Pfflam, you can believe and delude yourself in whatever manner you choose to do so.
Just don't expect all of us to come along for the ride.
Now on the matter of Moore, Bush, torture and the Iraq war, answer me this, did you read the second, very progressive source I posted?
Moore's only rational for not mentioning it MONTHS before it came out is fear he would be seen a as publicity hound. The release of that information hurt both Bush and undermined support for the war. Both of these are stated objectives of Michael Moore. Moore is supposed to be in the business of telling the truth. Instead he claims fear of his reputation as a means of withholding the truth. Worse still he actually did act as a publicity hound with the whole Disney distribution nonsense right before Cannes. So he can tell us the truth about Disney a year after the fact, but withhold the truth about torture?
If you see this as being about anything else than more money for Michael Moore, you are blinding yourself to the possibility of the very truth he claims to support.
Nick
I don't think he is motivated by money over his political interests . . . just as I don't think that the Iraq war was simply for Halliburton or oil profits: both were ideologically driven.
if that is what you mean by 'deluding' myself . . . you need to get a better argument.
You should also make note that I AGREED with you as far as his being wrong in witholding the footage, and yes I read that article.
Now if you are referring to the issue of that well funded, biased and Partisan attack-dog PR company when you call me deluded . . . you should just say so . . . and also point out where my delusion comes in exactly?
They are just that, Biased, and Partisan and already well connected and well funded . . . so why did they try to hide their complicity with the anti-movie borderline-censorship tactics??!
and why lie about being a 'grassroots' organization?
Reminds me of that 'spontaneuos' support for Bush in Florida . . . where you could pause the demonstrations and name each memeber of the 'spontaneuos popular support crowd' and show that they were all party functionaries!!
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to wait to actually see the movie before any more commentary. Anyone know if it's available online yet? (yes I'm going to see it in theater but I'm impatient! )
Hey, there was some disturbing footage of US soldiers raiding a house and beating the crap out of an old man filmed by the Associated Press and released 6 weeks before the Abu Ghraib scandal hit, at least according to this article:
Purportedly, this is the same footage used by Moore in Fahrenheit 911. So it was available to just about every news organization in the country, but the "liberal media" just ignored it!
Is that still treason, if every major media outlet in the US declined to show it?
We can also argue whether what happened in the article was torture, whether it was covered accurately (this is secondhand information) etc etc. But on the surface, it looks like our mainstream media has proved its worthlessness in covering anything but Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson yet again.
I don't think he is motivated by money over his political interests . . . just as I don't think that the Iraq war was simply for Halliburton or oil profits: both were ideologically driven.
if that is what you mean by 'deluding' myself . . . you need to get a better argument.
You should also make note that I AGREED with you as far as his being wrong in witholding the footage, and yes I read that article.
Now if you are referring to the issue of that well funded, biased and Partisan attack-dog PR company when you call me deluded . . . you should just say so . . . and also point out where my delusion comes in exactly?
They are just that, Biased, and Partisan and already well connected and well funded . . . so why did they try to hide their complicity with the anti-movie borderline-censorship tactics??!
and why lie about being a 'grassroots' organization?
Reminds me of that 'spontaneuos' support for Bush in Florida . . . where you could pause the demonstrations and name each memeber of the 'spontaneuos popular support crowd' and show that they were all party functionaries!!
I said you were deluding yourself for a couple of reasons. First you declared that I was okay with what this group was doing and wouldn't be okay with it if it were occuring on the left. I named groups on both the right and left that are biased, but not partisan. NEA for example is nonpartisan. Of course the majority of their endorsements and donations go to Democrats, almost exclusively so. However NEA is not affiliated with the Democratic party.
So I'm not going to be upset that they are biased. Everyone has biases. This group did not attempt to claim they were unbiased from what I saw. They clearly labeled their members and their works as conservative. However they did label themselves as nonpartisan. I don't see how they are affiliated in any way with the Republican party. I would be much more inclined to be upset with large 529 groups that are basically being used to circumvent campaign finance reform (ala Moveon.org and others) than I would groups that claim to be nonpartisan who happen to be very biased. (NOW, NEA, MALDEF, NRA, Christian Coalition, etc.)
Do you have any evidence that the Republican party was funding this site? The links are all guilt by association but there is no money or even paper trail.
