View Full Version : fahrenheit 9/11
What a load of Bullshit.
typical, its bullshit but u cant show any reasonable reason why- whatever u brainwashed jackass whatever ::)
Yea? And where is your proof? All I see on your posts is profanity. None of you Bush bashers have stated one legitimate reason for me to change my thinking about him. Liars and such does not tell me why, it only tells me that you really don't know why you just do! PROVE YOUR CAUSE IF YOU WANT TO SELL IT TO ME!
Big d
Uhm WHERE IS YOURS ??? Oh that's right u just like Ace u don't have any if so then post it- counter the things we have said or agreed with....... cant u or Ace counter with anything at all ? so far the answer is a resounding NO.
Not one legit reason huh ? Like I said about Ace..... ur brainwashed if u cant even find one thing to question on Bush. You don't have to agree with us but to say there isnt one legit reason to question his policies is ABSURD.
Kiss my republican, educated, non-abortion having :moon:
Big D
oh so now if we dont support Bush then we must have had an abortion ::) Uhm I have never had one and I obviously dont support Bush so that blows ur theory now doesnt it ;D
Since u seem to think Bush is the end all why dont u just state why u worship him so- give us some reasons not to dislike him so much.... that is if there are any reasons :-\
I do not consider that an act of treason, what I do consider an act of treason is making a documentary that is slanderous of the leader of our country.
Big D
Would this include potential numerous acts of "treason" commited between January 1993 and January 2001? I'm curious.
::)
what exactly are u re: to ?
Madcap
06-28-2004, 11:06 AM
Pathetic is coming on to this site and making a comlete ass of yourself! Kiss my republican, educated, non-abortion having :moon:
Big D
70% of MEN are against abortion. 100% of these men will never get pregnant.
Oh and of course you are a non-abortion having :moon: You are a man. ::)
I don't know, MC, Wildman, am I am man? I am sure that Wildman can definately confirm my sex - it was right in his face Friday night! :yummy:
Considering the Bike pic, i'd say you are most definately a woman.
Madcap
06-28-2004, 11:16 AM
Oh, and actual Treason is an offense pusishable by death, ask the Rosenbergs...
;D I bet she'd like to put all the people like me to death just b/c we dont worship Bush and have no problem saying so ;D
sander8son
06-28-2004, 12:48 PM
well, having stopped reading this thread at about page 5 a couple days ago(and no, ofcorse i haven't read up to page 11 since then.)
i just saw the movie. it wasn't as sensationalistic and extreme as id hoped it would be. but was still somewhat entertaining.
its definately anti-republican, but i found it to be only slightly pro-democratic(party). which is good for me, since i obviously hate both parties. some good tv-nationesque parts to it(like where he tries to ellicit congressmen to enlist their children in the US armed forces).
i wasn't voting for bush pre-viewing the moving, nor am i after. it hasn't changed my opinion on the presidency, the republican party, or the democratic party. i hope that others who see this, not only take away a distrust and hatred of the republican party, but also will stop to realize that the democrats contributed to the problems portrayed in the film(although, they're hardly chastised by moore) as well.
it is clear, that regardless of who you like or dislike, our true enemy isn't george bush, nor is it the republican party. our true enemy is the government itself. moores conclusion at the end about keeping society continuing along, is a testiment to both parties bringing forth the destruction of the very people they brainwash into believing they serve. i dont think moore realizes this, but its true.
AinNY
06-28-2004, 12:58 PM
i think my mom shouldve had an abortion so i wouldnt have had to read this whole thread
sander8son
06-28-2004, 01:14 PM
i think my mom shouldve had an abortion so i wouldnt have had to read this whole thread
tell ya what ain, toss jeter and arod on that list too and we'll call it a deal! ;) ;D
so does that mean you dont recomend i read from page 5 or whatever on?
AinNY
06-28-2004, 01:43 PM
i think my mom shouldve had an abortion so i wouldnt have had to read this whole thread
tell ya what ain, toss jeter and arod on that list too and we'll call it a deal! ;) ;D
so does that mean you dont recomend i read from page 5 or whatever on?
Put us all out of our misery...
