The Porn Dude

Today's letter from Michael Moore

Swguy

Single White Member
Apr 26, 2003
1,342
0
36
Diagon Alley
www.freeones.ca
To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:

On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.

I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.

I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.

Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?

When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?

When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?

Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?

Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?

With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?

Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.

That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.

It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the widow at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"

My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?

And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?

Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.

Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?

I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?

I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.

Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
[email protected]
Don't shoot the messenger... ;)


SWG
 

planetsmurf

papa smurf
Apr 13, 2005
1,109
2
0
dude i totally agree with what he says and that the republicians are the party for the rich or people who want to be rich some day. and the fact that bush put some in power that has no experience is not surprising because bush has no experience whatso ever to run a country have you guys heard and looked at this guy try and explain something to the press or to a group of people it looks like his brain going to explode because he has to think of an anwser. bush is a moron plain and simple
 

eljudo

Banned
Oct 15, 2002
560
0
0
50
Vancouver, BC
i couldnt agree more with michael moore.

The man, george dubya bush is not in power just because he has some gray matter between his ear. He was put in power thanks to his family ties with the oil industries and wealthy family in and out the U.S of America.

he was a terrified man, unable to control the most powerful nation of the world back in 911... and he was the same old george dubya unable to control N.O few weeks ago.

Is this man capable of running the worlds most powerful nation? Highly doubt it.
 

gotsome2004

Bun wrapped wiener
Oct 15, 2004
453
0
0
Montreal
Powerfull questions

Very humbling to read, but the answer to all his questions though totally obvious to everybody in the world are not even understood by many Americans who are spoon fed propaganda everyday on CNN, Fox news etc. That is where they get all their answers without even hearing the questions from someone like Michael Moore.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
I am always trouble by those extremists (on both sides) who use a tragedy or misfortune of Americans to advance their own political agenda. I propose we let Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh have the debate over who is to blame for 9/11 and who is to blame for the N.O. tragedy. What bothers me the most is these people are not interested in determining what the best path for America to follow, they need to score their political points on the backs of Americans who died.

Americans need a national debate amongst reasoned citizens with a view of what kind of a country do we want. There are 2 opposing views that have extreme polarized support amongst a few.

Do we want a country that has a very strong central government and there for a weakened local government. Or do we want the political power to reside with the local government and have the central government responsible only for a limited number of national concerns.

I do not think it will come as any surprise what side I support. I believe the more authority that resides with the local governments the better. In fact the more responsibility that resides with the individual the better.

I will give you a few examples. I believe that a woman should have access to abortion. I even believe the state should help pay for that abortion under certain conditions mainly dealing with the health of the mother. Where I disagree is this is not a federal issue and should not be decided by the federal courts. This is a state issue and needs to be decided by each state.

I do not support gay marriage, (although before you jump all over me I would want the feds to ensure they are not discriminated against by any government at any level). Marriage is a state issue and was decided in state court. That is exactly what should happen. I opposed the initial idea that we should have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Gun laws. I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution. It should not be. I would support a constitutional amendment removing that right. I still think citizens should be allowed to carry guns, but it needs to be decided at the state level.

So what does that leave for the feds?:
Protection of our borders and a military to be used for national defense;
Protection of individual rights granted under the constitution especially from encroachment by government at all levels.
The economic well being of the nation.
The regulation of interstate activities and the control of national and multi-national corporations.

I am sure there are a few others that should be at the national level, but the presumption should be (and in our constitution it is) that the authority resides at the state level with specific and definitive exceptions.

So where does that leave me on disasters like 9/11 in NY earthquakes in CA, hurricanes in FL. disastrous floods in N.O. Local and state government need to have the authority and responsibility to deal with localized disasters even ones that are of such large proportions. The role of the feds needs to be a supporting role both during the disaster and the recovery efforts once the initial event is over.

I am interested in a national debate, because there is one exception I would like to give more thought and that is when it is obvious that an event is so large it is beyond the ability of local government to handle it. BTW – this is exactly where I fault Bush in N.O. When the levy broke on Monday, it was obvious the situation was beyond what one would expect a local or state government to handle. His lack of quick action cost people their lives. It would have been illegal for him to act unilaterally, but he should have done it anyway and suffered the consequences afterwards.