I suppose I should be upset that we just so "coincidentally" happen to have a documentary condemning Bush, another documentary helping Clinton (The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill Clinton) and of course the Clinton memoirs book all coming out at the SAME time.
What a coincidence.... I'm trying on some outrage right now. I know it will fit.
Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.
Moore getting help from Hezbollah? Wait a damn minute...aren't they the BAD GUYS?
Originally posted by a_greer Moore getting help from Hezbollah? Wait a damn minute...aren't they the BAD GUYS?
I needn't say more.
Actually you haven't said much. You posted a link and from half of a paragraph in it then concluded that Moore and Hezbollah are working together and therefore Moore is a bad guy. Why do I get the feeling you got this from fat junkie Limbaugh.
Do you know much as to how the movie industry works? Rhetorical question.
Do you know much as to how the movie industry works? Rhetorical question.
Rhetorical or not let me answer:
I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Whats next for Moore, "Sadom Husain: The Kind ole guy Bush Didn't want us to See" brought to you by Al qaeda? thats Rhetorical too.
The NEA isn't a PR firm hired by a political party or its members.
Because the website was registered to a GOP PR firm.
As I said guilt by association. Is that PR firm actually owned by the Republican party, or is it called a GOP PR firm because it does work for the Republican party? It is the latter and not the former. It is guilty by association.
Now I could call the NEA, that Liberal Democratic NEA. I could also note that all the literature that goes out for the NEA happens to support Democrats and also that the clear majority of the campaign donations are also to Democrats (something like 98%+) I could even go further and show what percentage of Democratic delegates at the convention just happen to be NEA members as well.
However while closely aligned, the NEA is not a partisan organization. They are profoundly biased. But they are not registered in a manner that makes them exclusively a group associated with the Democratic party. Again I could say this about the NAACP, NOW, etc.
Sticking "Bush" before Republican doesn't make all Republicans of one mind, association and action. Sticking GOP before a PR firm doesn't make it owned by the Republican party either. An article that does both is just showing good use of smear tactics.
As I said guilt by association. Is that PR firm actually owned by the Republican party, or is it called a GOP PR firm because it does work for the Republican party? It is the latter and not the former. It is guilty by association.
Now I could call the NEA, that Liberal Democratic NEA. I could also note that all the literature that goes out for the NEA happens to support Democrats and also that the clear majority of the campaign donations are also to Democrats (something like 98%+) I could even go further and show what percentage of Democratic delegates at the convention just happen to be NEA members as well.
However while closely aligned, the NEA is not a partisan organization. They are profoundly biased. But they are not registered in a manner that makes them exclusively a group associated with the Democratic party. Again I could say this about the NAACP, NOW, etc.
Sticking "Bush" before Republican doesn't make all Republicans of one mind, association and action. Sticking GOP before a PR firm doesn't make it owned by the Republican party either. An article that does both is just showing good use of smear tactics.
Nick
That's a good point Nick, but I think there is a distinction that needs to be made. All these organizations you list have their own agenda, and those agendas are what sway them to one political party or another. So they are indeed biased but not inherently partisan.
But the agenda of the PR firm is the agenda of the party itself. A Republican PR firm will never support Democratic causes, and vice-versa. So I think in that instance they do qualify as partisan.
I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Did you know to look at the original source?
Quote:
Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in Middle East
Nancy Tartaglione in Paris 09 June 2004 04:00
United Arab Emirates based Front Row Entertainment is planning to release Michael Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Middle East beginning on July 14 according to managing director Gianluca Chacra.
The film will first be sent out on 18 screens in the United Arab Emirates and will be released in Syria (2 screens), Jordan (3 screens), Lebanon (10 screens) and Egypt (5 screens) six days later on July 20.
Other territories which Front Row will handle include Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ? however, all of the above countries are awaiting censorship clearance.
Chacra said: "We?re scared most of these countries will have a problem (with censorship approval) due to the Saudi content in the film. Yet, with the Dubai Film Festival coming up, I think they?ll want to show the world they?re quite democratic and open-minded.?
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from organisations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, ?we can?t go against these organisations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.?
As it is too early to have materials available from the film?s sales agent Wild Bunch, its US producer Miramax or distributor Lions Gate, Front Row created a teaser poster (pictured) but declined a free set of materials from a printing press run by Pakistanis as this could be deemed as an inappropriate source -_ ?cinemas in the UAE are often frequented by US Marines who come over from Iraq on the weekends.?