Please dont read this thread. I think i am now dumberer for having read this thread ;D (no offense to anyone here...its just a joke)
onlythebest
06-28-2004, 01:46 PM
After what I have read and see in the media how things are going,I am voting for Nader to be neutral.
NVJosh
06-28-2004, 02:19 PM
It's propaganda, but it'll be entertaining propaganda.
Since I have neither the time nor the interest to read 12 pages of "I'm right"...no "I'm right" (or "I'm left"?) that I've seen before, let me say that IMO, this sums it up pretty well. Although, truth to tell, I think it was only fairly entertaining.
As for me, I've always thought Bush was a lousy president, and that he stole the election, and I know I'll be voting against him in November.
As for the film, I liked parts of it. Personally, I think "Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them" (Al Franken) covers a lot of the same ground in a much better way, especially as Franken clearly documents where he's getting his info, with Lexis/Nexis and web references and the like.
I think the film spent way too much time on the Bin Laden/Bush connection, as its generally accepted that Osama is the black sheep of the family, even if he did have some contact with some family members (the movie doesn't specify which). I think that's really fishing for something that isn't there. Now, as to Bush being concerned about Saudi interests in the USA, I don't know, because I'm not in GWB's head. However, to deny that the Saudis have helped the Bush's get rich would be a pretty big stretch.
I think the depiction of Bagdhad as a happy place before the Americans showed up is crap. Yeah, I'm sure that there were lots of happy people there, however to ignore what was going on in other parts of the capital (and country) is about as biased as you can get. And, the truth is, civilians get hurt in war. Its unfortunate, and it happens. I think Moore's position is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, so that makes the USA guilty of killing all these civilians. That's a tougher question, although I certainly feel that an Iraq without Saddam is better for the general populace in the long run, and that makes the civilian casualties regrettable, and for the greater good (although the families who had casualties might disagree with me).
I think the best parts were showing Bush's inactivity after the 2nd plane hit the WTC (remember, he wasn't informed until after the 2nd plane hit) when he should have made a polite apology and gotten with strategic people immediately, his lack of care about terrorism before 9/11, and generally showing the lack of competence and character in his administration.
I think putting a human side on the conflict was the most interesting part, as the news generally only gives the feel good stories or the insurgent attacks, so a fresh perspective was nice.
Was it propoganda, mostly anti-Bush propoganda? No question about it. BTW, I say "mostly" anti-Bush, because the fact that no Senator would support the Congressional Black Caucus over the election results was appalling, IMO. Was it slanted...again, no question. However, as some commentator I heard on the radio remarked "Its nothing worse than the Rush Limbaugh's of the world do to the Democrats every day of the week."
So, take the film for what it is, and enjoy it as a film. Don't take it as gospel, and find out the facts for yourself. Read the Franken book. And mostly, get out and vote in November.
NinaDaisy
06-28-2004, 02:27 PM
After what I have read and see in the media how things are going,I am voting for Nader to be neutral.
You said in a previous thread that you support Bush because he won't cut your husband's military benefits, but Nader is more anti-defense than 10 Kerry's put together!
I don't get it...
what makes u think Kerry will cut miltary pay ? Here are some of what I have found:
John Kerry opposed the administration’s proposed cuts to the military. He has said will not abandon our troops or cut their pay, particularly at a time when so many members of our reservists are facing danger.
Also Kerry supports repealing the trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy. He has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate to use that money to fund the $87 billion request by President George W. Bush for completion of the war with Iraq.
Bush took money from places like education to support the war despite his pledge of leave no child behind .
Middle-class taxes are a large part of Kerry’s economic plan. He pledges to cut middle class families’ current tax levels in order to make things college more affordable.
I see no reason to think Kerry will lower the paycheck of the miltary.
Richard_Head
06-28-2004, 03:58 PM
LOL, where have you been the last 4 years, that's exactly what has already happened under Bush, have you seen the size of the deficit Bush has run up, have you seen the rise in unemployment, the outsourcing of jobs, the stagnating wages, all of which lead to a poor stock market and less "discretionary" spending money.
