Re: [DMCForum] Time for a new political discussion...

[Marc Levy <malevy_nj@xxxxxxxxx>]

See Below.

--- Eric Itzel <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  
> I agree with you Marc in regards to the first
> Amendment. I think it is
> misused, though, for profit. If Moore was such an
> idealist or whatever
> label you wanna give him, why didn't he do this
> movie for pennies on the
> dollar or donate his money to the victims of
> September 11th fund? That
> would earn the respect of all Americans, not just
> the democrats. Moore's
> tone sounds like Thomas Paine (author of Common
> Sense, 1775). Paine was
> trying to start a revolution. I believe Moore's out
> for a buck and
> attention. To me, capitalism and idealism do not mix
> well. It is on the
> same basis that I refuse to watch Mel Gibson's
> "Passion of the Christ".

I agree with you on this, but have no data on what
Moore's paycheck will be at the end of day...  I do
know that making a movie costs money, and many of the
people and companies that invested in it did it for a
paycheck..  Maybe if the movie does clear a profit,
Moore will donate it?  or use it for seed money on his
next project?  Again, I don't know.. If you have data
on this, present it (although too early now to draw a
conclusion).

 
> Now, to answer your question about my opinion
> towards Bush. I like the
> man. No, I don't always agree with his policies, but
> I like him. I like
> how he stands by his word. If he says it, most
> likely he's gonna do it.

This is sometimes not a good thing.  A real leader
should be open to new information, especially on a
changing situation.  He stands by his word (or focus)
even when it is clearly the wrong path.  Even lying to
accomplish his goals.

> I do not agree with his method of invading Iraq.
> Historically, any time
> a large country/empire invading a small country of
> different culture has
> not worked out very well for the large country. I
> wish he would have
> stated that one of the objectives of Iraq was to
> secure and safeguard
> the oil. Everyone knows it, and if he actually said
> it openly in the
> beginning, and worded it correctly, it would be hard
> for someone to
> bitch about it. However, overall I believe he did
> the right thing.

If he said it was for Oil, there would have been less
public support.  Instead, he misused 9/11 events to
push HIS agenda.

> I respect Bush for the same reasons that I would
> have voted for Teddy
> Roosevelt. A country like the USA does not need a
> weak, wishy-washy
> President. Bush also has a strong moral background.
> Putting his religion
> aside, I highly doubt that there will be any talk of
> scandalous personal
> behavior towards him. People say he's an idiot
> because of his speech
> blunders and such, but the smart man is not the one
> with the answers,
> it's the one who knows which people to ask for the
> answers. I believe
> that describes Bush and his cabinet.

There is a thin line between wish-washy, and being
open to hear ALL of the facts before making a
decision.  Bush seems to make the decision, then look
for fact (or make them up) to back up his decision. 

Personal Scandals?  I don't care what *ANYONE* does
under the covers (other than me).  Clinton's personal
scandals were just because the Republicans needed to
cause trouble. Maybe if they would have left the guy
alone, he could have taken care of Binladen??  Or,
would you have accused him of trying to redirect CNN? 
(Wag the Dog).

If you agree with the moral standings of Bush and his
cabinet...  However, I don't.  The people he relies on
are all big business (oil, mostly) people.  They are
also mixed in with extreme religious types.  Just
because they are of a religion many Americans
associate with does not make it OK.  "Islamic
Extremists" or "Christian Extremist" are the same
thing for me.

> One of my weakest points with Bush is his dealings
> with Corporate
> America. I don't care much for the corporate giants,
> but given the time
> the little man will turn into a CEO himself.
> Corporate America is the
> backbone of the economy and they require more
> attention 

"Voodoo economics" is what Bush Sr. called it back in
the 80's.  It does not work.  Nice theory, but the big
profits for the corporate giants go in to the pockets
of the greedy upper management of those companies in
the form of bonuses.  In practice, I don't see how the
Bush economics help the masses.  The divide between
the rich and poor had gotten wider.

> I see the bumper stickers that say "No Soldiers Died
> When Clinton Lied".
> Wrong. Every time Clinton got in the jackpot he
> touched off a couple of
> Tomahawks towards Iraq to redirect CNN. Those
> tomahawks toasted a few
> soldiers- just not ours.

Like I said above..  Believe me, if there was a SHRED
of evidence that could even be manipulated to imply
that Clinton did this, the republicans and Ken Starr
would have made sure we knew about it.

> Our casualties in Iraq are about 1000 dead now,
> right? Give me a break.
> 1500 went down on the Titanic. A dam broke in China
> a few years back and
> washed away many thousands of people. 1000 soldiers
> dying on the field
> of battle is well worth the millions of lives
> potentially bettered by
> removing Hussein.

Big difference when comparing a disaster to sending
someone off to die for an unjust reason..  Talk to a
mother of one of the dead solders.... Or better yet,
go see the F9/11 movie.


<SNIP>



      
            
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.