Front Row, which also worked with Moore?s Bowling For Columbine, is setting a precedent with Fahrenheit as it is the first documentary ever to be released theatrically in the territory. Bowling went straight to video and had a healthy run. Indeed, Moore is, explains Chacra, ?considered an Arab supporter,? locally.
Having bought the film at Mifed in 2003, Chacra says he was concerned that the marketing would be a difficult ride but ?at the end of the day you have to give the public what they want, you can?t change the way they should perceive the film.?
Given the movie going habits of the locals, Chacra says he thinks the film ?is going to be big but I don?t know how big. It could be a blockbuster.? A quick round-up of the area shows that Syrians don?t really go to the cinema, the Lebanese go to event movies ? The Passion Of The Christ did well there ? and the UAE is considered a core market. Chacra says people go to the movies three times a week because ? even at $9 a ticket ? it?s the cheapest form of entertainment and since Muslims can?t go out and drink, they tend to go to the cinema quite often. Still, Chacra says that the plan is not to market specifically to any one group.
Rhetorical or not let me answer:I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Hehe, in your haste to bash Moore all of a sudden you are suggesting Hezbollah as distributors(directly or indirectly)of the movie?
And according to your own link..it's not Hezbollah...it's organizations "related" to them. Please feel free to expand on that relationship....in case you do know what it is.... which from your posts, it's obvious you do?
If it were a front that "no one would ever think to connect them to"...it wouldn't make much sense for them to make worldwide news by offering their assistance now would it?
Quote:
Whats next for Moore, "Sadom Husain: The Kind ole guy Bush Didn't want us to See" brought to you by Al qaeda? thats Rhetorical too.
I find it hard to believe that after at least 2 plus years of watching the news, reading newspapers or websites, you still have no clue how to spell "Sadom Husain" right. It's not like you haven't seen his name pop up....oh....like everywhere a million times or so?
By the way, that documentary idea...good idea. Maybe we could have Rumsfeld narrate it and explain how "kind ole guy" "Sadom Husain" got the 'kind ole guy" treatment by the administration he was serving back then.
It's a republican run PR firm for exclusively for republican campaigns, just like carl rove. What's Carl Rove's "association" with the GOP?
Karl Rove is actually paid by George Bush and the GOP as well as a campaign advisor. But it is interesting to note that by your logic, This Week on ABC is nothing but a hidden liberal propaganda machine since George Stephanopoulos was a Clinton advisor. He also helped run both campaigns and formulate most of the key Clinton policies. Karl Rove doesn't advertise himself as nonpartisan because he is working for Bush's campaign for goodness sake.
Of course Michael Moore campaigned for Clarke, but that doesn't distort his "truth" or call into question his motives at all.
Sad that you would rather kill the messengers and also debate their motives than just deal with the fact that Moore is profiting from withholding his footage and information regard torture in Iraq.
Karl Rove is actually paid by George Bush and the GOP as well as a campaign advisor.
Actually not.
Rove is currently a political appointee in the white house, meaning he gets paid by tax dollars. Before that he (well, really his PR firm Karl Rove & Company) got paid exactly the same way this republican PR firm gets paid for doing the exact same kind of work.
Quote:
But it is interesting to note that by your logic, This Week on ABC is nothing but a hidden liberal propaganda machine
No, by my logic a republican PR Firm that does PR for republican campaigns does PR for republican campaigns.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Pfflam, you can believe and delude yourself in whatever manner you choose to do so.
Just don't expect all of us to come along for the ride.
Now on the matter of Moore, Bush, torture and the Iraq war, answer me this, did you read the second, very progressive source I posted?
Moore's only rational for not mentioning it MONTHS before it came out is fear he would be seen a as publicity hound. The release of that information hurt both Bush and undermined support for the war. Both of these are stated objectives of Michael Moore. Moore is supposed to be in the business of telling the truth. Instead he claims fear of his reputation as a means of withholding the truth. Worse still he actually did act as a publicity hound with the whole Disney distribution nonsense right before Cannes. So he can tell us the truth about Disney a year after the fact, but withhold the truth about torture?
If you see this as being about anything else than more money for Michael Moore, you are blinding yourself to the possibility of the very truth he claims to support.