If you'll check the stock market ticker you'll see that the downturn happened in the summer/fall of 1999, and George W. wasn't inaugurated until January 2001.
I don't want to get into a big debate over the economy with you as we both know the President doesn't have a great deal of control over it, but still, ultimately someone needs to take responsibility for steering the ship in the right direction. Clinton resided over the greatest period of peace time economic growth in history, he obviously must have been doing something right, and not to nitpick but maybe you should be checking that stock ticker a bit closer, the market actually peaked in early 2000, not 1999, Bush was in office at that time.
Melonie
06-28-2004, 04:01 PM
Also Kerry supports repealing the trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy. He has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate to use that money to fund the $87 billion request by President George W. Bush for completion of the war with Iraq.
Actually, John Kerry does not propose increasing taxes on the wealthy (i.e. himself). What John Kerry DOES propose is to increase taxes on people who are working their butts off and as a result have reasonably high earned incomes, but who are not wealthy because they do not yet own companies, large amounts of property, stocks or bonds.
I urge you to revisit and actually read what it is saying.
Melonie
06-28-2004, 04:12 PM
Clinton resided over the greatest period of peace time economic growth in history, he obviously must have been doing something right, and not to nitpick but maybe you should be checking that stock ticker a bit closer, the market actually peaked in early 2000, not 1999, Bush was in office at that time.
Not to be nitpicky either, but Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, just as the winner of the 2004 election will be inaugurated in January 2005. I grant you that the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX markets peaked at slightly different times ... however they all peaked while Clinton was in office. It was the news media which seemed to make it a point to withhold reports of disturbing stock market declines until after Bush was in office in 2001, thus fostering the (deliberate) false impression that Bush was directly responsible even though the declines had actually begun months earlier.
At any rate, the unprecedented period of peacetime economic growth which occurred through the mid-90's had very little to do with Clinton, and a whole lot to do with the "defense dividend" Clinton was able to cash in because of the success of Ronald Reagan in toppling the Soviet Union and the success of George H. Bush in keeping a (temporary) lid on the middle east. This allowed Clinton to reduce military budgets by hundreds of billions of dollars, and a portion of that money saved was indirectly used for business investments and applied to the stock market. Effectively, the "defense dividend" was equivalent to a tax cut !
Actually, John Kerry does not propose increasing taxes on the wealthy (i.e. himself).
Kerry wouldnt increase taxes on the wealthy but instead supports repealing the trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy..... which says tome that the wealthy's taxes would go back to what they were before Bush gave them tax breaks so it wouldnt technically be an increase.
It also seems to me the only people who benifet from Bush's policies are the rich and the religous fanatics. Bush's website it full of religon based programs. How does that comply to seperation of church and state. Isn't it the exact opposite?
Melonie
06-28-2004, 04:34 PM
Kerry wouldnt increase taxes on the wealthy but instead supports repealing the trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy..... which says tome that the wealthy's taxes would go back to what they were before Bush gave them tax breaks so it wouldnt technically be an increase
You're still missing the point here. As the wealthiest person in the senate, John Kerry's taxes were not significantly affected by George Bush's tax cuts, and will also not be significantly affected if those tax cuts are repealed. John Kerry had about $137,000 in taxable income last year (which was subject to Bush's tax cut), but probably had $5,000,000 in tax free dividends, capital gains, and real estate appreciation on which he paid zilch in the way of taxes ! If Bush's tax cut is repealed, John Kerry will still pay zilch in taxes on next year's $5,000,000 in tax free dividends, capital gains, and real estate appreciation.
On the other hand, MY taxes went down by about $4,000 last April as a result of the tax cut and, if repealed, my taxes will go UP by the same $4,000 next April. That's a tax increase in my book no matter how you spin it.
Ur right I dont get it.... what does his personal income have to do with this ?
Bush's policies only make the rich richer at the expense of the rest of the people.
Casual Observer
06-28-2004, 05:00 PM
OK, with all the ignorance on this board about who is paying taxes and who is not, use some data to support your assertions:
Try these charts on for size. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)
The bottom line is, you can't get a tax break when you haven't been paying taxes to begin with, and rich people, much as the class warriors in this country hate to admit it, pay most of the taxes in this country--always have, and so long as we have regressive tax policies based on class warfare, always will.
