Brave BYU Student Challenges Michael Moore
Help me out here. BYU student Bradly Ross has graciously risen to challenge certain assumtions he gleened from the Micheal Moore pledge I posted below.
I have meetings all day so I must defer to OneUtah readers and authors to help Bradly stay focused (was the too glib?). I repost his earnest response as follows: (which certain additional references for the reader’s convenience)
maybe you will consider providing a little counter point to his points
Fair request. I’m ready for bed, so we’ll just look at a couple of these points, in order of appearance.
(1) Claim: In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
Rebuttal: Jim Gilchrist speaks at Columbia University and students rush the stage toforcefully stop Gilchrist from speaking. To quote from the report I just linked: “Moreover, he was assaulted by a group of intolerant student protesters who charged the podium, threw over tables and chairs, and kicked and punched and kicked bystanders.” Another group of university students tried to prevent John McCain from delivering remarks at a commencement speech. They heckled him during his speech and stood up and turned their backs to him. All this because he “didn’t represent their views.” We could go on and on with examples on this point. People on the left regularly try to shut down points of view that disagree with their own. (I should note that it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this argument whether or not people on the right do this; Moore’s statement was about the virtue of the left, not the failings of the right.)
(2) Claim: We will let you marry whomever you want
Rebuttal: This may be a true claim for whomever Moore gets to sign his petition, but I doubt it. He is speaking too broadly to be credible. Does he really support every possible marriage arrangement? Would he allow a man to marry his children to escape the estate tax? Would he allow polygamy? Would he allow you to marry a pet? (Many people consider them on par with humans!) Would he allow you to marry a deceased historical figure? You get the idea. He acts as though he would place no limits on marriage, but that is simply impractical. Any rational person would admit that there must be limits on what we call marriage. The only debate is where to place those limits.(3) Claim: We will not spend your grandchildren’s money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends.
Rebuttal: I think most every earmark in Congress could fit in this category. Both parties are guilty here. Moore provides no reason to expect that Democrats will suddenly start acting differently now that they are in the majority. (For the record, I hope they do, but I don’t have much reason for hope and Moore doesn’t provide any.)(4) Claim: We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
Rebuttal: Well, this certainly puts all the Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq war in a pickle. And thank goodness no Democrat president had a hand in sending soldiers into Vietnam… Moore’s statement here is really quite silly. He’s asserting that liberals won’t ever make mistakes.I think that is sufficient (and I’m tired). Look, I know Moore is trying to be flip, but when he throws around so much hyperbole and so little fact, reasonable people have a hard time taking him seriously.
November 16th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Michael Moore too glib? In other news, the sun came up this morning and Bush is telling more lies in Washington.
November 16th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Breaking news– Bush is telling lies in Singapore today.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Is Moore really somebody who should be given the opportunity to speak on behalf of democrats? He’s part of the problem, not the solution. Where was this kind-voiced “pledge” two years ago, when he was a bloodthirsty, rabid moron?
Sit down and be quiet, Mr. Moore, we have work to do.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Let’s just focus on counter-point #1 (I have to work).
One group of students shuts out Gilchrist and another shuts out McCain. Fair enough, I remember the incidents. What is not so fair, however, is Brad’s attempt to smear the actions of these individuals, by proxy, onto Moore and the signatories.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that such is fair. I guess that means that Bush is not only the Decider, the great “Silencer†as well. Every attempt by the Repugs to silence the the liberal viewpoint goes right to the feet of Bush, by proxy, just as Brad argues proxy should apply to Moore. The refusal of the Repug congress to address the environment, to pass stupid flag desecration laws, to pass stupid marriage protection laws, to engage in corruption, pedophilia, etc., lies at the feet of Bush, by proxy. Wow, Bush is a pedophile just like Foley.
Further, every action by a wayward bishop of the LDS church, and there are more than a few, lies at the feet of Gordon Hinckley - e.g., when a LDS bishop abuses a child, that makes Hinckley a child abuser, too, by proxy. Anytime a wayward bishop suggests a politically motivated viewpoint to the flock, that makes Hinckley a politican, putting the tax exempt status in jeopardy. And everytime a student at BYU plagerizes someones work, that means Samuelson and Hinckley are both plagerists, too, by proxy. The list goes on….
Care to take another crack at #1, Brad?
