For Michael Moore haters!

The Patriot Act
By Michael Moore
Los Angeles Times

Sunday 04 July 2004

What's more American than asking questions?
New York - As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their Easy-Bake Oven.

I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What the Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags for a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country. And every year I asked to be the one who planted the flag on the grave of my uncle, a paratrooper who was killed in World War II. I was taught to admire his sacrifice, and I hoped to grow up and do my part, as he had, to keep us free.

But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them. Those men - presidents, senators, government officials - wrapped themselves in the flag too, hoping that their lies would never be questioned, never be discovered. They wrapped themselves in the very flag that was placed on the coffins of my friends and neighbors. I stopped singing the national anthem at football games, and I stopped putting out the flag.

I realize now I never should have stopped.

For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."

Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.

I think it's time for those of us who love this country - and everything it should stand for - to reclaim our flag from those who would use it to crush rights and freedoms, both here at home and overseas. We need to redefine what it means to be a proud American.

If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?

Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?

Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!) ?

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

If these things represent what it means to be an American these days - and I am an American - should I hang my head in shame? No. Instead, I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions - and demand truthful answers - when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war.

If we don't do that - the bare minimum - for those who offer to defend our country, then we have failed them and ourselves. They offer to die for us, if necessary, so that we can be free. All they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. And with this war, we have broken faith with our troops by sending them off to be killed and maimed for wrong and immoral reasons.

This is the true state of disgrace we are living in. I hope we can make it up someday to these brave kids (and older men and women in our reserves and National Guard) . They deserve an apology, they deserve our thanks - and a raise - and they deserve a big parade with lots of flags.

I would like to lead that parade, carrying the largest flag. And I would like the country to proclaim that never again will a war be fought unless it is our last resort.

Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.

In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride.

let the flame war begin.........now!

Many people here define Michael Moore as a terrorist sympathiser and an America hater, so here is some evidence to the contrary.

What, and the flame war didn't begin with topics about murdering babies? =)

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

Where the hell does THIS statistic come from? Seriously. Before I can even debate it I would like to know.

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

No, again if your statistic is even close to being accurate.... But the point many Americans want to make on education is we know many schools are failing. We know that generations of kids are being advanced through the ranks by incompetant teachers and the biggest obsitcle to giving parents in these districts a remedy is teachers unions who absolutely abhore school choice and there is a political party that has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in the preceding decades to prevent school choice from ever being debated let alone actually happening. It is more important to protect the jobs and working environments of thousands of teachers than improve the chances of success in life for millions.

Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?

This statement has been used ad-nauseum for 25 years... except when Clinton was in power. Now what happened to all those high paying high tech jobs that the dot com economy produced?

Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?

Ah the minimum wage softball.

# Between 1977 and 1997, the average first year “exit rate”* of those who worked at the minimum wage was 65.2% — which means nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved above the minimum wage within one year of working at the minimum wage.

# The first-year exit rate is significantly higher for full-time workers (67%) than for part-time employees, whose exit rates range from 55% for those with the lightest work schedules to 61% for those working 30-34 hours per week.

# The median annual wage growth for minimum wage workers was 10.1% between 1977 and 1997. For full-time minimum wage workers, median wage growth in the first year is higher — 13.8%. For all workers in the economy, annual wage growth typically measures 2%-5%, much lower than median wage growth at the entry level.

# Minimum wage workers with more education are more likely to move up the wage ladder than those who are less educated. Workers with less than a high school education see wage gains of 8.06% in the first year, while high school graduates weigh in at 11.76% and those with some college education see wage gains of 14.47%. College graduates see gains of 20% or more within one year of working at the minimum wage.

# Younger workers are more likely to exit the minimum wage within a year than are older workers. In all age groups below age 46, exit rates top 60%, which means the vast majority rise above the minimum wage quickly. For the relatively few minimum wage workers who are over age 45, exit rates decline from 59% to a low of 41% in the over-65 demographic.

LINKY LINKY

Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!) ?

See arguments I made about school choice.... same answer. I also NEVER had a geography course in school. Not once. It's been dropped as a subject by schools. The only formal geography training I ever got was the 50 states and 50 capitals in 5th grade for about oh... 2 weeks.

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

You mean the same rest of the world where people paraded into the streets and applauded Osama bin Laden? Oh, don't remember those clips do you. You mean the rest of the world that felt bad people died but didn't want us to defend ourselves in any way? The same rest of the world that didn't want us to go into Afghanistan? I don't need a world like that and you don't either.

Kumbaya my lord kumbaya...... I'd like to teach the world to sing.... in perfect harmony! Sorry, hippie flashback.

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

WHY?!?!? is this an American problem. The problem isn't an unequal distribution of water purification services. The problem is an unequal distribution of freedom. You don't see this situation in the democracies of Asia, Europe and the Americas. You see this in the despotic governments of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Spread democracy, spread the rapid change of improved human health conditions. Comprede amigo?