Shouldn't this be a separate thread? It's way off-topic now...
Two cents.
sgtjohnny
06-28-2004, 05:12 PM
It is a stupid movie, in fact it is not even a movie in fact, I would not even call it a documentary. It is a Political Propaganda message. The Message that M. Moore wants to tell is that he advocates an increase number of troops in Iraq but then turns around wanting to withdrawl the troops. The Movie has no basis of truth, it is filled with lies and provides no real conclusive facts to back up the claims. If you see this Movie it shows that you are unamerican and that you think Saddam should still be in power. If you want to watch it go ahead but it is a lie. If it was my choice we would have nuked a huge portion of the Jihad areas like Sadr City and Fallujah.
Deogol
06-28-2004, 05:20 PM
Also Kerry supports repealing the trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy. He has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate to use that money to fund the $87 billion request by President George W. Bush for completion of the war with Iraq.
Actually, John Kerry does not propose increasing taxes on the wealthy (i.e. himself). What John Kerry DOES propose is to increase taxes on people who are working their butts off and as a result have reasonably high earned incomes, but who are not wealthy because they do not yet own companies, large amounts of property, stocks or bonds.
I urge you to revisit and actually read what it is saying.
Wow, your like the third person who has referred to that web site in my social circle...
The bottom line is, you can't get a tax break when you haven't been paying taxes to begin with,
Uhm who r u trying to say doesnt pay their taxes ? And how could u know anyway ::) I pay my taxes and dont appreciate having the rich get breaks at the expense of the middle and lowerclass quality of life. Why should I suffer higher healthcare or struggle to send my kid to college just so the wealthiest people in this country can get have a little more >:(
Richard_Head
06-28-2004, 06:45 PM
OK, with all the ignorance on this board about who is paying taxes and who is not, use some data to support your assertions:
Try these charts on for size. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)
The bottom line is, you can't get a tax break when you haven't been paying taxes to begin with, and rich people, much as the class warriors in this country hate to admit it, pay most of the taxes in this country--always have, and so long as we have regressive tax policies based on class warfare, always will.
An interesting book came out last year called "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnson (a Pulitzer Prize winner BTW) which exposes how little taxes the super wealthy really do actually pay, you should pick it up and give it a look sometime.
http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/
A couple of excerpts from that site:
*Roberto Goizueta, CEO of Coca-Cola, built a billion-dollar fortune without paying a dime in taxes on it.
*Tom and Cindy Toth, a corporate trainer and stay-at-home mom, live on $90,000 a year. But the alternative minimum tax will take back much of the tax cuts Congress voted them in 2001 and 2003. By 2010, 35.6 million households will pay this “stealth tax.”
*Ingersoll-Rand pays $26,000 a year to maintain a Bermuda post office box as its legal headquarters. That little trick lets them escape $40 million in corporate taxes each year.
*The IRS unjustly came after Maritza Reyes, a cleaning woman in East Los Angeles who earns $7,000 per year, but ignored the fact that billionaire art dealer Alec Wildenstein and his wife Jocelyn never filed a tax return in three decades
Richard_Head
06-28-2004, 07:05 PM
I grant you that the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX markets peaked at slightly different times ... however they all peaked while Clinton was in office.
Did you check your stock ticker on that one? Try this site:
www.bigcharts.com
At any rate, the unprecedented period of peacetime economic growth which occurred through the mid-90's had very little to do with Clinton, and a whole lot to do with the "defense dividend" Clinton was able to cash in because of the success of Ronald Reagan in toppling the Soviet Union and the success of George H. Bush in keeping a (temporary) lid on the middle east. This allowed Clinton to reduce military budgets by hundreds of billions of dollars, and a portion of that money saved was indirectly used for business investments and applied to the stock market. Effectively, the "defense dividend" was equivalent to a tax cut !
Reagan uh? Okay ;).