November 16th, 2006 at 10:18 am
You don’t have to go to then national level to see that progressives won’t do what moore says, just hang at this blog, where I am regularly edited for content or banned altogether when statements I make are either deemed “bad”, “personal”, or too hot to handle, by one individual.
I keep track of the alterations, as much as I did the personal statements made by particular people that would pretend to virtue.
That said, people are resposible for their actions and not those of others, that being the point of law in the US. The fact that they are fellow travelers is where the politics comes in, and as such you are judged by the company you keep, and the similarities of mind.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:02 am
One thought on the free speech issue — from what I understand is that free speech in the constitution is meant to protect the free speech of the people from being silenced by the leaders. So, I’m not sure if the issue with John McCain applies, as the uncivil behavior toward him was an example of the free speech of the people over that of the leader.
As for Gilchrist, I don’t approve of violent tactics by anyone, but I did noticed on an interview with Gilchrist that I heard following the incident that he left and refused to finish the interview when a student organizerwith the opposite point of view was given equal voice on the program. I’m not sure if any of this makes it okay or not, just an observation.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
OneNephi - You are following the Democrats script very well.
“What is not so fair, however, is Brad’s attempt to smear the actions of these individuals, by proxy, onto Moore and the signatories.”
It may be wrong, but isn’t this very action the means by which the Democrats are back in power in Washington. Does “culture of corruption”, “Bush lied to get us into war,” ring a bell. The Democratic campaign machine masterfully “smeared the actions of (Bush, Cunningham and Foley) by proxy onto the Republicans.
Guilt by association is an unsavory tactic, it keeps Utah Democrats out of office because of national Democrat extremeist, and it retired many Republican politicians who may or may not have ever been guilty of an ounce of corruption. It is unfair, but it is a powerful tactic that is used by Lib’s and Conservatives alike.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Jenni, it was Democracy Now! that interviewed Gilchrist and the student organizer. From what I remember, it was an odd interview. After Gilchrist was given his chance to speak his peace and the organizer hers, he stormed off and the video feed was cut abruptly after saying he was advised by legal council to not speak further. I believe there was some inference to a possible lawsuit. The interview continued and the student organizer claimed they were not trying to stop Gilchrist from speaking, but to add their voice to what he had to say but unfurling banners. She alleged that the violence was started by supporters of Gilchrist that tried to forcefully take their banners. Video footage was shown of this.
Not that Gilchrist, Moore, or any of these protesters speak for all “democrats” or “republicans”, or even “greens” for that matter. Their actions speak for themselves. Claiming to speak for a group of people outside yourself seems popular these days. And misleading. I’ve heard republicans and independents say that democrats don’t have a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. I’ve heard a handful of democrats propose varying plans. I’ve heard democrats and independents smear all republicans. Blanket statements like Moore’s and this rebuttal do not serve the public interest. They gloss over many important facts. Personally, I’m disgusted with the democrats who aren’t interested in attempting to reverse damage the current administration has done to our civil liberties, among MANY other issues. I’m angry at the republicans that have supported the republican Bush administration that is truly not socially, economically, or morally conservative. At least with a democratic congress we’ll get a larger debate. Instead of it being one-sided, it will be two again. How many of these issues are truly that polarized? Intelligence in this country has been flushed down the drain and replaced by soundbites and politicizing of issues that should not be.
Rant out. For those interested in watching the DN! Gilchrist interview, check this out. BTW, I highly recommend a deep look into the materials hosted on Archive.org. There is much in the way of historical audio, video, and documents hosted on their site. Watching much of it makes me ache for the days when the public had more input into what we saw broadcast on our airwaves. We had more actual education and less edutainment. More documentaries and less docudramas. Everytime I see television these days (I don’t own one), I am disgusted.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Well, now that you mention it, Phillip, I guess we Dems finally learned from the master himself, Karl Rove! There is an old saying out there: “What goes around, comes around.” And right now, the Repugs are firmly in the cross-hairs of their own political machination. And another favorite saying: “It all depends on whose ox is being gored.” And right now, the Repug machine has a horn impailed through its belly.
But alas, the pendulum will swing, however, back to the Repugs someday. Let’s just hope that day is well into the future and that the Dems bring some good to this great land in the meantime. Lord knows the Repugs have failed in that regard.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
nbsp;Archive.org also hosts about 3,000 Dead show recordings, free!