This must be the longest post I have written and I apologize for the length. My biggest fear is extremists will use this tragedy to change America in a way I do not want it to change. If in deed there is a will for such a change to centralize power then let’s do that after a reasoned debate, not as an emotional reaction to this tragedy.
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,935
0
0
luckydog71 said:
I will give you a few examples. I believe that a woman should have access to abortion. I even believe the state should help pay for that abortion under certain conditions mainly dealing with the health of the mother. Where I disagree is this is not a federal issue and should not be decided by the federal courts. This is a state issue and needs to be decided by each state.
so what does a woman who needs an abortion and lives in a non-abortion state do? can she travel to another state for the abortion? will her 'home' state still pay for the abortion and the additional cost of travel? will the non-abortion state pay for someone to take care of her other kids (if she has them) while she is in another state getting rid of this one?

the strength of a federal system is that it ensures (in principle) that all people have equal access to all services ... what the individual States should decide on are issues that impact unique circumstances for their area.

here in Canada our health care is in crisis because 'policy wonks' want it to be such and then introduce private health care which doesn't work any better than what we have now: the most basic problem here is that Tommy Douglas wanted 'universal access to medical care' and our 'me generation' has interpreted that to mean instead that we have 'access to a universe of medical procedures'.

the medical profession (and i use that word really loosely here) has become nothing but a business: doctors don't care about medicine and their patients, they care only about how much money they can earn. If they did care, they would not run off someplace else to make more money!
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
luckydog71 said:
I am always trouble by those extremists (on both sides) who use a tragedy or misfortune of Americans to advance their own political agenda. I propose we let Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh have the debate over who is to blame for 9/11 and who is to blame for the N.O. tragedy.
Michael Moore could be considered an "extremist" only in America, where the level of debate is very narrow. Anywhere else in the "free" world, he is considered very centrist. As another example of an American vilified for his views, Noam Chomsky is considered so extreme in the US that his opinions haven't been aired in the mainstream for a couple of decades now -- in the rest of the world, his views are well within the realm of reasonable debate.

luckydog71 said:
I will give you a few examples. I believe that a woman should have access to abortion. I even believe the state should help pay for that abortion under certain conditions mainly dealing with the health of the mother. Where I disagree is this is not a federal issue and should not be decided by the federal courts. This is a state issue and needs to be decided by each state.
The Supreme Court was designed as a mechanism to ensure that basic rights were not threatened by local governments. Many would consider access to abortion a basic right, and it is currently considered so by the Court. The Federal government has also assumed the role of defending basic rights many times --- even sending troops to prevent racial discrimination (legal according to state laws at the time).

The current federal government intrudes into local jurisdiction time after time according to its regressive ideology --- state laws okaying medical marijuana, for example, are ignored repeatedly. I am sure new appointees by the Bush administration will continue this trend in the Court, and extend it.

The Court is already corrupted -- the recent decision overturning private property laws for the benefit of developers is a sympton of this. It has been a principle that private property has only been expropriated to make way for public infrastructure. Now it can be expropriated for the benefit of big business.

I still think you need to work for the Libertarians -- the current Republican party is never going to relinquish any federal control over anything that does not suit its agenda --- social or economic.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
LonelyGhost said:
so what does a woman who needs an abortion and lives in a non-abortion state do? can she travel to another state for the abortion? will her 'home' state still pay for the abortion and the additional cost of travel? will the non-abortion state pay for someone to take care of her other kids (if she has them) while she is in another state getting rid of this one?
Great question - There would be nothing stopping a person from traveling to a different state for an abortion. They could also travel to another state that supports gay marriage or where you could buy a gun.

The next part of your question is more difficult. Who should pay? That needs to be a state decision. I know where I would come down, but I would not want my choice to be imposed on other states. Abortion in my state should be readily available. If it is a matter of serious consequences to the life of the mother then the state should pay for what ever portion the woman could not afford. If this was a form of birth control, it should still be available, it just should not be paid for by the state.



LonelyGhost said:
the strength of a federal system is that it ensures (in principle) that all people have equal access to all services ... what the individual States should decide on are issues that impact unique circumstances for their area.

here in Canada our health care is in crisis because 'policy wonks' want it to be such and then introduce private health care which doesn't work any better than what we have now: the most basic problem here is that Tommy Douglas wanted 'universal access to medical care' and our 'me generation' has interpreted that to mean instead that we have 'access to a universe of medical procedures'
I know this is a major distinction between Canada and the US. Canada was designed to be a federally controlled country, the US was not. Although the US is heading in that direction.
I am not advocating any changes at all to Canada. Canadians seem generally happy with their system of government so who am I to advocate change. But I would not want this system in the US


LonelyGhost said:
here in Canada our health care is in crisis because 'policy wonks' want it to be such and then introduce private health care which doesn't work any better than what we have now: the most basic problem here is that Tommy Douglas wanted 'universal access to medical care' and our 'me generation' has interpreted that to mean instead that we have 'access to a universe of medical procedures'.