NinaDaisy
06-28-2004, 10:22 PM
It is a stupid movie, in fact it is not even a movie in fact, I would not even call it a documentary. It is a Political Propaganda message. The Message that M. Moore wants to tell is that he advocates an increase number of troops in Iraq but then turns around wanting to withdrawl the troops. The Movie has no basis of truth, it is filled with lies and provides no real conclusive facts to back up the claims. If you see this Movie it shows that you are unamerican and that you think Saddam should still be in power. If you want to watch it go ahead but it is a lie. If it was my choice we would have nuked a huge portion of the Jihad areas like Sadr City and Fallujah.
Gotta loooove people who make such sweeping, generalized statements, right?
Can you tell me where in the movie Moore advocates sending more troops? Oh wait, you haven't seen it!
I'm assuming you have't seen this movie, since you label those who do "un-American". Well, I HAVE seen it and can tell you that the "lies" in the film are shitloads of footage of Bush and people in his administration! But of course you don't have to see it since you advocate "nuking" all these people and killing even more innocent civilians and sending more working class army kids to their deaths. Maybe all the footage of dead and wounded soldiers AND children might sway you a bit.
I am glad Saddam is out of power, but there are many other despots in the world besides him. Riddle me this, Sarge: if North Korea at the same time was announcing that they actually WERE developing a nuclear (pardon me, "nukular") program, why didn't we go afte them? I'll bet my favorite pair of heels that if they found oil in North Korea tomorrow they'd be next.
I'd tell you to watch the movie, but you seem so close-minded I wouldn't waste my breath. You seem like the kind of person that hates being proven wrong and you would be, in fucking spades.
Madcap
06-28-2004, 10:25 PM
"Unamerican" is telling people they are 'unamerican' for having a different opinion than you do. This happens all too often.
onlythebest
06-28-2004, 10:26 PM
After what I have read and see in the media how things are going,I am voting for Nader to be neutral.
You said in a previous thread that you support Bush because he won't cut your husband's military benefits, but Nader is more anti-defense than 10 Kerry's put together!
I don't get it...
I don't know a damn thing about Nader.I was kind of being sarcastic.I lean more towards the Repubilcan party,not so much for Bush.I feel safer and better knowing that there is more incentive for people to be in the military to stay in and feel rest assured knowing they were financially taken care of,as a result a stronger military also.Republicans on a whole take care of the military better than any other party.
Madcap
06-28-2004, 10:28 PM
Personally, i'd make Nader Attourney General and sic him on the corporations...
He needs to drop the fuck out of the race though... He was all ready the spoiler once, why does he want a repeat performance?
It is a stupid movie, in fact it is not even a movie in fact, I would not even call it a documentary. It is a Political Propaganda message. The Message that M. Moore wants to tell is that he advocates an increase number of troops in Iraq but then turns around wanting to withdrawl the troops. The Movie has no basis of truth, it is filled with lies and provides no real conclusive facts to back up the claims. If you see this Movie it shows that you are unamerican and that you think Saddam should still be in power. If you want to watch it go ahead but it is a lie. If it was my choice we would have nuked a huge portion of the Jihad areas like Sadr City and Fallujah.
It's pretty clear that u havent seen the film.... how can u call something u havent seen a lie ? How would u know if it was a lie or not ? U say Moore didnt back up any of his claims ..... lets see u back up yours ::)
Djoser
06-28-2004, 11:03 PM
I do not consider that an act of treason, what I do consider an act of treason is making a documentary that is slanderous of the leader of our country.
Big D
Would this include potential numerous acts of "treason" commited between January 1993 and January 2001? I'm curious.
::)
what exactly are u re: to ?
He is referring to the witch hunt perpetrated on Clinton during his eight years in office, which according to Big D and bjmcinti should result in firing squads for the offending parties. These would include Rush Limbaugh, a formerly big fat traitor if I ever saw one (by their terms), Newt Gingrich, that pathetic little puffball geek, and several tens of millions more people who were quite outspoken in their disgust at Clinton.
My girlfriend should be shot at dawn in a belated act of justice as well, should I turn her in?