Nick
I don't think he is motivated by money over his political interests . . . just as I don't think that the Iraq war was simply for Halliburton or oil profits: both were ideologically driven.
if that is what you mean by 'deluding' myself . . . you need to get a better argument.
You should also make note that I AGREED with you as far as his being wrong in witholding the footage, and yes I read that article.
Now if you are referring to the issue of that well funded, biased and Partisan attack-dog PR company when you call me deluded . . . you should just say so . . . and also point out where my delusion comes in exactly?
They are just that, Biased, and Partisan and already well connected and well funded . . . so why did they try to hide their complicity with the anti-movie borderline-censorship tactics??!
and why lie about being a 'grassroots' organization?
Reminds me of that 'spontaneuos' support for Bush in Florida . . . where you could pause the demonstrations and name each memeber of the 'spontaneuos popular support crowd' and show that they were all party functionaries!!
http://alternet.org/story/18815/
Purportedly, this is the same footage used by Moore in Fahrenheit 911. So it was available to just about every news organization in the country, but the "liberal media" just ignored it!
Is that still treason, if every major media outlet in the US declined to show it?
We can also argue whether what happened in the article was torture, whether it was covered accurately (this is secondhand information) etc etc. But on the surface, it looks like our mainstream media has proved its worthlessness in covering anything but Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson yet again.
Originally posted by pfflam
I don't think he is motivated by money over his political interests . . . just as I don't think that the Iraq war was simply for Halliburton or oil profits: both were ideologically driven.
if that is what you mean by 'deluding' myself . . . you need to get a better argument.
You should also make note that I AGREED with you as far as his being wrong in witholding the footage, and yes I read that article.
Now if you are referring to the issue of that well funded, biased and Partisan attack-dog PR company when you call me deluded . . . you should just say so . . . and also point out where my delusion comes in exactly?
They are just that, Biased, and Partisan and already well connected and well funded . . . so why did they try to hide their complicity with the anti-movie borderline-censorship tactics??!
and why lie about being a 'grassroots' organization?
Reminds me of that 'spontaneuos' support for Bush in Florida . . . where you could pause the demonstrations and name each memeber of the 'spontaneuos popular support crowd' and show that they were all party functionaries!!
I said you were deluding yourself for a couple of reasons. First you declared that I was okay with what this group was doing and wouldn't be okay with it if it were occuring on the left. I named groups on both the right and left that are biased, but not partisan. NEA for example is nonpartisan. Of course the majority of their endorsements and donations go to Democrats, almost exclusively so. However NEA is not affiliated with the Democratic party.
So I'm not going to be upset that they are biased. Everyone has biases. This group did not attempt to claim they were unbiased from what I saw. They clearly labeled their members and their works as conservative. However they did label themselves as nonpartisan. I don't see how they are affiliated in any way with the Republican party. I would be much more inclined to be upset with large 529 groups that are basically being used to circumvent campaign finance reform (ala Moveon.org and others) than I would groups that claim to be nonpartisan who happen to be very biased. (NOW, NEA, MALDEF, NRA, Christian Coalition, etc.)
Do you have any evidence that the Republican party was funding this site? The links are all guilt by association but there is no money or even paper trail.
I suppose I should be upset that we just so "coincidentally" happen to have a documentary condemning Bush, another documentary helping Clinton (The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill Clinton) and of course the Clinton memoirs book all coming out at the SAME time.
What a coincidence....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
NEA for example is nonpartisan.
The NEA isn't a PR firm hired by a political party or its members.
I don't see how they are affiliated in any way with the Republican party.
Because the website was registered to a GOP PR firm.
linky linky
Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.
Moore getting help from Hezbollah? Wait a damn minute...aren't they the BAD GUYS?
I needn't say more.
Originally posted by a_greer Moore getting help from Hezbollah? Wait a damn minute...aren't they the BAD GUYS?
I needn't say more.
Actually you haven't said much. You posted a link and from half of a paragraph in it then concluded that Moore and Hezbollah are working together and therefore Moore is a bad guy. Why do I get the feeling you got this from fat junkie Limbaugh.
Do you know much as to how the movie industry works? Rhetorical question.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Do you know much as to how the movie industry works? Rhetorical question.
Rhetorical or not let me answer:
I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Whats next for Moore, "Sadom Husain: The Kind ole guy Bush Didn't want us to See" brought to you by Al qaeda? thats Rhetorical too.
