Fahrenheit 9/11 Sequel News
Summary
The culture wars continue. Inflammatory documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has announced at the Cannes film festival that he is planning a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, his acclaimed by some, loathed by others documentary about 9/11. Back to Article
The culture wars continue. Inflammatory documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has announced at the Cannes film festival that he is planning a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, his acclaimed by some, loathed by others documentary about 9/11. Back to Article
(1-80 of 80 posts) | Reply
 on May 15 2008 08:11 AM So MM is making a new "documentary"? yawn. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 08:34 AM Let me know when Moore decides to do something original. Though I am surprised he opted not to release this during an election year. I guess he's more of an "I told you so" kind of person and not an "Out to warn you" person. (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 10:07 AM Sweet. Moores' genius at enraging neocons knows no bounds. (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 10:37 AM Should be interesting. He only scratched the surface of the truth behind the lies back in '04. Can't wait to see the next installment. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 10:48 AM ok, when they start making sequels to documentaries, you know everything has gone to hell. can't wait for the remake in 2015 after america is morally and financially bankrupt. does michael moore fail to see the irony in this? he's condemning the bush administration (which, don't get me wrong, i loathe with every fiber of my being) for governing based on their rampant capitalist agenda by making a sequel to the highest grossing doc ever with his "branded property." nice one mike, you're officially a corporate whore. can't wait for 'Celsius 9/11' or whatever it is. unfortunately, it's not within moore's ability to deliver an honest, sobering documentary like 'no end in sight.' instead he will try to use humor and cheap political tricks which will, as in the original film, ultimately undermine the points he's trying to make. the first movie ran like a 90 minute negative campaign ad and disenchanted as many would-be bush-bashers as it recruited. it's impossible to argue against the cold, hard facts of a doc like 'no end in sight,' which features the insiders on the war in iraq telling us that their planning was intentionally ignored in order to prolong the conflict. however, once moore begins inserting his own spin on the events, the seed of doubt is planted and we're unable to know if we're being informed or manipulated. in short, this movie will do more harm than good. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 10:58 AM "Should be interesting. He only scratched the surface of the truth behind the lies back in '04. Can't wait to see the next installment." "As long as you believe that Oliver Stone. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 11:02 AM Moore only knows how to make propoganda pieces for which at that he is the best. A find his movies to be among the most entertaining in its genre. However, as a documentary filmmaker he fails. My favorite documentary ever is Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. It's witty at times but it's serious and more objective when it needs to be. Moore could take a lesson or two from that film. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 11:05 AM Yes another propaganda movie that the liberals will watch and use as if it is the bible. Sad little liberals so sad wishing that clinton was still ruining the world. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 11:33 AM In reply to this comment (#1736143) um, how did slick willy ruin the world? try and be specific, unless of course you're blowing hot air and don't really have an examples. if we're 'sad little liberals' i guess that makes you a big happy conservative. so what is it that elevates you above us peons? and what is it you're so happy about? cause it sure as hell can't be the pitiful economy, the 5 year war, the unchecked national pollution levels and the wholly unregulated government spending spree that's gone on since 2001. just let mew know, because me tiny little liberal brain can't really figure out why you wouldn't be pretty sad with the state of affairs around here, too. (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 11:43 AM M Moore and his sheep love to make movies denigrating the country that gave him so much. Brainless liberals and their master will once again celebrate intellectual vapidness! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 11:52 AM *SIGH* Why, WHY must the train comments to this article gradually become a sad and unfortunately large battleground for pointless "political" argumentation? Guys. It's a movie. Please try to remember that this is ([hopefully] more than not) a MOVIE site before entire posts become full of nothing but broken caps-lock buttons and pathetic attempts at seeming deep through use of ridiculous amounts of prose and pseudo-intellectual metaphors regarding American politics. Cheers. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 11:53 AM *That was meant as "train OF comments...". (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 12:04 PM In reply to this comment (#1736180) so your contribution to the discussion was to bash the people who are actually talking about politics, ya know the subject of the MOVIE (caps-lock much?) this thread is dedicated to? if you don't care, then don't read the comments, let alone try to regulate how people are responding. people who like movies also have opinions about the government, and this subject naturally brings those two worlds together. is it really that much of a surprise that a political movie would spark a discussion about politics? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 12:42 PM Oh yeah slick willy was innocent when he sent troops into TWO civil wars, one of which was an even bigger failure than the current war. Or when he let the internet bubble grow unregulated, or when he took credit for the surplus when it was the republican controlled senate that did it. Or when instead of leading the country he was cheating on his wife and having sex when he was supposed to be working, or when he allowed Dafur to happen because of his weak foreign agenda, or when he allowed osama to live when the saudis offered his head on 5 different occasions, or when he bombed a camp that he thought osama was in when all of his generals told him that he was not there, or the fact that he allowed over 5 domestic terrorist attacks, etc. Hey dahluzz i understand that you cannot think for yourself thus the reason why you have to listen to critics but atleast do not be a blind liberal sheep, even the very few smart liberals know that Moore is nothing but a nazi propagandist. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 12:42 PM "Michael Moore is a very talented filmmaker, and this is a branded property." That's news to me. I thought he just took whatever the hot-button issue of the year was, and decided to make an hour and a half b****-fest to cash in on it. I still say, if he were so self-righteous, he would have given the proceeds from F911 to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq or something. As it is, the fat bastard just rolls in more doughnut glaze, laughing at how many lemmings have went to see a movie about something they could have seen on the news. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 12:43 PM Pollution? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, continue to listen to gore and his tales of global warming while i will continue to listen to REAL scientists. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 01:09 PM In reply to this comment (#1736219) rrriiiiiiiight. yeah, forgot you were the dude who thinks critics are useless. that's kinf of red flag right there. i'm glad you were able to offer some clinton blunder examples. i know he's far from clean, i was just calling your bluff to see if you would back it up. however, i don't know what 'bigger failure than the current war' you're talking about. at the end of the day though, your examples pale in comparison to the heinous war crimes and public betrayals committed by the bush administration. crimes such as those committed at abu ghraib and betrayals like the denial of global warming in favor of big business agendas. it's pretty clear that you've been influenced by the administration's propaganda if you think global waming's a myth. or maybe the REAL scientists just know something everyone else doesn't. who are these scientists again? let's face it, even though he was sleezy, america was a better place under bill clinton than it is today. (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 01:10 PM I finally saw "Roger and Me" a couple of months ago on cable. Brilliant in a sense that not only was Detroit in bad shape then and even worse now, but you sense the seeds taking place with MM as he tries to get questions answered the fairest way possible about the downturn of the Detroit area, specifically his hometown of Flint. While he had a right to be angry at GM, the anger only snowballed into extreme left propaganda making it hard for me and others to distinguish facts or near-communist personal feelings. "Roger and Me" was a documentary more so than anything else he has touched. The others were films. I think we know the differences.... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 01:14 PM In reply to this comment (#1736219) Hey Captain, which REAL scientists are you referring to? I am totally serious with my question, I have yet to see any legitimate science telling me that the climate is not changing. And now I turn on the TV and see Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson doing commercials for "wecansolveit.org" and the Alliance for Climate Protection. Looks like people are jumping off your boat. Even Bush admitted climate change was a real problem, so what are you reading? What information do you have that we don't? And even if you don't think the climate change is real, would you not agree pollution is bad? Even a small child could tell you that pollution is bad and should be checked. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 01:31 PM Bottom line: the fact that MM'd movie is called a documentary is a travesty for all other documentary makers that actually have to back up their movie with facts... I don't have a problem with the movie I have a problem with it being called a documentary! The reason he is doing a 9/11 sequel is because SICKO his latest brand of grossly tilted propaganda did horrid at the box office and he got used to living the high life off of his Bush Bucks... Now he has to stir up a pot that no one will care about once we get a new prez so he can make some money. Where was MM during all the crap that the first Clinton was involved with... It's all biased propaganda people - open your eyes. Note: I am not defending W or his politics. Just trashing MM and his barbarian tactics to promote lies for what he thinks is going to please the gods of MOVEON.ORG. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 01:43 PM dahluzz, I do honestly apologize if my comment was meant to sound as if I wanted to "bash the people who are actually talking about politics": that wasn't my intention. I could, if you so desire, talk about politics, or even movies, but I'd prefer to talk about both in regards to this article. (My caps-lock button is fine; my shift button is better. If RT allowed the basic HTML commands in these posts, I'd feel much better equipped to emphasize with them instead of amusedly "yell" with caps.) Further, I had no intention of "regulating how people are responding". I was simply referring to the tired multitude of posts I've seen in the past that end up straying *completely* from the topic: in this case, the *movie politics*. On that note, I wholeheartedly agree with you; you're absolutely right about the combination of the two being naturally compatible parts of discussion. Assuredly, I'm not surprised that these discussion subjects arose; in fact, that's why I posted what I did. Some (many) of these tangent posts become quite irrelevant.... Given this is, indeed, more about both topics than one, I simply think it'd be more relevant to coherent discussion if both topics were discussed. It's purely my own preference...and just some thoughts, but certainly not intended as an imposition. :) Now, to prevent myself from being too much of a hypocrite, I will "contribute" to this discussion. ;) That being said, I'm very interested to see where Moore takes this.... It seems evident in the highly superior