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

I'll let someone prove this to me. You can't disprove a negative.

Edit: A large amount of this, primarily the form in which it is composed, is based at least loosely on Lileks own debunking of this article. Don't get me wrong, it is by no means a copy and paste. Large amounts of information by Lileks was removed, and I added my own logic and ideas to this thing. I simply touched on many of the same issues that Lileks did. I wanted to add this little disclaimer to the top of the post to make sure it got read.

As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their Easy-Bake Oven.

Click to expand...

Why does this sound like a total exaggeration? Let's be honest, nobody, especially a young boy, prances around the street praising America in their free time when they can be playing GI Joe or Racecar Driver instead.

I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What the Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags for a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country. And every year I asked to be the one who planted the flag on the grave of my uncle, a paratrooper who was killed in World War II. I was taught to admire his sacrifice, and I hoped to grow up and do my part, as he had, to keep us free.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll take his word here, though this extremely patriotic portrait is one that I'm suspicious of.

But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them.

Click to expand...

Whoops, bullshit. Take a look at the casualty list of the Vietnam war. Only SIX casualties from Davison, Michigan. Gary Thompson, Martin Scott, David Bonesteel, Howard Doyle, David Ex, and Lowell Holden. Moore was just saying stuff with the hopes that nobody would question it. You can't present an assertion as fact when it isn't.

For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."

Click to expand...

I personally fly the flag because I love America, not to tell people who disagree with me to go themselves. That's all there is to it--no conspiracy theories involved here, dumbass. How the hell does Moore know why people fly flags? I know people who fly the flag to say that they support the troops. If Moore believes that putting a flag on the back of an SUV is being a warmongering, dominant asshole, then the only thing that can help him at this point is a team of ing retard handlers and maybe a rubber ducky that shoots chocolate when you squeeze it.

Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.

Click to expand...

Christ, now THAT'S a generalization if I've ever seen one. There are assholes who fall into this category, true, but Moore makes it out to be the entire nation. Nobody says dissent is bad. Destroying is, though. The whole argument is extremely old. The flame wars on this board are actually a good representation of real life situations, because people harass each other from BOTH sides. It's childish, yes, but it's extra childish when Moore points a finger at those sinister Republicans in the hopes that a teacher will come by and make them play nice. More on Moore's hypocricy with this later.

I think it's time for those of us who love this country — and everything it should stand for — to reclaim our flag from those who would use it to crush rights and freedoms, both here at home and overseas. We need to redefine what it means to be a proud American.

Click to expand...

More tired garbage. We're crushing rights and freedom? Look, you can be against the Iraqi war if you want to, but don't give me this "crushing rights" bullshit. Ask yourself two questions:
Did Afghanistan have more freedoms under the Taliban, or less?
Did Iraq have more freedoms under Saddam, or less?
I've seen legitimate reasons to oppose the Iraqi war. This isn't one of them.

If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:

Click to expand...

Hold on a second. A second ago, Moore was speaking out against people harrassing each other at work and at school. you, Moore. This seems extremely hypocritical to me. And besides, this is an excellent example of crappy writing from a retard who either does not understand his opposition in the least, or at the very least is unwilling to grant the concession that his opposition has a legitimate reason to believe differently than he does. It's not really fair to assert that anybody who disagrees with you is a moron simply buying into propaganda.

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm ashamed of this, and most of America is. Based on things I've read (research inspired by Lileks essay), child poverty is closely tied to unwed motherhood. If Moore wants to take our culture to a moral place where we frown upon pregnancy out of wedlock and men are expected to marry the women they impregnate, shit, I'll be right at his side.

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

Click to expand...

To quote "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" regarding the survey which Moore took his numbers from, "in the next paragraph, [the survey] goes on to note that 25 percent of those people who scored in the lowest literacy category were immigrants who have learned little or no English. And in classic Moore fashion, he also fails to disclose that nearly 19 percent of the group he includes in the uneducated masses are actually people who have ‘visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print."
And the USA has the highest literacy rate in the world. (Edit: This wasn't true, I apologize.)

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

Click to expand...

In a word? No.
To practically quote Lileks (whose works, if you haven't figured it out, is what this is primarily based upon), it's simplistic to say that places like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are evil. It's also simplistic to say right after 9/11 that you're either with the USA or the terrorists. It's overly complex to say that the "rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust." The world poured its hearts out to us. Wowee. It was a nice sentimate, but pouring your heart out to somebody won't make religious fanatics like Bin Laden and insane dictators like Saddam turn into magical rainbows and baskets of puppies. I'm waiting for something to happen to France or Germany. Seriously, I want to see how they react.

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

Click to expand...

Imediately! That's a strong word. I'm all for helping others, but we can't make the ultimate purpose of the American economy building sanitary water systems in all the third world countries in the world. That's right, let's spend billions to make sure that when a guy in Sudan wants a drink, he doesn't get the hershey squirts. We have to help ourselves, first. And besides, I don't see how not helping 3 billion people right this instant makes us bad citizens.