the medical profession (and i use that word really loosely here) has become nothing but a business: doctors don't care about medicine and their patients, they care only about how much money they can earn. If they did care, they would not run off someplace else to make more money!
I am familiar with the Canadian health care system and at the time it was introduced it, I thought it was a great system. In the last 10 years this socialized medicine is buckling under the abuses by patients and care givers. The one thing I like about the Canadian system is the restricted mal-practice suites. I wish we had that here.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
HankQuinlan said:
Michael Moore could be considered an "extremist" only in America, where the level of debate is very narrow. Anywhere else in the "free" world, he is considered very centrist. As another example of an American vilified for his views, Noam Chomsky is considered so extreme in the US that his opinions haven't been aired in the mainstream for a couple of decades now -- in the rest of the world, his views are well within the realm of reasonable debate.
Agreed…Extremist is a relative term and requires comparison to others before you could apply it. I am sure I would be an extremist in other countries, in particular communist led countries.

HankQuinlan said:
The Supreme Court was designed as a mechanism to ensure that basic rights were not threatened by local governments. Many would consider access to abortion a basic right, and it is currently considered so by the Court. The Federal government has also assumed the role of defending basic rights many times --- even sending troops to prevent racial discrimination (legal according to state laws at the time).
Not basic rights….those rights granted under the constitution of the USA. I have heard that argument before that abortion is a basic (or constitutional) right. I think it falls under health care, a state matter. The exception to me is if this is a serious health risk to the mother. Then it is a right that should be available to anyone regardless of state laws.



HankQuinlan said:
The current federal government intrudes into local jurisdiction time after time according to its regressive ideology --- state laws okaying medical marijuana, for example, are ignored repeatedly. I am sure new appointees by the Bush administration will continue this trend in the Court, and extend it.

The Court is already corrupted -- the recent decision overturning private property laws for the benefit of developers is a symptom of this. It has been a principle that private property has only been expropriated to make way for public infrastructure. Now it can be expropriated for the benefit of big business.
I agree. The US has a federal government that is gathering power from the state on a daily basis.
Even the idea of checks and balances between 3 equal but separate divisions of government is eroding. A perfect example is the number of times the US military has been used in an offensive move without a declaration of war by congress.


HankQuinlan said:
I still think you need to work for the Libertarians -- the current Republican party is never going to relinquish any federal control over anything that does not suit its agenda --- social or economic.
I wish you were wrong Hank. But sadly you are not…. I am convinced this will be the downfall of the US. We will destroy ourselves from within. It will not likely be an enemy that brings on our demise
 

FuZzYknUckLeS

Monkey Abuser
May 11, 2005
2,215
0
0
Schmocation
luckydog71 said:
I am always trouble by those extremists (on both sides) who use a tragedy or misfortune of Americans to advance their own political agenda. I propose we let Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh have the debate over who is to blame for 9/11 and who is to blame for the N.O. tragedy. What bothers me the most is these people are not interested in determining what the best path for America to follow, they need to score their political points on the backs of Americans who died.
To label Michael Moore as an extremist for simply pointing out the downfalls of his govt. is disturbing. People like this are important. They make others think. They make others question. It is not their responsibility to come up with solutions.
luckydog71 said:
I do not support gay marriage, (although before you jump all over me I would want the feds to ensure they are not discriminated against by any government at any level). Marriage is a state issue and was decided in state court. That is exactly what should happen. I opposed the initial idea that we should have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Marriage should not be a political issue, period. For a country that is so quick to shove its freedoms in other countries faces, I find it rather hypocritical to propose adding a ban on gay marriage to the constitution. Where's the freedom in that?
luckydog71 said:
...My biggest fear is extremists will use this tragedy to change America in a way I do not want it to change. If in deed there is a will for such a change to centralize power then let’s do that after a reasoned debate, not as an emotional reaction to this tragedy.
Who are these extremists? And do you think America can possibly get any worse? I hate to break it to you, but the extremists who are using a tragedy to change your country for the worse would be your current president and his administration. Take a look at what he has done since Sept. 11, 2001.
 

shedevil

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
1,098
0
0
A SAVAGE LUST GARDEN
I love this guy...