November 16th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
nbsp;Archive.org hosts A LOT of things. It also hosts declassified nuclear testing footage from the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. It also hosts The Open Mind, Democracy Now!, old newsreels, public domain movies, government and corporate propaganda, etc. After discovering the site some months ago, I’m still digging and finding a treasure trove of material that sadly I don’t have enough hours in the day to absorb.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Yes of course, because Carl Rove is the first person to use dirty tactics in politics in the 200 year history of this nation. Somehow the arguement that Republicans are the only perpetrators of dirty politics seems a little far fetched.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Agreed, Phillip. Nevertheless, the point to be made is the Dems became a bit too cordial during the past several years and are only now starting to fight back. And by cordial, I mean, for example, Kerry not properly or forcefully responding to the ridiculous assertions made by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Again, I agree, the Repugs do not hold a monopoly on dirty politics, but the Repugs have been far more effective as of late in exploiting dirty politics to their advantage. The Dems, for better or worse, have simply leveled the playing field, with remarkable assistance from the Repugs themselves - e.g., Mark Foley, Abromoff, Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, etc.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Fair enough
November 16th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Neither party is fit to rule the United States of America anymore.
Their primary job is defined by the Oath they take, to “uphold and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic”.
I guess to the pelosideandems, that have apparent power, the Constitution, is as well,
A GODDAMN PIECE OF PAPER!
November 16th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
A piece of paper?
I fought and kicked ass for that, T’is no piece of paper,
simply an idea, that is PERMANENT!
Like the document would somehow be proof…you live the paper, before it
was printed….my word, nonsense. love Andy.
November 16th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I should note for the record that I’m not a BYU student. I did graduate from BYU and I currently work there, but I obviously don’t speak for the University in any way.
OneNephi wrote, “What is not so fair, however, is Brad’s attempt to smear the actions of these individuals, by proxy, onto Moore and the signatories.”
You have a point in the abstract. Guilt purely by association is not necessarily fair. But Moore doesn’t pretend to be speaking only for himself. He is aiming to speak for all liberals. When he does so, I think it is fair to point out that he isn’t really speaking for all liberals since all liberals do not “In fact … encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.” My two examples showed this to be the case. I don’t see how my argument has failed on the broader point.
I’ll note that no one has cared to respond to any of my other arguments. More importantly, no one has spoken up to defend Moore as an honest actor on the political stage. Cliff chose to top post my point-by-point response to some of Moore’s statements, but ignored is my original indictment of Moore’s character. Who will defend him against these charges? If you are unwilling to defend him, then why would you bother to quote him approvingly as Cliff has done? I don’t think the burden is one me at this point…
November 16th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Moore’s entire first point is worth repeating here.:
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you “unpatriotic†simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Bradley we care not your origin, but do care for the content of your thoughts…this is our calculus, join and tell us truly of your world, so we could understand it, and Thrive together. love, Ol’ Hickory
November 16th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Bradley,
Sorry for the delay, long day at work. I really was not trying to avoid the challenge.
Before tackling anymore of your points, however, I have a quick question. For the sake of this argument only, can we agree that Moore, Hannity, and Limbaugh are shrill mouthpieces of equal stature but at the opposite end of the spectrum? In other words, if you feel that Limbaugh and Hannity are standup dudes, whose views are beyond criticism, but Moore is a shrill loud-mouth who never quite gets it right, then we might as well end the conversation here, as we will never agree.
Just curious.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I don’t understand what the protesters have to do with Moore’s promise. Are you responding to the statment, “In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.”?
November 17th, 2006 at 11:19 am
OneNephi: I don’t think there is anyone, including Limbaugh or Hannity “whose views are beyond criticism” nor do I think that Moore “never quite gets it right.” Every commentator has a ratio of good stuff to bad stuff. I find that the ratio for Moore leans far too heavily in the “bad stuff” direction to make it worth spending much time on him.
In fact, I’ve probably wasted too much time addressing Moore in this thread as it is. I’m more interested in discussing substantive points. If you get substantive points from Moore because you enjoy listening to him, I’m okay with that. But don’t try to use Moore’s credibility to give momentum to your argument with me, because it does the opposite. Let the point stand or fall on its own merits.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Cliff: I though I made it explicit that I was responding to that statement.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Bradley:
I am amazed at people who are critical of Michael Moore and admit they have never seen a movie. Lets expand on your source, David T Hardy. The same David T Hardy who is Known as the Second Amendments Best Friend. Is this the Same David T. Hardy of the Waco Conspiracy Claim?