Originally posted by giant
The NEA isn't a PR firm hired by a political party or its members.
Because the website was registered to a GOP PR firm.
As I said guilt by association. Is that PR firm actually owned by the Republican party, or is it called a GOP PR firm because it does work for the Republican party? It is the latter and not the former. It is guilty by association.
Now I could call the NEA, that Liberal Democratic NEA. I could also note that all the literature that goes out for the NEA happens to support Democrats and also that the clear majority of the campaign donations are also to Democrats (something like 98%+) I could even go further and show what percentage of Democratic delegates at the convention just happen to be NEA members as well.
However while closely aligned, the NEA is not a partisan organization. They are profoundly biased. But they are not registered in a manner that makes them exclusively a group associated with the Democratic party. Again I could say this about the NAACP, NOW, etc.
Sticking "Bush" before Republican doesn't make all Republicans of one mind, association and action. Sticking GOP before a PR firm doesn't make it owned by the Republican party either. An article that does both is just showing good use of smear tactics.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As I said guilt by association. Is that PR firm actually owned by the Republican party, or is it called a GOP PR firm because it does work for the Republican party? It is the latter and not the former. It is guilty by association.
Now I could call the NEA, that Liberal Democratic NEA. I could also note that all the literature that goes out for the NEA happens to support Democrats and also that the clear majority of the campaign donations are also to Democrats (something like 98%+) I could even go further and show what percentage of Democratic delegates at the convention just happen to be NEA members as well.
However while closely aligned, the NEA is not a partisan organization. They are profoundly biased. But they are not registered in a manner that makes them exclusively a group associated with the Democratic party. Again I could say this about the NAACP, NOW, etc.
Sticking "Bush" before Republican doesn't make all Republicans of one mind, association and action. Sticking GOP before a PR firm doesn't make it owned by the Republican party either. An article that does both is just showing good use of smear tactics.
Nick
That's a good point Nick, but I think there is a distinction that needs to be made. All these organizations you list have their own agenda, and those agendas are what sway them to one political party or another. So they are indeed biased but not inherently partisan.
But the agenda of the PR firm is the agenda of the party itself. A Republican PR firm will never support Democratic causes, and vice-versa. So I think in that instance they do qualify as partisan.
Originally posted by a_greer
I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Did you know to look at the original source?
Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in Middle East
Nancy Tartaglione in Paris 09 June 2004 04:00
United Arab Emirates based Front Row Entertainment is planning to release Michael Moore?s Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Middle East beginning on July 14 according to managing director Gianluca Chacra.
The film will first be sent out on 18 screens in the United Arab Emirates and will be released in Syria (2 screens), Jordan (3 screens), Lebanon (10 screens) and Egypt (5 screens) six days later on July 20.
Other territories which Front Row will handle include Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ? however, all of the above countries are awaiting censorship clearance.
Chacra said: "We?re scared most of these countries will have a problem (with censorship approval) due to the Saudi content in the film. Yet, with the Dubai Film Festival coming up, I think they?ll want to show the world they?re quite democratic and open-minded.?
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from organisations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, ?we can?t go against these organisations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.?
As it is too early to have materials available from the film?s sales agent Wild Bunch, its US producer Miramax or distributor Lions Gate, Front Row created a teaser poster (pictured) but declined a free set of materials from a printing press run by Pakistanis as this could be deemed as an inappropriate source -_ ?cinemas in the UAE are often frequented by US Marines who come over from Iraq on the weekends.?
Front Row, which also worked with Moore?s Bowling For Columbine, is setting a precedent with Fahrenheit as it is the first documentary ever to be released theatrically in the territory. Bowling went straight to video and had a healthy run. Indeed, Moore is, explains Chacra, ?considered an Arab supporter,? locally.
Having bought the film at Mifed in 2003, Chacra says he was concerned that the marketing would be a difficult ride but ?at the end of the day you have to give the public what they want, you can?t change the way they should perceive the film.?
Given the movie going habits of the locals, Chacra says he thinks the film ?is going to be big but I don?t know how big. It could be a blockbuster.? A quick round-up of the area shows that Syrians don?t really go to the cinema, the Lebanese go to event movies ? The Passion Of The Christ did well there ? and the UAE is considered a core market. Chacra says people go to the movies three times a week because ? even at $9 a ticket ? it?s the cheapest form of entertainment and since Muslims can?t go out and drink, they tend to go to the cinema quite often. Still, Chacra says that the plan is not to market specifically to any one group.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is that PR firm actually owned by the Republican party, or is it called a GOP PR firm because it does work for the Republican party?