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

Click to expand...

Uhm... Saddam Hussein, dude. Really. We just didn't want to wait until he had a gun pointed at our brain.

This is the true state of disgrace we are living in. I hope we can make it up someday to these brave kids (and older men and women in our reserves and National Guard). They deserve an apology, they deserve our thanks — and a raise — and they deserve a big parade with lots of flags.

Click to expand...

As Moore wrote elsewhere, "There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
God's rooting for Saddam? Well, I'll be.

Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.

In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride.

Click to expand...

Yep, the flag needs to stand for the government giving people good jobs and clean water. As Lileks says about this statement, "This from a man who waddles up to the deep well of American freedom, fumbles with his zipper, and pisses in it."

And also, most of this is based off of Lileks own debunking of Moore's essay, to properly give credit where it is due.

Edit 1: Retracted "Literacy" fact.
Edit 2: Added a disclaimer to the top of the post to make sure people read it.
Edit 3: Grammar, touch-ups, and the last edit of this thing, I promise.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!) ?

See arguments I made about school choice.... same answer. I also NEVER had a geography course in school. Not once. It's been dropped as a subject by schools. The only formal geography training I ever got was the 50 states and 50 capitals in 5th grade for about oh... 2 weeks.[/quote]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but when did you go to high school? I had 3 geography classes in high school, none of which were electives or advanced programs.

I was in high school 84-88. The only geography we ever got was attached to a social studies course. Not even American History or European History courses I took had a geography component.

We had one part of U.S. history that had us identify major U.S. expansions like the Lousiana purchase, Texas annexation, Alaska purchase, Gadsen purchase etc. and that was about the extent of it. The public shcool I went to didn't teach geography as a subject.

What is not mentioned here is that America has more top Universities than any other country. Everyone wants to come here and learn at our schools.
What stats are not shown is things the typical American knows that the typical person in another country does not.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I was in high school 84-88. The only geography we ever got was attached to a social studies course. Not even American History or European History courses I took had a geography component.

We had one part of U.S. history that had us identify major U.S. expansions like the Lousiana purchase, Texas annexation, Alaska purchase, Gadsen purchase etc. and that was about the extent of it. The public shcool I went to didn't teach geography as a subject.[/quote]

That's incredible. In high school alone, I had US geography, TX geography/history, and World geography. And this was 99-03. How the times have changed.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I was in high school 84-88. The only geography we ever got was attached to a social studies course. Not even American History or European History courses I took had a geography component.

We had one part of U.S. history that had us identify major U.S. expansions like the Lousiana purchase, Texas annexation, Alaska purchase, Gadsen purchase etc. and that was about the extent of it. The public shcool I went to didn't teach geography as a subject.[/quote]

Man, and who said Reagan didn't care about education?

Oh puhlease. The President has as much say in what is taught at the local level as I have in the education of students in Zimbabwe.

The really sad thing is that Quackzilla actually believes that load of garbage Moore is trying to pass for his patriotism. That essay is such a load of crap, especially the beginning that i couldn't help but chuckle. The bit about the parades, i don't think Moore ever did anywhere near that much exercise.

You Quack are just another desperate liberal who knows Kerry is to unstable to ever actually getting elected. With Kerry as president WE will become like Iraq in that we won't have the protection and comfort we all take for granted today. Maybe just maybe Kerry could help out the economy...until the next terrorist attact destroys the stock market along with our piece of mind. See 9/11 could have happened on anybody's watch, the fact that it was on Bush's meant that we bite back.

Why wouldn't we wanna go after terrorists? We did lose 3000 people a few years back, shouldn't we cut the roots now before every other guy is named Mohammand (sp?) and is forced to practice islam and blow themselves up.

I know i got off topic but to all the low class "Hollywood Elite" ( Robbins, Whoppi "I'm a fat angry bitch with stupid dreadlocks that went out in the 90's" and Michael "Hates white people and republicans and big business but has no problem staying in America and eating, complaining, and eating.

Quack take down your shrine to a fat fuc-k and watch the news.

P.S. watch bill o reilly tonight, he has the fat excuse for a person on his show, it's on fox news channel!

The fact that you attack his weight and size time and time again doesn't do much to help your "argument".

[quote name='Quackzilla']Many people here define Michael Moore as a terrorist sympathiser and an America hater, so here is some evidence to the contrary.[/quote]

I've never said he was either, I've just pointed out that he is a known liar and to not take any of his films seriously.

[quote name='"Sartori"']The fact that you attack his weight and size time and time again doesn't do much to help your "argument".[/quote]

Typical liberal spin. But in your weak defense I'll rephrase what i meant.

Moore distorts the truth and packages it up in a nice little movie which completely misrepresents the facts. Hollywood, the liberal hell-hole it is, isn't concerned with you or the welfare of us, only their own wallets. Watch O'Reilly tonight and we'll see the joke that is Moore.