Personally, I liked the guy, but whatever. Shoot me too, because I think Bush is a moron, a liar, and a very dangerous man as far as the future of the USA, and the World, is concerned. I don't need to see a clearly biased movie with actual footage edited cleverly to come to this conclusion--I can read. And the bad stuff I've read about Clinton doesn't even come close to what I've read about the guys before and after him.
Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, sure, but they lied about selling guns to terrorists, dealing with drug dealers, and the real reason for invading that one particular guy's country who mistreated his people and might have tried to build an atomic bomb--out of a half-dozen or so candidates for this treatment.
I do find it amusing to see Clinton denied any credit for any economic growth whatsoever; in fact all our current problems--which some people might think could be due to Bush, with his Trickle Down Pt. 2 economic plan, are actually Clinton's fault. Including the sharp rise in the National deficit, which took years to create under Reagan and Bush, Sr., was eradicated during Clinton's terms, and has suddenly been resurrected in a truly frightening scale under Bush, Jr.
But no one who likes Bush or hates Clinton cares about all this anyways, so I am wasting my time.
We should all be shot...
I would have to agree with whoever said that this movie is no worse than what that other fat and often humorous demagogue, and many other irritating imitators, have been doing every day for years, now.
ah I see... thanks for the explanation DJoser. I wasn't aware that adultry is an act of treason Doc ::)
and DJ I also think that that the greatest threat to US national security at this point in time is Bush himself. As I understand it he had more people worldwide protest him than anyone in the history of man. Now thats some scary shit !
Madcap
06-28-2004, 11:13 PM
I hear Bush has Fleas, too...
NinaDaisy
06-28-2004, 11:20 PM
After what I have read and see in the media how things are going,I am voting for Nader to be neutral.
You said in a previous thread that you support Bush because he won't cut your husband's military benefits, but Nader is more anti-defense than 10 Kerry's put together!
I don't get it...
I don't know a damn thing about Nader.I was kind of being sarcastic.I lean more towards the Repubilcan party,not so much for Bush.I feel safer and better knowing that there is more incentive for people to be in the military to stay in and feel rest assured knowing they were financially taken care of,as a result a stronger military also.Republicans on a whole take care of the military better than any other party.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Dubya's cut military pay and funding by more than 50% since he took office.
Actually, that's discussed in the movie. Too bad how the GOP counts on this misconception. If Bush takes such good care of the troops, why are military families applying for food stamps and public assistance in droves?
The military that Republicans often take care of are the contractors and those who stand to make money from the contracts. They don't give a shit about individual soldiers and their families. Or at least their policies demonstrate that.
Djoser
06-29-2004, 12:42 AM
I am anti-abortion
wow that's a pretty brave admission to make here considering your business . Men who think they have the right tell women what they can or cannot do in regards to childbirth are not generaly well recieved by dancers, including this ex-dancer
>:(
Not to throw a baseball through the plate glass window that is anyone' sacred belief system here, but it is possible for someone to consider that something is morally wrong, yet despite that think that it should be legally available.
There's a clear difference between making a case for one's personal morals and insisting that they be rammed down their neighbor's throats by force of law.
That is true, but if Bush and those behind him have their way, that is EXACTLY what will happen to women in the USA. If he could make ALL abortion illegal tomorrow by snapping his fingers, he would do it in a heartbeat. I also believe he would shut down every stripclub in America, if he thought he could get away with it, to please his Religious Right backers.
One of many other reasons why this goon needs to be ejected from office, ASAP.
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 12:48 AM
NinaDaisy,are you getting your sources strictly from the movie?My husband gets pay raises every nine months or so and we have the best medical coverage.I have used the shit out of our medical benefits and have yet to pay a single dime.Do you know anyone in the military?If not,then you really have no basis for your statement.
Madcap
06-29-2004, 12:48 AM
I'm against abortion used as a form of birth control, as a friend of mine and his GF have aborted at last count TEN pregnancies (and this was a couple of years ago), they refuse to wrap that rascal.
TEN FUCKING ABORTIONS IS TOO MUCH! You'd think someone would learn. Especially when a rubber is about 1$ while an abortion is like 3-400$.