Now unlike you, I have read Mr. Hardy’s work. His is more of an assignation of the person rather than a real critical analysis of Moore’s work. Let’s begin with his book title “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Manâ€
Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption? Should the resident of a million-dollar apartment claim to be a poster boy of the working class?
Would you at least give me the fact the Mr. Hardy’s statements above are like a Rush and Sean Hannity’s type of argument and really hateful. I will give you that Moore is Liberal Capitalistic Documentary Film Maker. He admits he makes and wants to make a lot of money. I never have saw where it states to believe in Capitalism and become rich you have to be a Conservative Repub. (Even though I kind of support this argument because I am a Poor Liberal Dem).
And Lets agree that Moore has revolutionized they way documentaries are being made. They are now Very Entertaining, where before they were very boring and unwatchable. Let’s see who now releases story’s like Moore.
Jessica Lynch Story, WMD’s. Landing on the Deck Mission Accomplishment, The Attack on Kerry’s War Record, etc etc. I’ll tell you what. I won’t ask you to watch Bowling for Columbine because I believe you really like your Guns and I don’t want to devastate you the way it has my other 2nd amendment friends. But, Lets get together with some of my liberal friends on this site and watch Fahrenheit 911. Or we can wait for Moore’s new documentary on Pharmaceuticals Companies. This one will be a first timer for all of us. You credibility would be enhanced if at least see the source.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Gentile: Everyone must make judgements with limited information. That just life. I don’t know the first thing about Hardy. You seem much more informed on that point. Assume for the sake of this discussion that Hardy is a slimeball. That has absolutely no bearing on my point. Hardy wrote a paper that listed several deceptive things that Moore did in his movie about Columbine. Those are facts that can be verified or denied. If Hardy’s facts are accurate in the report I’m citing, then we can conclude that Moore is a dishonest (or careless at best) filmmaker. I don’t have time to watch documentaries by dishonest filmmakers. That destroys the whole purpose of “documentary.”
Many others probably won’t click the link to the report that Hardy wrote about Bowling for Columbine, so let me just paraphrase a couple of things. You can decide for yourself if you think Moore is a good documentarian. Please see the report for the details on these claims.
(1) Moore spliced together two ads, making them appear to be a single ad. One ad was run by Bush 41 in his race against Dukakis. The other ad was by a different group on the same subject (Willie Horton) in the same timeframe. The clip apparently starts with the Bush ad, switches to the other group’s ad, and then ends with the Bush ad, including the “paid for by Bush” message. He also added a fake subtitle to the ad that wasn’t in either original. The subtitle was factually inaccurate, confusing murder with rape. Moore then smears Bush for the content of the ad from the other group. This is akin to quoting Lincoln, then quoting Hitler, and then quoting Lincoln and concluding that Lincoln is a slimeball.
(2) Moore spliced together footage from a speech by Charleton Heston. “Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.” The effect is to have Heston saying somethine he didn’t actually say. Moore’s intention, apparently, was to give the impression that the NRA chose to hold a meeting in Colorado 11 days after Columbine to rub everyone’s face in the tradegy. In fact, the NRA was required by law to hold the meeting at that place and time. They actually cancelled everything they could except for the one meeting required by law. Moore leads viewers to believe otherwise. In other words, Moore lied.
(3) A South-Park-style cartoon clip implies that members of the KKK left that organization when it was outlawed and formed the NRA. Instead, it turns out that the “Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant.” He vigorously prosecuted the Klan using the new law. Grant later became the 8th president of the NRA.
Hardy’s report goes on and on. Whether or not Hardy is a bad guy is not the issue. The issue at stake for me in this thread is whether Michael Moore is a credible source for facts and whether Americans should take him seriously. Moore wants to have it both ways. He wants to pass off anything he says that is factually inaccurate as a joke and still have you believe the rest of what he says. He provides us with no mechanism for telling when he is telling a joke with pseudo-facts and when he’s telling the truth.
That’s why I don’t bother watching Moore’s movies. As I pointed out earlier, I’ve read Moore’s book “Stupid White Men.” Actually, I read the first half and set it aside after realizing how poorly it was written and how vacuous the arguments were.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Wow. Reading the above comment from Bradley makes me think that Moore may have taken a que from the Repugs and their political advertising tactics.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Buffalo, are you arguing that if Republicans do bad stuff, it is okay for Democrats?
