Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

A letter to Bush

Meyer

New Member
bluelite, very well said.


JoseDominguez, your bit about "typing and not holding a gun" is completely unfair. The people fighiting in Iraq right now have devoted much of their lives to training and preperation for war, specifically pilots, intellegence specialists, special forces etc. I didn't enlist because I feel I can make more of my life life as a civilian than learning how to march in formation and strip an M-16(not that I look down on those who have devoted their lives to the lilitary, I just believe I would make a terrible soldier). One could also ask you, if you're anti-war, why haven't you devoted your life to ending war? I support the war, even if it should be dubbed "Operation Crude Oil," but I don't go and fight because I wouldn't make a difference. The people over in Iraq are making a difference, they are making this world a safer one by sacrificing their lives for the good of the world. Simply because someone doesn't have the courage to lay down their life for a cause doesn't mean they lose their right to believe in it. If your so concerned with this degenerating into "point scoring" then why to you help propogate it by posting?
 

stongle

Crazy Elk. Mooooooooooo
Aug 23, 2002
2,842
67
83
60
The Wynn
Visit site
Hey Jose,

If you read my comment, what I actually said, and it still does, is the anti-war / anti american movement in this country is very loudly proclaiming the "majority this the majority that" (as was the point of the thread with the "Letter to Bush"). I repeatedly said "everybodies got a right to an opinion", but why should a bunch of very loud anti-war campaigners proclaim a non-existent majority. I think this was actually the point of the thread, not to get into a Friendlyfire debate and "Challengers are the best tank in the world" slanging match. :rolleyes:

In addition I do not feel that days of protest and mass walk-outs or encouraging children to bunk of school and take part in civil disobiendeance is particularly constructive at the moment. Especially as it would appear that whatever the reason to protest the same hard core of activists are at the center of any demonstration (anti-capatilism, reclaim the streets etc etc etc). It's these actions that actually cheapen the pro-peace lobby's arguements. FYI, in 99 the anti-capitalist protests, were anything but "peaceful", I remember pitch battles (in our building), scaffolding poles and bottles being used as weapons and vast amount of vandalism all directed against people going about their daily business or unfortunate to have a decent job, car etc. Again the same rallying calls of "majority this / majority that" were used by a hardcore of demonstrators whose only interest is causing chaos, mayhem, physical harm and destruction. So if my rather negative experience of "peaceful demonstration" in the UK is slightly coloured I apologise. OK I think I maybe rambling but many of the people demonstrating are career activists who are either anti-american in their viewpoint or just like demonstarting for the fun of it. And to use children as pawns is callous and repugnant in the extreme (I mean in reality many children don't need that much encouragement to bunk of school).

And I merely wanted to raise the point that (both) sides of the arguement are distorting facts and numbers to suit themselves. Why does the pro-peace lobby claim to have 2million people protesting in London on Saturday when in reality the number was 200,000??? Hey maybe I'm a product of the "zionist controlled media", but why should they proclaim greater support than actually exists? Latest opinion polls suggest the country is split pretty much 50/50 (well 56% in favour, but too close to call) on the whole issue anyway.

And whilst "what pisses me off", may have been worded harshly, at the time I felt at the time, a bias tilted in that direction and I for one find hypocrisy very difficult to swallow. Many of the anti-war arguements are hugely complelling but some of what gets spouted is nonsense (both ways I may add).
 

Fab81

New Member
Aug 5, 2001
59
0
0
Antibes, France
Visit site
The point is many people support the war to be patriotic.... If you don't its disrespectfull for the soldiers fighting in Iraq.
That's a joke !!!!
To support a war you have to agree with the purposes of it, and they are far from be clear (where are MDW ? o maybe they still have 2 or 3 bottles of it...).

The opinion percentages for pro-war is strong because the army is in Iraq, the media saying go for war all over the country...
but the majority think the purpose is their security, so they agree...

After Iraq we will see how American interest will be in security with the ancient and new anti-american-occident generation built there (or maybe its not a war in interest of that country, or there is many things I dont understand ??).
 
Going back to tha start point

Michael Moore's actions..here's another viewpoint:

Michael Moore Stars at Academy Awards

By Joel Bleifuss | Mar 24, 03


...And then there was Michael Moore. He received a standing ovation when Bowling for Columbine was announced the winner of best documentary. The Chicago Tribune’s Mark Caro reported that the pressroom also erupted in applause when it was announced that Moore had won.