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 01:02 AM
I forgot to address the food stamp question.When you first enlist in the military,you make virtually just peanuts.On top of that,people are having children left and right.The women that are in the service keep getting knocked up to become undepoyable.Because housing is free and the commissary items are tax free,people take this as a green light to have more and more children.It's factors like that,that force everyone to go on welfare,not just those in the military.I'm sorry,but if you're a young couple who has a budget where everything practically breaks even,having more children than you can financially handle will make the cup spill over.The republicans doesn't give a shit about individual soldiers,but they certainly give a shit about them on a whole,because they need a strong military to go to B.F.E. in a moments notice to "kick the shit" out of whoever is f*cking with us at the time.
NinaDaisy
06-29-2004, 01:19 AM
I forgot to address the food stamp question.When you first enlist in the military,you make virtually just peanuts.On top of that,people are having children left and right.The women that are in the service keep getting knocked up to become undepoyable.Because housing is free and the commissary items are tax free,people take this as a green light to have more and more children.It's factors like that,that force everyone to go on welfare,not just those in the military.I'm sorry,but if you're a young couple who has a budget where everything practically breaks even,having more children than you can financially handle will make the cup spill over.The republicans doesn't give a shit about individual soldiers,but they certainly give a shit about them on a whole,because they need a strong military to go to B.F.E. in a moments notice to "kick the shit" out of whoever is f*cking with us at the time.
FYI, I know several people in the military. A cousin, several friends and acquaintances and I've dated a Marine. You may have had your benefits raised but you are the exception. One person I know has high security clearance and he's told me things that have made my hair stand on end.
And how exactly was Iraq fucking with us?
That's an excellent point that is actually in Moore's film. He says how these young men and women put their lives on the line for our freedom and the only thing they ask in return is that we don't put them in harm's way unless we have a good reason. We don't have a good reason to be there. Freedom? Uh, huh, freeing their oil. WMD's? Oh, please. Making money for Bush and his cronies? BINGO!
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 01:25 AM
That's the only drawback,to be put at the ends of the earth for these great health benefits for the soldier's family.As for the f*cking with us statement,I was loosely mimcking the typical Republican mentality.My husband gets paid well and we have great benefits,but he has been deployed twice already.I reitterate,that's the only drawback.
NinaDaisy
06-29-2004, 01:57 AM
Well if your husband is willing to die for great insurance, that says a lot about the sorry state this nation is in. It might be the only drawback, but I'd say it's kind of a big one. But that's just my opinion.
BTW, rumor has it Moore's next film is about the health care system in the U.S.
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 02:03 AM
It's not just for the health benefits.It's also for job security.There are so many so-called Fortune 500 companies laying off people left and right.You could put in 15 years in a company just to get a pink slip one day.I must agree with you about the state of the country currently.So long as there is turmoil in the world(regretfully so),my husband will get a paycheck.
Michael Moore doing a movie on healthcare? Hopefully he will learn some stuff along the way like weighing 300 pounds is not the most healthy thing to do. Obesity is the precursor to MANY diesases including heart, liver and kidney problems and diabetis. Instead of driving around chauffered in his limo he should go on a walk across america while doing his healthcare documentary and burn off those extra 350,000 calories he is carrying.
On another note I see what Bush has done, I figured him out. He outsourced all of our jobs so joining the army is the only job that people can get hired for now. Now many have no choice: either go to war for something you don't believe in, or have your wife and children go hungry and have no healthcare. All in the name of corporate profits for his golf buddies. Interesting....
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 02:17 AM
See,we're all screwed either way.
Djoser
06-29-2004, 02:35 AM
With all due respect, onlythebest, you can be very glad that one thing some of my more respected opponents in these damned political threads are correct about is the very low loss of life in these two Bush Wars (American life, that is--there were some pretty serious Iraqi casualties in the neavy bombing attacks of the first war). Not that the loss of even one American life in an unjustified war isn't wrong.
If there had been anywhere near the relative casualty levels of previous wars, especially WWII, you better believe we wouldn't be having such extended and heated political battles on a forum for strippers. Even those who now argue the point that Bush is doing the right thing would be forced to reconsider whether the cost was worth it. There would be massive demonstrations in the streets like there were during the Vietnam War, maybe worse--and Bush would be in a lot deeper shit than any resulting from this movie.