Also you can't possibly believe Moore's essay, for years he has been doing this exact thing. He used to have a show on about 8 years or more in which he went to different places and completely lied about the facts. Only now have the camera's turned to him, come november when Bush renews his presidency I think he'll go away for good.

Pylis, above, made a pretty good point so I won't repeat it.

I wish editorial pages in all newspapers started to require loudmouths of all ilks to provide a bibliography citing the sources of thier "facts".

[quote name='jputahraptor']The really sad thing is that Quackzilla actually believes that load of garbage Moore is trying to pass for his patriotism. That essay is such a load of crap, especially the beginning that i couldn't help but chuckle. The bit about the parades, i don't think Moore ever did anywhere near that much exercise.

You Quack are just another desperate liberal who knows Kerry is to unstable to ever actually getting elected. With Kerry as president WE will become like Iraq in that we won't have the protection and comfort we all take for granted today. Maybe just maybe Kerry could help out the economy...until the next terrorist attact destroys the stock market along with our piece of mind. See 9/11 could have happened on anybody's watch, the fact that it was on Bush's meant that we bite back.

Why wouldn't we wanna go after terrorists? We did lose 3000 people a few years back, shouldn't we cut the roots now before every other guy is named Mohammand (sp?) and is forced to practice islam and blow themselves up.

I know i got off topic but to all the low class "Hollywood Elite" ( Robbins, Whoppi "I'm a fat angry bitch with stupid dreadlocks that went out in the 90's" and Michael "Hates white people and republicans and big business but has no problem staying in America and eating, complaining, and eating.

Quack take down your shrine to a fat fuc-k and watch the news.

P.S. watch bill o reilly tonight, he has the fat excuse for a person on his show, it's on fox news channel![/quote]


that's right, we should attack the terrorists that attacked us. Unfortunately, Bush didn't care about that and went into Iraq instead. He didn't follow through in Afganistan, and now Bin Laden is laughing his head off, since we are filling his ranks with new members since we went into Iraq.

In March 2002 Bush said he didn't care about Bin Laden. Here is the quote friom the news conference

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html



Bin Laden was never running Afghanistan. He couldn't find bin laden so he gave up and went after Hussein because he knew where he was. Bush has shown he does not care for the security of this country, while Kerry has proven he does. If you are voting on the security of this country, you should vote for Kerry.

Bin Laden was never running Afghanistan. He couldn't find bin laden so he gave up and went after Hussein because he knew where he was. Bush has shown he does not care for the security of this country, while Kerry has proven he does. If you are voting on the security of this country, you should vote for Kerry. //


I don't know that Kerry has proven himself that he cares for the security of this country more than Bush.
I really beleive that Bush does care about the security of this country which is why he is able to do unpopular and risky moves (like invading Iraq) that the past president was not willing to do for fear of not getting elected or bad PR.

[quote name='WarrenGekko']Bin Laden was never running Afghanistan. He couldn't find bin laden so he gave up and went after Hussein because he knew where he was. Bush has shown he does not care for the security of this country, while Kerry has proven he does. If you are voting on the security of this country, you should vote for Kerry. //


I don't know that Kerry has proven himself that he cares for the security of this country more than Bush.
I really beleive that Bush does care about the security of this country which is why he is able to do unpopular and risky moves (like invading Iraq) that the past president was not willing to do for fear of not getting elected or bad PR.[/quote]

One of the reasons why I said that Kerry cares more about the security of this country than Bush is that Kerry REQUESTED to be sent to Vietnam, and did not hide out in a unit that had no chance of being sent over.

Moore is still an asshat.

ZarathosNY: How has Kerry proven he cares about the security of this country? Also, you misinterpreted what Bush said. He basically said that since Bin Laden is on the run, he has no power to do anything.

Edit: Missed your post, sorry about that. But here's something else you overlooked. You say Bush doesn't care about security because he went into Iraq. Well, you know who voted to go into Iraq? Here's a hint: Kerry.

Yeah Michael Moore is the coolest! I absolutely love people that only make money off of other people's misery. It's a great thing he does.

that motherer I wish I saw him on the street, I'd kick his punk ass so hard. God I hate him.

So an article written by Michael Moore is supposed to make me change my mind about he decieves people? How does that work exactly, especially when he hasn't given much reason to put much faith into what says now?

[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='WarrenGekko']Bin Laden was never running Afghanistan. He couldn't find bin laden so he gave up and went after Hussein because he knew where he was. Bush has shown he does not care for the security of this country, while Kerry has proven he does. If you are voting on the security of this country, you should vote for Kerry. //


I don't know that Kerry has proven himself that he cares for the security of this country more than Bush.
I really beleive that Bush does care about the security of this country which is why he is able to do unpopular and risky moves (like invading Iraq) that the past president was not willing to do for fear of not getting elected or bad PR.[/quote]

One of the reasons why I said that Kerry cares more about the security of this country than Bush is that Kerry REQUESTED to be sent to Vietnam, and did not hide out in a unit that had no chance of being sent over.[/quote]

Oh. I see what you are saying. But, I still don't think that means that Bush is less concerned about security. In fact, I would think the opposite. I would think he would definitely make sure that nothing happens here since he want to avoid these types of things.

