         

I don't really feel qualified to "challenge" your remarks until I've seen the movie...and since it hasn't reached our small town theater yet...I may have to go out of town to do that...

....and speaking of your "head" on jwhop's "body," when are you two going to tie the knot? It looked like it was pretty "hot and heavy" between you guys awhile ago...

Love,
Rainbow

************************************

PS....

26taurus......

Thank you so much for the lovely compliments...I'll have to agree that my Tianna is beautiful...and has the beauty inside, as well as out! She's a very deep Scorpio...six planets in all...Sun and Moon included...

posted June 29, 2004 04:53 PM         

Well that is because my most Favorite Male Leo in the world (jwhop) is already taken...boo hoo..

posted June 29, 2004 09:13 PM         

*************************************

Here's something I found written by a psychologist...and in my opinion is soooo right about "group think."

**************************************

Published on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Fahrenheit 9-11: Jolting Us Out of 'Groupthink'
by Robert E. Griffin

Even though I had read in reviews that "Fahrenheit 9-11 is a powerful film," I was still not prepared for the emotions it evoked, including intense sadness.

Michael’s Moore’s controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9-11," looks like a therapeutic intervention intended to jolt us out of "Groupthink."

The textbook definition of groupthink is, "The tendency of highly cohesive groups to assume that their decisions can't be wrong: that all members must support the group’s decision and ignore information contrary to it: feeling that the group is infallible and morally superior, that there should be no more discussion of the issues at hand, and the only task now is to support it as strongly as possible."

Sadly, that definition also describes the dynamics in the Bush administration. President Bush admits to not having independent sources of news, and information, relying solely on closest advisors. Those in the administration who voice different opinions and concerns are sanctioned with negative feedback, marginalization (e.g., Secretary of State Colin Powell), and dismissal. "Mind guarding" is the norm.

The problem is that groupthink reduces critical thinking, potentially resulting in poor decisions, with disastrous consequences.

Future psychology students will study the decision-making process our current leaders used regarding Iraq, and conducting the "War on Terror."

Trauma from September 11th left Americans fearful, angry, and vulnerable to persuasion. Americans saw President Bush as a parent figure, the adult designated with the responsibility and authority to protect them.

President Bush's arguments were very emotional, and fear-based. He told us that war, and illegal and unconstitutional conduct were absolutely necessary and justified, and asked for blind trust.

Americans are less interested in foreign affairs, relative to our European counterparts. When people don't have much information on a subject, or pre-existing opinions, they are most easily persuaded by one-sided arguments. Contradictory information and counter-arguments are not even considered.

American media felt obliged to support Bush’s leadership, and were afraid to critically question his policies. The media in other countries, who did not feel the same pressure to be "patriotically correct," were able to be objective.

As a consequence, the world Americans saw on their television and in their newspapers was literally a different world than the world that people in other countries knew. Most of the people in the world opposed Bush’s unlawful and violently destabilizing responses to 9-11, realizing that the way we were "fighting terror," actually would increase it.

Our national symbols of authority and credibility were used almost exclusively to manipulate Americans into an unwise war: a State of The Union Speech, with members of Congress silently and respectfully listening; the White House; and numerous speeches on stages using U.S. servicemen and flags as props. The opposing political party failed to present alternative viewpoints effectively.

A way to reduce groupthink is to encourage openness, dissent, and even designating someone to "play the devils advocate," and actively question the logic of the group.

The U.S. media wasn't "the devils advocate" our nation needed. They didn't question the abandonment of the rule of law, and policies that would cause such alienation in our relationships with the rest of the world. Mind-guarding, they didn't fairly include and validate opposing views, and passively participated in ridicule and derision of France, and Germany.

The 9-11 Commission tells us that some of the basic assumptions we had had are not true, and a majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq "was not worth it." The torture of innocent Iraqis is shocking the conscience and consciousness of our nation. Our civil liberties are being compromised and jeopardized in unnecessary ways. We are primed to hear Moore’s message.

"Fahrenheit 9-11" will therapeutically play the devil's advocate on our "War On Terror."

If even half of what Moore portrays is accurate, then our nation needs to face painful realities we avoided during a period of groupthink. Awareness of feelings arising from those realizations is important: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and eventual acceptance.

Admitting neglect, abandonment, and betrayal is the beginning of healing, and re-empowerment.

Robert E. Griffin (FORTYFORT1@aol.com) is a Psychologist in Forty Fort, Pennsylvania.

posted June 30, 2004 12:13 AM         

CNN Features NewsMax on Moore and Deck of Weasels.