It's a republican run PR firm for exclusively for republican campaigns, just like carl rove. What's Carl Rove's "association" with the GOP?
Originally posted by giant
It's a republican run PR firm for exclusively for republican campaigns, just like carl rove. What's Carl Rove's "association" with the GOP?
coupled with their weak attempt to hide themselves and we can almost see the tip of that 'vast-right-wing-conspiracy'
But seriously
Originally posted by a_greer
Rhetorical or not let me answer:I do know a bit about it, all be it not lots but I do understand the basics of distribution, what I also understand is that Hezbollah isnt a movie house/distributer unless, like the mob of old they have a legit front end that no one ever thought to connect to them.
Hehe, in your haste to bash Moore all of a sudden you are suggesting Hezbollah as distributors(directly or indirectly)of the movie?
And according to your own link..it's not Hezbollah...it's organizations "related" to them. Please feel free to expand on that relationship....in case you do know what it is.... which from your posts, it's obvious you do?
If it were a front that "no one would ever think to connect them to"...it wouldn't make much sense for them to make worldwide news by offering their assistance now would it?
Whats next for Moore, "Sadom Husain: The Kind ole guy Bush Didn't want us to See" brought to you by Al qaeda? thats Rhetorical too.
I find it hard to believe that after at least 2 plus years of watching the news, reading newspapers or websites, you still have no clue how to spell "Sadom Husain" right. It's not like you haven't seen his name pop up....oh....like everywhere a million times or so?
By the way, that documentary idea...good idea. Maybe we could have Rumsfeld narrate it and explain how "kind ole guy" "Sadom Husain" got the 'kind ole guy" treatment by the administration he was serving back then.
Michael Moore is a terrorist!
</throws gas on fire>
I just love playing with fire
They changed their web-site registration name.
Yes. but they are not so clever. Here is the info:
Registrant:
Move America Forward
P.O. Box 1863
Sacramento, CA 95812
US
Domain name: MOVEAMERICAFORWARD.COM
Administrative Contact:
Kaloogian, Howard [email protected]
P.O. Box 1863
Sacramento, CA 95812
US
916-441-6197 Fax: 916-441-6057
Technical Contact:
Kaloogian, Howard [email protected]
P.O. Box 1863
Sacramento, CA 95812
US
916-441-6197 Fax: 916-441-6057
Registrar of Record: easyDNS Technologies, Inc.
Record last updated on 13-Jun-2004.
Record expires on 18-Nov-2004.
Record created on 18-Nov-2003.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.EASYDNS.COM 216.220.40.243
NS2.EASYDNS.COM 205.210.42.20
REMOTE1.EASYDNS.COM 64.39.29.212
REMOTE2.EASYDNS.COM 212.100.224.80
http://www.howardforsenate.com/
Originally posted by giant
It's a republican run PR firm for exclusively for republican campaigns, just like carl rove. What's Carl Rove's "association" with the GOP?
Karl Rove is actually paid by George Bush and the GOP as well as a campaign advisor. But it is interesting to note that by your logic, This Week on ABC is nothing but a hidden liberal propaganda machine since George Stephanopoulos was a Clinton advisor. He also helped run both campaigns and formulate most of the key Clinton policies. Karl Rove doesn't advertise himself as nonpartisan because he is working for Bush's campaign for goodness sake.
Of course Michael Moore campaigned for Clarke, but that doesn't distort his "truth" or call into question his motives at all.
Sad that you would rather kill the messengers and also debate their motives than just deal with the fact that Moore is profiting from withholding his footage and information regard torture in Iraq.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Karl Rove is actually paid by George Bush and the GOP as well as a campaign advisor.
Actually not.
Rove is currently a political appointee in the white house, meaning he gets paid by tax dollars. Before that he (well, really his PR firm Karl Rove & Company) got paid exactly the same way this republican PR firm gets paid for doing the exact same kind of work.
But it is interesting to note that by your logic, This Week on ABC is nothing but a hidden liberal propaganda machine
No, by my logic a republican PR Firm that does PR for republican campaigns does PR for republican campaigns.
What a curmudgeon had to say about Michael Moore.