[quote name='jimbodan']I absolutely love people that only make money off of other people's misery.[/quote]

i love this argument, its as generic as saying "kerry changes his mind!" or "bush has the mentality of a 12 year old!"

90% of media makes money off of tragedy. how many of that sept 11th book has sold in the past week? it sells

nixon is a crook

[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='jimbodan']I absolutely love people that only make money off of other people's misery.[/quote]

i love this argument, its as generic as saying "kerry changes his mind!" or "bush has the mentality of a 12 year old!"

90% of media makes money off of tragedy. how many of that sept 11th book has sold in the past week? it sells

nixon is a crook[/quote]

That reminds me... I wanted to go pick up a copy of the 9-11 report.
I guess I have to add that to the shopping list now.

[quote name='Pylis']And the USA has the highest literacy rate in the world.[/quote]

Japanese literacy rate: 99% (2003)
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107666.html

American literacy rate: 97% (as of 1979, the last time it was officially recorded)
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Demographics-of-the-United-States

So, you pulled that "fact" out of your ass to prove that someone else was lying. You were just hoping nobody did a fact check on any of YOUR facts because most of them are complete bullshit.


I have to quotes for you:

Theresa Heinze Kerry "Shove it!"
Dick Cheny "Go yourself!"

F/911 FACTS
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Moore really OWNED O'Reilly tonight...

And the USA has the highest literacy rate in the world.

Click to expand...

All of these rated higer than the U.S.

Liechtenstein, Denmark, Estonia, Andorra, Finland, Norway, Australia, Holy See (Vatican City), Iceland, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Latvia, Guam, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Korea, North, Monaco, Netherlands, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Slovenia, Sweden, Tonga, Switzerland, New Zealand, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Poland, Hungary, Georgia, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands Antilles, Belgium, Austria, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Bulgaria, Guyana, Bahamas, The, Grenada, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Lithuania, Trinidad and Tobago, Belarus, Tajikistan, Korea, South, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, British Virgin Islands, Mongolia, Saint Helena, Canada, Spain, Aruba, Uruguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis

Ah, truth, like a warm blanket on a cold day...

James Lileks already shredded Moore's diatribe a couple weeks back:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070804.html

I retract my statement about literacy, since you are right and it was incorrect. I didn't pull it out of my ass, I misinterpreted the source that I got it from, and I still stand by everything else that I said, though.

Oh, and Moore lost BAD to O'Reilly, in my opinion, primarily because he dodged questions or made obtuse and irrelevant analogies.

Edit: I dropped the ball on the literacy issue, but I don't see how you finding I misinterpreted one fact makes "most" of my facts bullshit. Care to elaborate on what else is incorrect?

To all who criticize Moore for "exploiting 9/11":

George Bush used 9/11 imagery in his campaign ads, is this not exploiting 9/11?

George Bush sells a photo taken of him on 9/11 during the attacks, to raise money for his campaign. Is this not exploiting 9/11?

The media made millions off of 9/11. If Moore exploits 9/11, is this not also?

[quote name='dafoomie']To all who criticize Moore for "exploiting 9/11":

George Bush used 9/11 imagery in his campaign ads, is this not exploiting 9/11?

George Bush sells a photo taken of him on 9/11 during the attacks, to raise money for his campaign. Is this not exploiting 9/11?

The media made millions off of 9/11. If Moore exploits 9/11, is this not also?[/quote]

That's a good point. I personally think that the imagery of 9/11 in his campaign ads DOES serve a legitimate purpose, namely to remind people why it is exactly that we're fighting terrorism. Whether or not you agree with the war on Iraq, most people will agree that action against Afghanistan was necessary, and 9/11 is still something we need to remember and be reminded of.

As for the photos, I agree with you that this is exploitation and shouldn't be done. Same with the exploitation by Moore and the rest of the media.

That's a good point. I personally think that the imagery of 9/11 in his campaign ads DOES serve a legitimate purpose, namely to remind people why it is exactly that we're fighting terrorism. Whether or not you agree with the war on Iraq, most people will agree that action against Afghanistan was necessary, and 9/11 is still something we need to remember and be reminded of.

Click to expand...

So, Bush using 9/11 in his campaign ads is ok, but Moore using it to argue a point politicly (and make money) is not? I find that very hypocritical.

Also, Bush's campaign ads are not there to remind you why we're fighting terrorism. They're there to help him get re-elected.

[quote name='dafoomie']So, Bush using 9/11 in his campaign ads is ok, but Moore using it to argue a point politicly (and make money) is not? I find that very hypocritical.

