And thanks Nereid for being a crowning example of a guy who gives liars a free-pass when you agree with their politics. The hypocrisy is just amazing --
Yeah, pretty much. Weed through the propaganda and vote based on reason.Nereid said:Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.
So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?loseyourname said:Here's a decent overview of the oil situation in Sudan:
Just so that nobody is stupid enough to believe that the reason we are in Iraq and not Sudan is that Iraq has oil. By the way, Venezuela, which is (I believe) either the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US (it is certainly a larger exporter than Iraq), had a great deal of civil unrest and yet we did not invade and take over there.
War for oil? I don't think so. On to the next vast right-wing conspiracy, please.
Nope. I don't like him either. He pushes a flat tax, right?amp said:Russ Vote for Nader, who is now the republcan 'safe' vote.
Actually, honesty is more important to me than that. I hate the "lesser of two evils" argument. Call me idealistic (I've been called worse), but I want to want to vote for someone. In last year's election, I didn't vote for a major candidate for the Senate - I voted for someone who I first heard of when I read about him in the newspaper that night. Some organization publishes candidate facts and answers to questions: his was the only answer that wasn't canned. He sounded sincere and real, so I voted for him. I may do the same thing this November.loseyourname said:I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.
:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?russ_watters said:Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.
No mention of puffery anywhere in your statement.You can make any true claim about your product.
This directly contradicts your statement, does it not? Just answer the questions.Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.
Well, at an average of $8 apiece, thats 12.5 million people. Some of that is the Howard Stern Effect - if you saw his movie, there was discussion of how people who hated Howard Stern used to listen to him twice as much as those who liked him. Like him or hate him though, Moore elicits a strong emotional response - and that fills seats.Nereid said::surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?
a) First, he was one of the worst. Second, removing him and installing a democratic regime could be key to reforming a good deal of the middle east.Nereid said:So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?
a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.
Countries go to war over access to resources when there is a dispute over resources and those resources are scarce. You're acting like the US annexed the land and claimed ownership of the fields. Why not open up the reserves in Alaska if oil is such a huge concern? Surely that's easier than fighting a war in the most volatile part of the world for which myriad terrorist groups are plotting revenge.Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.
AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).