CNN has touted NewsMax.com pundit James Hirsen and NewsMax's Deck of Weasels in its coverage of Michael Moore's latest fantasy film..........
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/29/143429.shtml

Well Pid, I was looking forward to skinny dipping off that island but.......

posted June 30, 2004 01:09 AM         

And I DON'T want him in Canada. He's bad news for a country's moral.

Don't lose sight of the fact that he's selling himself internationally, and they're eating him up! Your enemies LOVE it. They've been itching for a bonified reason to hate you, and he's giving it to them..to his own GAIN...

posted June 30, 2004 03:17 PM         

Rainbow: "If I ever had any fear of saying so long to being an American, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Moore.....but with George W Bush, who is sending our country (not to mention our boys..and girls [how many of them are dead now?]) straight to hell, in a handbasket!"

posted June 30, 2004 04:42 PM         

[....]Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

posted June 30, 2004 04:52 PM         

I already documented ( as was mentioned in one of these posted articles) that MM is getting his "cabal of lawyers" ready to defend the slander suits. In other words he is trying to find out how he can make sure he doesn't get sued for his lies NOT that he is countering the allegations against him.

posted June 30, 2004 04:55 PM         

I don't understand why he feels it necessary to beat that drum internationally.

Sorry, Rainbow..didn't know you were such a huge fan. Didn't mean to step on your sacred cow.

quote:

---

Lioneye: "Your enemies LOVE it. They've been itching for a bonified reason to hate you, and he's giving it to them..to his own GAIN..."

---

posted July 01, 2004 01:39 AM         

quote:

---

Found this at http://portland.indymedia.org
Most of us in the Pacific Northwest are Liberal.

A Better Reason to Ban Moore - hint: the Saudis don't run NORAD

Moore's 2003 book "Dude, Where's my Country?" included severely deficient analysis of 9/11 that provides (hopefully) inadvertent support for the US's next war - the invasion of the Saudi oil fields, the largest on Earth. [on top of that, Moore PROTECTS the home grown US government terrorists by not touching the most obvious aspects which expose the 9/11 lie - the physical evidence of the collapses of the towers, among many other details]
Hint to Michael Moore : the Saudis don't run NORAD
http://www.oilempire.us/michaelmoore.html
Michael Moore, Wesley Clark, Mumia, Fahrenheit
9/11 and the US Invasion of Saudi Arabia

[Also see: http://wtc7.net http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html ]

on this page
Michael Moore blames the Saudis (who did not run NORAD on 9/11)
Michael Moore proclaims Mumia abu Jamal guilty
Michael Moore flacks for war criminal Wesley Clark
Michael Moore's next film - Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore is one of America's most famous
dissidents. He first received notoriety for his
film "Roger and Me," a biting commentary on the
General Motors corporation, "downsizing" jobs,
and elite indiffierence to the destruction of
working class communities such as Moore's native
Flint, Michigan. Roger and Me propelled him into
fame, with TV shows (mostly aired in Britain),
and several other films, including "Pets or
Meat," "The Big One," and the Oscar award winning
"Bowling for Columbine."

Moore's 2003 book "Dude, Where's my Country?"
included severely deficient analysis of 9/11 that
provides (hopefully) inadvertent support for the
US's next war - the invasion of the Saudi oil
fields, the largest on Earth.

The thesis that Moore puts forward is essentially
this: the Saudis attacked the US on 9/11, Bush
has business ties to the Saudis, therefore, Bush
must be replaced in 2004. While elements of this
are true, the claim that the Saudis perpetrated
9/11 is reminiscent of similar claims that the
Mafia killed President Kennedy. In neither case
did the Saudis nor the Mafia have the power to
turn off the normal protection (of New York or of
the President).

see http://www.oilempire.us/saudi.html for
detailed reasons why the "blame the Saudis"
campaign is really a sophisticated effort to lay
the ground work for the forthcoming US invasion
of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were merely a
subcontractor in 9-11 (at most), since they do
not control the Air Force and NORAD's fighter
planes that are supposed to intercept off-course
jet liners within minutes. While it is unknown
whether Moore realizes that he is playing into
the "Project for a New American Century"
strategists (who seem eager to declare Saudi
Arabia an enemy of the US and put it toward the
top of the "Countries We Must Invade" list), his
next film "Fahrenheit 9/11" will certainly be
seen as the "dissident" view of 9/11. What
remains to be seen is whether the film will
actually probe into the complicity of the Bush
administration in the event, or whether it will
be a "Limited Hang Out" that blames Bush for
"intelligence failures" and points out
(accurately) that the Bush and Bin Laden families
have business ties that date to the 1970s.

see also http://www.oilempire.us/limited.html -
Limited Hang Outs (fessing up to a small crime to
avoid the deeper crime - understanding the
mechanisms of coverups)

see also http://www.oilempire.us/saudioil.html -
Saudi Arabia's oil is almost entirely
concentrated in the minority Shia part of the
country, demographics and geology

A September 2003 article in In These Times by
Seth Ackerman, a contributing writer to FAIR,
focused on the "intelligence failures" of 911 and
how the Saudi hijackers were able to bypass US
intelligence. He concluded that the
"incompetence" theory was plausible, and "it
ought to be possible to steer a middle course
between wild speculation and cynical whitewash."