Swguy said:
Don't shoot the messenger... ;)


SWG

He always has a way of completley making his point. I really enjoy his enthusiam for his cause. He truly needs his own thread here. Many people don't like him, but hey, he speaks the truth. He is a 'stand up' American. I enjoy his films and his message. Always. I find him to be very intelligent. I enjoy his point of view always. Even if at times, I do not agree with it. For the most part I do. :D
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
FuZzYknUckLeS said:
To label Michael Moore as an extremist for simply pointing out the downfalls of his govt. is disturbing. People like this are important. They make others think. They make others question. It is not their responsibility to come up with solutions.
In the USA Michael is on the extreme edge of the political spectrum and his counter part is Rush Limbaugh. He and Rush are only willing to look at the downfalls of those considered to be their political enemies. Their audience are typically those who agree with their position.

I am not sure how important either of them are in a national debate. I would much rather listen to a reasoned person with a different opinion than mine. Someone who I think at least has the best intersests of the US in mind.
 

dick slap

Guest
May 18, 2004
189
0
0
63
at the ex in-laws
Canada is not Federally controlled

luckydog71 said:
I know this is a major distinction between Canada and the US. Canada was designed to be a federally controlled country, the US was not. Although the US is heading in that direction.
I am not advocating any changes at all to Canada. Canadians seem generally happy with their system of government so who am I to advocate change. But I would not want this system in the US
There's a little province in Canada called Quebec that has managed to keep control of it's own destiny for the last 40 years or so. Alberta is booming with no debt while the maritimes are still on the dole. If this country truly had federal control there would be no french on my cereal box and everybody in the maritimes would have a job.

Micheal Moore is a bright idiot; he creates his own arguments.

The rich create wealth so that the poor don't have to be so poor.

Capitalism and governments don't get along because governments by nature need to grow and the only place they can get the fuel for growth is from the capitalist.

See, I can do it just like Moore.

DS
 
Last edited:

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
73
Washington State
dick slap said:
If this country truly had federal control there would be no french on my cereal boxDS
DS – I think the opposite…..if Canada did not have federal control then in B.C. you would not have French on your cereal box. You would have Punjab and Mandarin. It is because the federal gov’t dictates the laws in BC that you are forced to pay to have French on all labels. I would guess less than 1% of the population in BC is unilingual French.


dick slap said:
There's a little province in Canada called Quebec that has managed to keep control of it's own destiny for the last 40 years or soDS
To me Quebec has always been an anomaly. They have a disproportionately by a large margin supplied the Prime Ministers. They have federal gov’t laws that apply only to them. For example they are the only province that can have more MP’s than the proportion of their population would support.

There is a “not withstanding” clause in your constitution which has only been used by Quebec. All other provinces have elected to follow the Canadian constitution.
 

Bull

Banned
Sep 22, 2004
421
1
0
A PSM from your friends at Homeland Security

 

ace85

Banned
Jan 30, 2004
741
0
0
49
LonelyGhost said:
so what does a woman who needs an abortion and lives in a non-abortion state do? can she travel to another state for the abortion? will her 'home' state still pay for the abortion and the additional cost of travel? will the non-abortion state pay for someone to take care of her other kids (if she has them) while she is in another state getting rid of this one?

the strength of a federal system is that it ensures (in principle) that all people have equal access to all services ... what the individual States should decide on are issues that impact unique circumstances for their area.

here in Canada our health care is in crisis because 'policy wonks' want it to be such and then introduce private health care which doesn't work any better than what we have now: the most basic problem here is that Tommy Douglas wanted 'universal access to medical care' and our 'me generation' has interpreted that to mean instead that we have 'access to a universe of medical procedures'.

the medical profession (and i use that word really loosely here) has become nothing but a business: doctors don't care about medicine and their patients, they care only about how much money they can earn. If they did care, they would not run off someplace else to make more money!
They don't all run away for more money. But some do. Health care is at risk, becasue Canadians are more ready to have Equally bad health care for everyone. Instead of risking good or very good health care for some and excellent health care for those who are willing to pay more for it.

Canada is a relative state. What you or I have is only good enough in relation to what others have. Not as an absolute measurement.

Ontario wants more of Alberta's money, because Alberta has more money. You would think that they might realize that Ottawa just needs to be better at distributing the money they have.
 

wolverine

Hard Throbbing Member
Nov 11, 2002
6,388
9
38
E-Town
ace85 said:
Ontario wants more of Alberta's money, because Alberta has more money. You would think that they might realize that Ottawa just needs to be better at distributing the money they have.
Which shouldn't be a fixed amount...rather, a certain percentage of a province's annual GDP would be the most fair.
 

Ilovethemall

Banned
Jul 12, 2005
794
0
0
3rd rock from the sun
ahhhhhh what's the point

I was going to bash that fat fuck MM but really what's the point, this board is so anti american it is pathetic.
 
Vancouver Escorts