Also, Bush's campaign ads are not there to remind you why we're fighting terrorism. They're there to help him get re-elected.[/quote]

Well, Bush is more or less allowed to use it in his campaign ads because it's an actual event that happened under his presidency. Should he pretend that we aren't in a war and that this never happened so he isn't exploiting a tragedy? He's presenting his side of an important issue, and 9/11 is in part a reason for his opinions. Is this stuff there to get him reelected? Sure. But in order to get reelected, he has to present his reasons for believing that war is necessary.

If Moore wants to make a political point using 9/11, he's more than welcome to if the assertions are honest (which most of the ones made in the movie are not). He's charging people money for a political point based on 9/11, which to me seems to be exploitation of this tragedy.

Moore: "...you tell them it's a mistake?"

O'Reilly: "... it was a mistake."

That works for the first few maybe... but not for the kids dying every day since it was undeniable there were no weapons of mass destruction. Even if you believe Bush really believed the WMD were there, you can't use that original mistake as an excuse. O'Reilly's waffling all over the place. It's a mistake. They're there to remove a dictator. They're there to remove the WMD. Which were not a lie. Back to removing a dictator.

What a maroon. Oh wait, it's back on.

God, this O'Reilly guy is a rube. He wriggles out of the child sacrifice, writhes his way into the shelter ing murk of another lie, the Iraq-Al Queda connection.

He lauds the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam, but not twenty minutes earlier was telling Ben Afleck we need to honor the sovereign government of Pakistan, so sad, otherwise we'd have that darned Osama varmint.

Gah.

[quote name='Pylis']Bush is more or less allowed to use it in his campaign ads because it's an actual event that happened under his presidency. Should he pretend that we aren't in a war and that this never happened so he isn't exploiting a tragedy?[/quote]

9/11 is an actual event that happened during Moore's citizenship, and during his career as a documentarian, editorialist and journalist. Should he pretend that we aren't in a war based on lies and greedhead profit, and justified with lies, and fueled with the righteous rage of the nation-victim of the 9-11 attacks... a righteous rage STOLEN by the Bush Cheney administration and misused, aimed at the wrong target.

Pfeh. Tell me you do not honestly think that 9-11 somehow is owned by Bush in way other than the fact that his own lack of antiterrorist action prior to 9-11 helped it happen.

[quote name='Pylis']I retract my statement about literacy, since you are right and it was incorrect. I didn't pull it out of my ass, I misinterpreted the source that I got it from, and I still stand by everything else that I said, though.

Oh, and Moore lost BAD to O'Reilly, in my opinion, primarily because he dodged questions or made obtuse and irrelevant analogies.

Edit: I dropped the ball on the literacy issue, but I don't see how you finding I misinterpreted one fact makes "most" of my facts bullshit. Care to elaborate on what else is incorrect?[/quote]

Actually, if you examine the link I provided earlier you'll find the literacy issue isn't as simple as some would have you beleive.

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

Where the hell does THIS statistic come from? Seriously. Before I can even debate it I would like to know.

Click to expand...

Several sources list statistics for child poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 16.7% of children live in poverty. This is about 1 in 6.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
I'm actually surprised Moore used this particular statistic, as he could have used the children living in "low income" homes statistic, or 200% of the poverty line, which is 37%.
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

No, again if your statistic is even close to being accurate.... But the point many Americans want to make on education is we know many schools are failing. We know that generations of kids are being advanced through the ranks by incompetant teachers and the biggest obsitcle to giving parents in these districts a remedy is teachers unions who absolutely abhore school choice and there is a political party that has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in the preceding decades to prevent school choice from ever being debated let alone actually happening. It is more important to protect the jobs and working environments of thousands of teachers than improve the chances of success in life for millions.

Click to expand...

I would respond to that by saying that Bush's promotion and passing of the No Child Left Behind act, and subsequently pulling all funding from it, does not help the situation.

Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?

This statement has been used ad-nauseum for 25 years... except when Clinton was in power. Now what happened to all those high paying high tech jobs that the dot com economy produced?

Click to expand...

A lot of those jobs are going overseas... The job market is not as great as they would like you to believe.

Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?

Ah the minimum wage softball.

# Between 1977 and 1997, the average first year “exit rate”* of those who worked at the minimum wage was 65.2% — which means nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved above the minimum wage within one year of working at the minimum wage.

Click to expand...

This statistic indicates that most workers, 65.2%, made more than the minimum wage after starting there. This doesn't address how much more, or if the initial wage was a "training wage". But, this is addressed two statistics down from here.

# The first-year exit rate is significantly higher for full-time workers (67%) than for part-time employees, whose exit rates range from 55% for those with the lightest work schedules to 61% for those working 30-34 hours per week.

Click to expand...

This says that more full time workers starting at minimum wage got raises than part time, and more part time workers that work more hours get raises than those that work less. Not saying a lot, but fine. Makes sense though.

# The median annual wage growth for minimum wage workers was 10.1% between 1977 and 1997. For full-time minimum wage workers, median wage growth in the first year is higher — 13.8%. For all workers in the economy, annual wage growth typically measures 2%-5%, much lower than median wage growth at the entry level.