While it's obvious that the Saudis played a role
-- they've supported US terror in Nicaragua,
Lebanon and Afghanistan -- they weren't in charge
of air defense over Washington and New York.
Perhaps their role was similar to the Mafia in
Dallas in 1963 (JFK), a subcontractor who helped
with the technical aspects, but they weren't in
charge of the main event, nor running the coverup
afterwards.

Maybe for the next war, the liberal peace
movement will talk about the relevance of "peak
oil" and the Bush strategy of intentional
deceptions to prepare the public for war. (WMD is
a much smaller deception than 911.) The
proclivity of some on the "left" to blame the
"Saudis" for 911 - and complain about the Bush -
Saudi connections - is an unintentional statement
of support for the US attack on the ONLY country
that could have significant increases in daily
oil extraction rates.

While it is true that the Bush and Bin Laden
clans have had business connections for over two
decades, the Saudis did not, could not, ensure
the "stand down" of the Air Force on 9/11. Nor
would have a Saudi air force pilot (let alone the
official claim that a flight school drop out was
responsible) have chosen the nearly empty, under
reconstruction section of the Pentagon as a
target. See http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html
for evidence that remote control software was
used to ensure that the Pentagon was hit in the
one section that would cause the fewest
casualties (the plane that hit the building is
reported to have gone in a 270 degree spiral
around the complex to line up with the part of
the Pentagon where it would cause the least
damage, thereby bypassing Donald Rumsfeld's
office).
http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Monday, October 20, 2003
The attack on the Saudis is intended to
further the neocon goal of eventually destroying the Saudi government
so the United States can take over the Saudi oilfields. The
propaganda campaign has been so successful, the neocons even have
Michael Moore parroting it. The main trick was to leave the Saudi
matters out of the published 9-11 report, so people could think the
worst of the Saudis, and then slyly make people believe that it was
left out because Bush was protecting his Saudi business friends. A
brilliant strategy! All of this propaganda works only because
Americans are still afraid to admit who was really behind 9-11. A
hint: the Saudis don't run NORAD.

---

posted July 01, 2004 03:01 PM         

Have you recruited many lately?

posted July 02, 2004 04:03 AM         

....however...I'm still not buying into the idea that our guys and gals are dying over in Iraq, because planes took our WTC towers down......

posted July 02, 2004 01:18 PM         

1. Planes crashing into the WTC has nothing to do with Iraq

2. The men and women serving in the armed forces serve so we dont have to. For this I am truly grateful. Thats why we owe it to them to make damn sure we send them into harms way for the right reasons. Killing are men and women in Iraq is NOT the right reasons.

posted July 02, 2004 10:38 PM         

To add to it, here are my thoughts. WMD's, as explained by most in the press and the government, were not why we went into Iraq. Has everyone forgotten about this little thing called the Gulf War? And that Saddam Hussein received a smack on the hand and a "time out" from the international community for his invasion of Kuwait? Have we forgotten how that man and the government of Iraq thumbed their noses at the UN and the rest of the world for over decade by not following the rules laid out for Iraq after the Gulf War? UN weapons inspectors. That's all we asked for the safety of the international community. The simple fact that the weapons inspectors were never allowed to do their jobs fully should have made people say "I think he's hiding something." After 9/11, as a nation, we began to say "We need to take another look at the world and see who else is out to get us...and everyone else." Saddam Hussein, still thumbing his nose at everyone, stood out above all. So Bush had the guts to take a stand and say "We, as a world, have to get him back in line." It was not an overnight decision to throw our men and women halfway around the world. The UN did not stand up to it's promise to protect the world, which was made after the UN was created after WW II and Hitler.

Now look what you made me do quicksilver. This wasn't what I was chiming in to say. (But thanks for bringing it out of me. I needed that.)

What I came here to say is this - I am not going to see Farenheit 9/11, mainly because I have never enjoyed Moore's forays into his so called documentaries, much less those that deal with his own political viewpoints. What I am going to do is pray for Michael Moore. And his family. I pray that his addictive personality dose not cause him to self destruct...and take others with him. I pray that one day Michael Moore will learn the respect, acceptance and tolerance for others that he demands for himself. And I pray that one day we will all learn the same for ourselves.

Blessings and Peace to all.