Taking the stage, flanked by documentary filmmakers, Moore said:
I’ve invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time when we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it is the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you. And any time that you have the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up.
John Horn of the Los Angeles Times reported that “as Moore’s speech reached its crescendo” Oscar producer Gil Cates and director Louis Horvitz, who were in the production truck, decided “to cut him off. ‘Music! Music!’ Horvitz yelled. The orchestra quickly drowned out the rest of Moore’s speech.” And his microphone receded into the floor.

Most of the Hollywood audience smiled and applauded, but stagehands, who were close to the microphones, booed loudly, making it appear to a television listener that Moore’s criticism of President Bush was not well received.

“It was so sweet backstage, you should have seen it. The Teamsters are helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo,” quipped Steve Martin after a commercial break.

Backstage, Moore kept up his criticism. These remarks were well reported by the Tribune’s Mark Caro and the Chicago Sun-Times Bill Zwecker, but most of the national media ignored them.
Reporter: Why did you do what you did?
Moore: I’m an American.
Reporter: That’s it?
Moore: Well that’s a lot. I’m an American, and you don’t leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre. ... I don’t stop being who I am when I come to this ceremony, and I’m extremely grateful for this response.
Moore wanted it made clear that despite the loud boos from the stagehands, the Hollywood audience was behind him: “Don’t report that there was a split decision in the hall because five people booed,” he said. “I did not hear that. I saw the entire place stand up and applaud, applaud a film that talks about how we are manipulated by the fear that’s put forth by the White House and put forth by corporate America to create a culture of violence at home and abroad.”

Noting that his book Stupid White Men is on the nonfiction bestseller list, Moore said, “My finger’s on the pulse of where I think the majority of Americans are at, and I think it would be irresponsible of me not to say what I felt. I don’t think anyone who voted for me for this award thought they’d get a speech about agents and lawyers or the lawyers of agents.” America, he said, is “not divided ... the majority of Americans do not want to see their boys or girls killed in this war. The majority of people do not want to see our democracy hijacked by the squatter on federal land at 1600 Pennsylvania. I just happen to believe in one person, one vote, and you count all the votes.”

Naturally, the national media, which have been busy as wartime cheerleaders, falsely reported that Moore was not well received. Kurt Loder of MTV’s report on Michael Moore’s “witless flip-out” was typical. Loder wrote: “Moore brought all of the losing nominees in his category up onstage with him as a show of ‘solidarity.’ (Uh oh.) He then launched into a raving denunciation of ‘our fictitious president,’ which ... okay, a lot of people feel this way. But Moore’s spittle-flecked undulations were so over-the-top, that even the Oscar crowd—his natural constituency, you might think—erupted in a storm of boos. This was totally unexpected.”

Are Loder et al softening us up for another Hollywood blacklist? Boycott Hollywood already wants to dim the lights of 94 outspoken stars.

A statement released by the Screen Actors Guild, earlier in the month, put it this way: “Some have recently suggested that well-known individuals who express ‘unacceptable’ views should be punished by losing their right to work. This shocking development suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears.”

The furor over Moore’s comments will no doubt continue. We should remember the words of Barbara Streisand, who said, “I am glad that I live in a country that guarantees every citizen, including artists, the right to say and to sing what you believe.” In a culture where the Dixie Chicks are being blacklisted, it was an affirmation that needed to be made.
 

Burb

#1 Soi Cowboy.
Nov 27, 2001
1,547
4
63
Middleweight
It came across on British Networks that he was well received yet booed aswell. But from listning to the footage, you can mainly hear him being booed.

Booed or boo'd
:confused:
 

JTHM

American Prat
Oct 31, 2002
138
0
0
USA
Visit site
Moore is blubbering idiot. They have on tape, people saw it live, yet he comes out telling the press that it was 5 people?
Roger Ebert stated that he was appalled that Moore could actually try to spin it around in his favor, he was there (Ebert), and he's being told he didn't hear or see what he thinks he saw. :confused:

copied from the Wall Street Journal
In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.
When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

"Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said.

"No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

Mr. Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If "Bowling for Columbine" is a comedy, most of its fans don't know it. They actually believe they're watching something that is in rough accord with reality.
 
D

duffistuta

Guest
Fast and loose indeed...sounds like he's doing 'his' cause more harm than good...