November 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Of course not, pardon my cynisism. I think this country has had its fill of election distortions of the truth, from both sides. Oddly enough, however, I watch the Moore movie (F. 9-11) and walk away shaking my head at Bush, while others have a different reaction, e.g., shaking their head at Moore. Guess it is all part of the fun. You really should watch the movie and arive at your own conclusion, rather than accepting those of others. I guarantee it won’t be as painful as reading the Book of Mo by a non-Mo, which I have done and am, respectively.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Why Brad?
Why must one “everyone must make judgments with limited information”?
Why can’t we make judgments based on what the smartest people say? Do you know any really smart people that you trust to give you an unbiased perspective?
And if we really must operate from limited information, shouldn’t we reserve judgment, or at least qualify our opinions?
I think you’ve landed on the more important issue; when should we reserve judgment?
You never answer my questions but seem never in short supply of opinion. What do the scriptures say about that?
November 17th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Brad:
I agree people make initial judgments on limited information. But, I will take it a little further, “Smart People” seek more information to expand their judgments. Not So Smart People see a straight line and “Stay the Course”.
I agree it is a little scary to experience something you have been told is bad “MICHAEL MOORE”. I know in Utah County He is the Demon. Which is why I invited you up north to watch the film. We can even throw a coat over your head to make sure no one sees you and reports you to the BYU Staff.
If after watching the “source” you still feel the same, More power to you.
I admit there is a chance you might feel the experience and have a change of thought, and this could be very well the reason you refuse to see the film.
Now your 3 points.
1- Moore spliced three parts to make it appear it was one ad. Watching it I don’t see your claim is true and really quite humorous. I don’t see how you can dispute this because you have never seen it.
2- What law required the NRA to hold a convention in Colorado .
3. Your Reasoning on South Park Cartoon I guess is based who watches it. ( I guess this leaves you out). Moore does state a fact 1871 the KKK was outlawed and NRA was formed. One Promoted responsible gun ownership. One used guns to lynch and kill black people. One of the first laws passed after the NRA was formed Black People couldn’t own gun laws.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Cliff: I am not omniscient. Therefore, all of my decisions are made with limited information.
I wholeheartedly concur with your recommendation to qualify our opinions.
I wholeheartedly reject your assertion that we should let “smarter” people do our thinking for us.
Reserving judgment is important up to a point. Eventually, however, we must make choices based on our limited information. We take a position. But then we must be willing to maintain an open mind and modify our position as new information becomes available. The problem with fanaticism is that we take a position so solidly that we refuse to consider other evidence.
Take, for example, WMDs in Iraq. [Step 1] I believed there were WMDs in Iraq when we invaded. We KNEW there HAD been. We listened to intelligent people who told us they were still there. [Step 2] We invaded. We didn’t find very much. [Step 3] With the new information, we adapt our thinking. [Step 4] Then we read news reports that documents we confiscated in Iraq and put up on the Internet (oops) contained information that showed that Iraq was only a year away from a nuclear weapon. [Step 5] We take this information and we adjust our thinking again to take it into account.
A problem I’ve noticed with many commentators on the left on this subject has been the refusal to take step 5. They are already so committed to the notion that Rove is leading an evil conspiracy to rule the world and make his friends at Halliburton rich, that they close their minds and refuse to consider new facts as they arise.
I’m willing to consider points you raise, even if you got those points from Michael Moore. But don’t expect me to take the points seriously just because they came from Moore. They must stand on their own merits.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Gentile: We were commenting at the same time. You made some of the same points I did.
Let me respond to your three rebuttals. (1) Are you saying that Moore didn’t actually combine parts of two different ads to make them appear as a single ad? As you note, I can’t independently confirm Hardy’s claim on this point, though he points out he is not the only one making the point.
(2) Read Hardy’s point number 2 for an explanation of the law in question. Essentially, New York State law requires non-profit organizations chartered there to have an annual meeting. Notice of the annual meeting must be provided to members at least 10 days before the meeting. The meeting had been planned for Denver for over a year. 11 days before the convention, Columbine happened. The NRA canceled all the meetings for the convention except the one meeting required by law. Changing the venue while still complying with the law would have been logistically impossible.