Click to expand...

This statistic indicares that minimum wage workers, on average recieve a 10.1% raise, and non-minimum wage workers recieve a smaller raise. However, the first part of this statistic would not support your argument. If the average raise for minimum wage is 10%, and minimum wage is ~$5, then the average raise they recieve is 50 cents an hour. This is not a substantial raise. In fact, when I started working at night part time for slightly more than minimum wage, I personally recieved a 50 cent raise, an automatic raise after 3 months.

# Minimum wage workers with more education are more likely to move up the wage ladder than those who are less educated. Workers with less than a high school education see wage gains of 8.06% in the first year, while high school graduates weigh in at 11.76% and those with some college education see wage gains of 14.47%. College graduates see gains of 20% or more within one year of working at the minimum wage.

Click to expand...

Goes without saying that you'll do better if you're more educated. The problem is, if you're poor, its harder to get a college education, or even a quality high school education. College seems to be the key to higher wages, but you need money to pay for college. Seems like an endless cycle, you need college for money, but you need money for college. There needs to be more done to give the poor access to higher education.

# Younger workers are more likely to exit the minimum wage within a year than are older workers. In all age groups below age 46, exit rates top 60%, which means the vast majority rise above the minimum wage quickly. For the relatively few minimum wage workers who are over age 45, exit rates decline from 59% to a low of 41% in the over-65 demographic.

Click to expand...

So, 60% of people under 46 making minimum wage get on average a 10% raise, or roughly 50 cents per hour, depending on what your minimum wage is.

So I will properly restate the question for you, given the statistics provided. Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.65 an hour?

Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!) ?

See arguments I made about school choice.... same answer. I also NEVER had a geography course in school. Not once. It's been dropped as a subject by schools. The only formal geography training I ever got was the 50 states and 50 capitals in 5th grade for about oh... 2 weeks.

Click to expand...

See my statement about the No Child Left Behind act not being funded. Though the act isn't that great anyway, it was the Bush administration's big public effort to improve schools, and his approval rating, and after it was passed he promptly pulled funding for it.

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

You mean the same rest of the world where people paraded into the streets and applauded Osama bin Laden? Oh, don't remember those clips do you. You mean the rest of the world that felt bad people died but didn't want us to defend ourselves in any way? The same rest of the world that didn't want us to go into Afghanistan? I don't need a world like that and you don't either.

Kumbaya my lord kumbaya...... I'd like to teach the world to sing.... in perfect harmony! Sorry, hippie flashback.

Click to expand...

A lot of Iran's political leaders expressed sympathy for the U.S. and condemned the attacks. Iran also had "sympathy books" in Tehran that many people signed, and Ayatollah Imami Kashani, at the time one of the most important clerics in Iran, expressed sympathy. Yassr Arafat and even hard line islamic radicals expressed their sympathy. The people who applauded the attacks is a very small % of the world.

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

WHY?!?!? is this an American problem. The problem isn't an unequal distribution of water purification services. The problem is an unequal distribution of freedom. You don't see this situation in the democracies of Asia, Europe and the Americas. You see this in the despotic governments of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Spread democracy, spread the rapid change of improved human health conditions. Comprede amigo?

Click to expand...

We could be doing more, a lot more. But yes, a lot of this is caused by oppressive governments and local warlords who use food, water, and the lack thereof to control their people, while blocking attempts by foreign aid groups. Ironicly enough, this goes on today in regions of Afghanistan, by local warlords, many of which we support. Afghanistan should have always been our focus.

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

I'll let someone prove this to me. You can't disprove a negative.

Click to expand...

You can't prove a negative. You CAN disprove a negative by showing that it is positive. But I think you meant prove. Prove to me that this war did in fact have something to do with our self defense. Bush tried to make the case that it was, that they had WMD and were ready to attack America.

Prove to me that Iraq was an imminent threat to America before the invasion. It has yet to be done, truthfully and convincingly, by anyone.

Well, Bush is more or less allowed to use it in his campaign ads because it's an actual event that happened under his presidency. Should he pretend that we aren't in a war and that this never happened so he isn't exploiting a tragedy? He's presenting his side of an important issue, and 9/11 is in part a reason for his opinions. Is this stuff there to get him reelected? Sure. But in order to get reelected, he has to present his reasons for believing that war is necessary.

If Moore wants to make a political point using 9/11, he's more than welcome to if the assertions are honest (which most of the ones made in the movie are not). He's charging people money for a political point based on 9/11, which to me seems to be exploitation of this tragedy.

Click to expand...

So, to sum it up:

Michael Moore uses 9/11 in his movie to make money, and to make a political statement.
George W. Bush uses 9/11 in his campaign ads so he can be President, and make a political statement.

I don't see how the one is exploitation while the other is ok.