I sincerely hope that your husband makes it back OK. I for one choose to "support our troops" by opposing this war for oil profiteers and munitions manufacturers. If they must fight and risk their lives, let it be against Enemies of the State who are more undisputably so, and not for the convenience of men like Bush, Cheney, and the new CEO of Halliburton.
I do believe in a strong military, and having the balls to use it, but not so that the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about--apparently to no avail--can reap ever more profit. We should have stuck with stomping the balls off Al Queda in Afghanistan, instead of furthering its cause by pissing off the entire Arab world except our dubious allies. Allies who have helped us out by further jacking up the price of oil, and forcing our servicewomen to conform to their ridiculous sexist customs while keeping their aristocratic asses safe.
And to those who protest the need for such prolonged and heated debates on a forum for strippers, I can assure you that on every one of the many diverse forums I have visited recently, the same debates are raging.
It is all the more appropriate here, since the President has been elected on a platform which is directly opposed to the freedom of sexuality and sexual expression without which our industry cannot survive.
onlythebest
06-29-2004, 02:49 AM
Djoser,you are right about the small numbers in the loss of life,but it still doesn't stop me from freaking out on a daily basis,wondering if I'm going to spend our next wedding anniversary together.Seeing the Arlington National Cemetary in person is something I hope never happens.He's actually back in town.......,but he's due to be deployed again in September.I don't agree with this war in any way,shape or form,but it puts food on the table.
Melonie
06-29-2004, 03:45 AM
NinaDaisy,are you getting your sources strictly from the movie?My husband gets pay raises every nine months or so and we have the best medical coverage.I have used the shit out of our medical benefits and have yet to pay a single dime.Do you know anyone in the military?If not,then you really have no basis for your statement.
This really gets back to the essence of this thread once again ... that many people who have seen/will see this movie will tend to accept Michael Moore's 'script' as actual fact, and give his story line the benefit of the doubt unless faced with conclusive proof to the contrary.
Melonie
06-29-2004, 04:00 AM
The bottom line is, you can't get a tax break when you haven't been paying taxes to begin with, and rich people, much as the class warriors in this country hate to admit it, pay most of the taxes in this country--always have, and so long as we have regressive tax policies based on class warfare, always will.
You're absolutely right that most people who declare less than $30,000 a year in income effectively pay no income tax after household tax credits, child care tax credits, and standard deductions are applied. This fact was the source of great republican/democrat debate during the tax cut legislation battle - with the democrats arguing that the US treasury should cut checks paid for by someone else's tax money so that people who actually paid no net income taxes should get someone else's money paid to them in the form of a 'tax refund check'.
On the other side of the spectrum, it's really important to distiguish between 'rich people' (like John Kerry) and people with 'high taxable incomes' (for want of a better example, me!). It is people with 'high taxable incomes' like myself that wind up paying 80+% of ALL income taxes. Even though John Kerry is worth upwards of a half billion dollars, and probably 'gained' over 5 million dollars last year in tax exempt dividends, 'unrealized' capital gains, real estate value appreciation on his five mansions etc. his taxable income only consisted of his government salary as a senator. As a result, I probably paid more in income taxes last year than John Kerry did, even though my house is not yet paid for ! Attempting to confuse taxing people with high incomes like me (which they are actually doing), versus taxing people who are wealthy like themselves (which they are NOT actually doing), is a long time tool of democrats.
Sitri
06-29-2004, 05:15 AM
Well if your husband is willing to die for great insurance, that says a lot about the sorry state this nation is in. It might be the only drawback, but I'd say it's kind of a big one. But that's just my opinion.
BTW, rumor has it Moore's next film is about the health care system in the U.S.
Ha Ha, this would be like a second grader explaining Physics. Oops, maybe that is Michael Moore's documentary after healthcare. I think he has a Wheel of Topics that he knows nothing about and he spins it.
AinNY
06-29-2004, 05:44 AM
hahaha..i got it on DVD yesterday...ill be watching it tonight...and no i still havent read this thread