(3) Does the cartoon clip (or the movie in general) provide any evidence that the NRA is associated with the KKK in any way? All I can see is that they were founded near the same time in history. Here is a bit of history for you. In 1830, Joseph Smith, Jr. formally started The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1830, the first geology textbook was published. Would you assume that these two events were somehow related simply because they occurred in the same year and both deal with the history of the world? Moore makes a slanderous assertion and doesn’t back it up in any way that I can detect.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
This is my point. You say, “eventually, however, we must make choices based on our limited information.†Then you say, “[Step 1] I believed there were WMDs in Iraq when we invaded. We KNEW there HAD been.â€
See, the problem is we knew there were NO WMD. Nearly every reputable source including our own intelligence said there we no WMD. The Un inspectors said there were no WMD. You either weren’t listening, or not paying attention, or more likely, you wanted to believe the lies.
So you say, “we should let “smarter†people do our thinking for us.†I guess I would say you let liars do your thinking for you. I went with people that seemed smart and expert in their fields.
Since you weren’t personally in charge of determining if there were WMD, and you weren’t personally looking for WMD, you had to chose to whom to listen.
So back to my original statement, “Why can’t we make judgments based on what the smartest people say?:
I’m gonna be honest with you Bradley. I think you might have erred where your desire to validate a political position caused you disengenuously mis-label a position as an opinion.
Said another way, your strength of conviction exceeds your desire for objective knowledge. Same as having an opinion about Michael Moore without bothering to see the movie.
This is easy stuff Bradley.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Bradley,
Think about it this way. If you had to bet a million bucks on every belief you held, and the answer would be revelead in say five years, how would you go about determining your belief? How hard would you work at it? Whose advice would you seek?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Clifford; By now we have to make our own decisions, considering the state we find ourselves in, it is pretty clear no one has been “smart” and it is the reason for the Republic we have, giving greater power to small states in the form of Senate representationis hardly democratic. We certainly don’t want majoraty rule if the majoraty is blind and wrong, or is this case complicit in our disaster. Checks and Balances you see.
One man with conviction is a majoraty.
Oh, and I imagine the case for saddam having WMD was well made because for Cris-sake, we supplied him them(chemical, biological)in the 80’s. Never mind that they were beyond their shelf life, they were WMD, so no lie was told…and we should know having given the nut all he needed to contain Iran. Plus they were very few remnants as saddam USED them all, with our sanction, how could we claim not to sanction the use of them?, WE GAVE THEM TO HIM!
Some of the battles of the Iran-Iraq war were decided in the swamps by chemical artillary and missiles that killed the iranian in droves upon their mass human wave attacks.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:20 am
“I wholeheartedly reject your assertion that we should let ’smarter’ people do our thinking for us.”
Say what? Brad, you are yanking our chains, right?
This is the most absurd statement I have heard in quite some time. By Jesus, I read more intelligent thought at http://www.rightwingnews.com
So are we to simply let a bunch of dumb asses to our thinking? Kinda like the Chimpus & Dickus operation that we have in the WH now?
November 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Nobody controls the high ground in this battle of moles.
We are about to let some other dumbasses do our thinking for us for a while.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Andy,
How can you say, “it is pretty clear no one has been “smartâ€? If such statements satisfy some personal guilt, thats between you and your conscience.
Can you honestly tell me no smart people warned us that reports of WMD were wrong and erroneous at best?
Let’s cease with the indefensible generalities. Certainly, around here, they won’t work.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Knowing and doing are two different things.
Using the stupid is as stupid does calculus, having allowed w the latitude he has been given, or supported bush in the debacle, would render one not “smart”.
Either unable to influence their peers, or stop the madman from disassembling our Country and it’s governement, we as a group have remained here…, which may well also be a sign of lacking intelligence.
The fact that no one in the “loyal opposition” is openly advocating their duty to depose an admitted liar as president, bespeaks of perhaps limited vision, and perhaps some measure of cowardice. Hope that it is stupidity as cowardice implies fear based perhaps of the known risk of opposing the tide.
A short study of the Iran Iraq war would outline what we did for saddam. The wmds’ we used as a straw man to involve us in our 1st and current gulf war, were the very goods we gave him to destroy iranians.
Dual use wmds, killed our shiite humiliators whne saddam used them, then killed saddam when we claimed him as a threat. Who says the spooks aren’t thinking?