Also, while I'm not a Michael Moore fan, he's the left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. If you have some right wing zealots on the air, I'd like to see some left wing zealots on the air, if only for balance. And I don't mean "equal time". Just balance. They're both big fat idiots. Most of Moore's arguments go a bit too far. But he makes interesting points and presents interesting evidence, which is more than I can say for Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulture (one of the biggest nuts of them all), and the rest. I'm sure there are right wing people in the media out there that present evidence in a meaningful way to make their case and not just shout out over their opposition, but they don't seem to be the big names.

I started to nod off while looking for statistics, gave up to come back to it tomorrow, and lo, one last refresh and dafoomie has been hard at it.
So:
"What HE said"

Edit:
Just saw this:

2,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq: Russian expert

By Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW, JULY 23. The United States suffers far heavier casualties in Iraq than it officially admits, a Russia military diplomat claimed.

The actual U.S. military losses in Iraq may have reached 2,000 personnel, more than twice the official figure of 900, as Washington badly understates its casualty statistics, a military diplomatic source told the Itar-Tass news agency.

"Official statistics do not include casualties among non-U.S. nationals who sign up to serve in the American armed forces in order to get a U.S. `green card.' According to reliable information the share of non-Americans in the U.S. force in Iraq may be as high as 60 per cent," the source said. "The real number of U.S. losses may be as high as 2,000 casualties and up to 12,000 wounded," the military diplomat said.

Click to expand...

http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/24/stories/2004072402401400.htm

Is this true? not the numbers, specifically, but are our offiicial death counts not including the green-card immigrant soldiers? Is so, that is a detestable and unjustifiable deception, not to mention a nauseating show of disrespect for these people who -died- trying to 'defend' a nation they were jsut becoming members of.

I sincerely hope this isn't true, because as much as I dislike the current administration, I really don't want to have to think this ill of someone.

Edit: I'm fishing for someone else who is actively out and about on their T1 line right now to see if there are any such limitations on the official count of the dead, as I am headed to bed, but intend to return to this forum in the mornin'.

The war in Iraq is Bush looking out for this country's future. Saddam wasn't going to just wake up one day and decide to be a good guy! If Saddam was to ever hit us with a wmd, all the people b*tching about the war in Iraq would be the first to cry out "Why didn't we do something about this sooner?". Well, we took care of him and now that is one less terrorist the world has to worry about. Another thing I need to get off my chest, all these people b*tching about our troops dying in Iraq need to realize that we no longer have the draft! Those troops VOLUNTEERED for the military and they knew that they could be sent to war before they signed any papers. I'm not saying that it isn't sad to see our soldiers die but the miltary isn't just a college handout. Oh, by the way, I am a Veteran and I think Michael Moore is one of the most unpatriotic people I have ever heard of. I would be willing to use my own hard earned money to buy him a one way first class ticket out of this country if he thinks it is so bad!

The war in Iraq is Bush looking out for this country's future. Saddam wasn't going to just wake up one day and decide to be a good guy! If Saddam was to ever hit us with a wmd, all the people b*tching about the war in Iraq would be the first to cry out "Why didn't we do something about this sooner?". Well, we took care of him and now that is one less terrorist the world has to worry about. Another thing I need to get off my chest, all these people b*tching about our troops dying in Iraq need to realize that we no longer have the draft! Those troops VOLUNTEERED for the military and they knew that they could be sent to war before they signed any papers. I'm not saying that it isn't sad to see our soldiers die but the miltary isn't just a college handout. Oh, by the way, I am a Veteran and I think Michael Moore is one of the most unpatriotic people I have ever heard of. I would be willing to use my own hard earned money to buy him a one way first class ticket out of this country if he thinks it is so bad!

[quote name='killswitch64']The war in Iraq is Bush looking out for this country's future. Saddam wasn't going to just wake up one day and decide to be a good guy! If Saddam was to ever hit us with a wmd, all the people b*tching about the war in Iraq would be the first to cry out "Why didn't we do something about this sooner?". Well, we took care of him and now that is one less terrorist the world has to worry about.[/quote]

What the hell? Since when is it okay to take over a country for no reason? Saddam never even threatened to attack the US. That would be like the police comming to your house and taking you jail because you had a CD in your house because you had the "intent" to pirate it and distribute it.

[quote name='Quackzilla']
Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?
[/quote]

I wish Michael Moore was one of these 40 million...

[quote name='killswitch64']... I am a Veteran and I think Michael Moore is one of the most unpatriotic people I have ever heard of. I would be willing to use my own hard earned money to buy him a one way first class ticket out of this country if he thinks it is so bad![/quote]

I am a veteran, and I believe Michael Moore is a great patriot.

Who cares more about the nation, the lying cheating stealing warmongers who are shaming us in front of the world, who are showing the world America's ass, and trodding not only on other nations to do so, but also our own folks, or the people who want to improve things, who want to correct our leader's mistakes, who want our nation to be a shining example to the world?

'Love it or leave it" is about the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard anybody say....

*sigh*