Imagine for a moment that you had a big debt, your house mortagged to the core, and your spending is way way off, heck you are about to lose your job....

Then someone comes and makes very difficult choices and after YEARS of hard work you are recovering, you have a steady job your debt has been reduced sustanally and your Mortagge is paid and in 3 to 8 years you will have good savings and the posibility of a nice position economically...

But that someone has to go, and you hire another guy to keep up the good work and in 3 years he not only has your house mortagged again, you are worse in debt than before and about to go bankrupt, and it seems your interest payments will be covered by your children..THAT BAD....

Will you fire this guy or give it 4 more years?

Heck the prive of oil on the international open market was 43.22 per barrel Way to Go DubYa !! sure you know a lot abuot oil companies....

I am amazed you need to discuss the Nov. Election, maybe YOU DESERVE GWB....

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I haven't seen the movie in months, but I seem to remember thinking that Moore's point (this is my opinion, of course) was that America's problem ISN'T with the NRA (he's a member!), with gun control, violent video games, etc. I think he was saying our problem is that we live in a society of fear, of losing all the things you point to above. The Charlton Heston thing was more of an aside because I think he wanted to get back at him, but I think that Moore aknowledges several times that our problem is not with special interests or gun nuts. It is almost an affirmation that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." People like Charlton Heston, that is.

I guess we're pretty off topic, but it is nice to get a well thought-out reply that isn't just a lame attempt to insult me. I was beginning to get a little skeptical about the folks on this site...

Just to digress a little longer, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore was asserting that we are a nation that is bombarded with fear via the media, and then we are armed to the the teeth, so naturally we shoot each other up.

I think that while he is an NRA member, he does support gun control because unlike other countries, Americans are more apt to shoot each other. And by gun control, I don't think that he is referring to the ineffective legislation currently in place or the assault weapons ban that just expired--it did not prevent Eric Harris & Dylan Kelbold from obtaining an arsenal of weapons. This is evident by his sympathy for the parents of the kids that died and their quest for gun control. He is also pretty hard on Walmart for freely selling bullets, implying that it shouldn't be legal.

But I do think his implication that the NRA is a hinderance to real gun control is pretty bold, which is obviously what earned him the role of target dummy on gun ranges all across America.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
....................

But I do think his implication that the NRA is a hinderance to real gun control is pretty bold, which is obviously what earned him the role of target dummy on gun ranges all across America.

bold.....an implication of fact is bold? well then I'm implying the sky is blue....pretty bold huh. that is one of the most often quoted goals of the NRA, they must be the boldest dudes on the planet.
what earned him the role of target dummy is his burning hatred for america....BTW, isn't bowling for columbine the movie that he took C. Hestons speech cut and pieced it together to change the content of the speech? no he doesn't lie

[edit on 22-9-2004 by keholmes]

Edit, and forget it

[edit on 22-9-2004 by spacedoubt]

kix,

Oh yeah, I remember that previous economic genious.
He was certainly a thrifty guy..

Reduce military spending (increase personal disdain for military), cut intelligence spending.
Ignore terrorism, it's too hard, and too expensive to deal with.

Make a few bucks renting out the Lincoln bedroom, and selling missle tech to the Commies in China.

Sit back and watch the Dot.COM baloon fill with billions of invisible dollars.
POP!!!! no balloon, no dollars.

I really miss THAT guy..

Dn't you mean cut spending on obsolete military technology and redundant intelligence branches as well as bombing potential terrorist bases and leaving a memo for the next admistration warning of the gathering terrorist threat right? Yeah clinton was such a villain ....

LOL..NO, not what I mean, and you know it!

a MEMO!?
What did it say?

"Sorry, we didn't bother to follow-up on the whole World Trade center bombing thing..You can handle it. You can be the "Bad Guy".
OH, and Hopefully you'll get an offer, custody of That Omsama guy,
we did, but his room wasn't ready.

Good luck, and I'm Outta here
BUBBA"

Originally posted by kix
Then someone comes and makes very difficult choices and after YEARS of hard work you are recovering, you have a steady job your debt has been reduced sustanally and your Mortagge is paid and in 3 to 8 years you will have good savings and the posibility of a nice position economically...

LMAO... What a BS analogy... But you forgot the part where he had sex with your wife and then lied to your face about it.

Seth,

Sex with your wife?

depends on the definitions of "sex", "with", "your", and of course, "wife"

Originally posted by oppodeldoc

By the way, I like this link. It says the Bush administration appeared "Surprised" when that report came out. I wonder why? Here are some suggestions...

And here, the Administration just sounds totally out of touch (surprise):

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that "an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.

You know you are digging democrat's grave as you try to dig it for the republicans?...did you not read what Clinton, (husband and wife) were saying in the former administration, along with other democrats, and even during this administration about Iraq and Al Qaeda's ties? or that Saddam had been harboring and helping terrorists of other organizations?

Wake up, this administration was not the first one to talk about these ties....

Originally posted by boogyman
Dn't you mean cut spending on obsolete military technology and redundant intelligence branches as well as bombing potential terrorist bases and leaving a memo for the next admistration warning of the gathering terrorist threat right? Yeah clinton was such a villain ....

Were you in the military during the Clinton administration?

If you call obsolete technology for downsizing the military even more, often we had to pull double shifts of guard duty at night and slept 4 hours or so each night, our aircraft carriers did not have enough personnel, neither did most combat vessels. You call that obsolete military technology? Also...bombing potential terrorist bases?,...they were empty, so he started a war, shooting empty buildings....


[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]

The fact remains we are currently fighting with a Clinton military, aparently this current admin. had enough faith in it to believe thhat we could win the war iin Iraq with one hhand tied behind our back

Originally posted by boogyman
The fact remains we are currently fighting with a Clinton military, aparently this current admin. had enough faith in it to believe thhat we could win the war iin Iraq with one hhand tied behind our back

Oh man is this a joke! We are fighting with what is left of the Reagan military...........what Clinton didnt cut or kill....thats why were are having some issues...

Good thing Kerry vote didnt count when the weapons were being purchased huh? Zell Miller had it right, "what with? Spitballs?"