quality of Sicko that he's learned his "don't be overly incendiary" lesson with the "first"(?) Fahrenheit 9/11; I truly wonder if he'll stick to the tone of the first one or refine it a little more intelligently, like he did with his latest. I suppose we'll see if the controversy here is still as "heated" as before.... (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 02:26 PM Moore is a film maker. I think people call his films "docs" because they aren't sure what else to call them. They don't really fit into the same category as Lord Of The Rings, or Citizen Kane. Apparently people think that calling it propaganda is bad. Probably because it's been given that stigma by the government. To me it seems the definition of propaganda film is "it's a film that contains a lot of things that are wrong, and therefore bad". I tend to look at it like "it's a film about one persons opinion about the way something is and/or should be, when you finish watching it you can decide for yourself what your truth is". I've watched almost every film he's made. I don't own any of them. I think they are by and large entertaining. He makes a lot of good points, he also sensationalizes things, and makes bad points. I'm pretty sure this will be the same. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 02:26 PM Sorry but real scientist know that temperature is on a natural cycle, so while the climate is changing it is NATURAL, no global warming bs, sorry but a vice president that is delussional is not the best source of info. I love how he glosses over the facts in his propaganda movie. Oh yes pollution is bad but to make it out as the cause of all destruction like what gore thinks that is the problem. blind sheep, i laugh every day at you guys. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 02:28 PM Sorry but after he lied to talk to Sparticus that proves that he is no different then the nazi propagandists. P.S. Dahluz i was talking about Somalia, a bigger cluster**** than Iraq, atleast Saddam is dead. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 02:34 PM I'm pretty sure Al Gore thinks that pollution will be our undoing. He is correct. What people misconstrue is the timetable. This won't kill off humanity in a year, a decade, or even a century, but if we leave it unchecked, and unregulated it will cumulate over time and eventually it will cause of those scary scenarios they make shows about on Discovery. His cry, and the cry of millions of others is "why not start to stop it now"? It's real easy to cut and run and let another generation handle it "we won't be alive when this crap happens so why should I care" is basically the same thought process that has let pollution get to the levels they are at now. People seem to think that global warming is going to kill us next week the way they attack it. Nope. It will take thousands of years. I can't fathom why anyone would be adverse to stopping it's progress before it even comes close to being to late. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 02:47 PM OHHHH NOW I GET IT. So global warming started when bush got in office? It all makes sense to me now. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 03:12 PM Hey Michael, I've got an idea. How about Bowling for Columbine part 2? Considering kids with guns have decided to take out two universities after your film was finished. I'd rather walk through Fallujah than go to college. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 03:14 PM Who's going to be your next villain? Charlton Heston? Sorry dude he's dead. Thank god I am graduating in the summer. RT members: Pray for me. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 03:41 PM Wow! So now Bush is responsible for global warming too?!?! My God, no matter what happens in the world its GOT to be Bush's fault! Lets blame Abu Gharib on Bush. Or maybe the price of Gas! Even 9/11!!!!! Man, Bush has done such a horrible job as president... The fact is that you give Bush too much credit. He doesn't control any of these things. Congress has far more authority than Bush ever will. But even they don't completely control everything. Its just easier to blame Bush. **** happens! If McCain is president next, when something bad happens, they will say "we should have learned our leason with Bush: Don't trust Republicans!!! Its all the republicans fault!" If Obama becomes president then we will say, "We should have known that a man with only 3 years in the senate for experience was a terrible choice. He's just too young!" We always blame the president. No matter which party he is in. Take some ****ing responsibility. You are just as much at fault for all of these things. Personally, I didn't notice that much difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton made just as many mistakes. Its not until 30 or 40 years go by that we see the true impact that these guys had. Then, and only then, can we make any judgements. Michael Moore is a fool because he thinks his films are telling the truth. In reality, I think we'll be laughing at them 30 years from now... and he probably will be too. (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 03:46 PM Semantics,politics. Why have an opinion? Enjoy totalitarism. Its free! You to can be stripped of your rights, ideas and thought. Sign up now. Everyone has an opinion and it is about the only thing left that is free. Why is there so much hatred towards anothers opinion? Does it not fit into your ideal world of what you think or beleive? If Micheal Moore wants to spew propaganda then so be it. It is his right, the rights we have fought for, to do so. If you think his opinion is wrong and disagree with his(free)opinion, then totalitarism is for you. Control what we think or enjoy the freedom that we are allowed. You decide. Debate intelligently, for the mind is a beautiful thing to waste. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 03:59 PM Only One thing to say, "ZEIT GEIST THE MOVIE" Check it out it's mind blowing compared to what Moore has got on bush. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 04:01 PM Some scientists have proof that even our pollution has no real effect on global warming and that it will have no effect in the future. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 04:17 PM Bush-bashing is like a drug to liberals. They get some type of high from it, resulting in the long list of things they blame him for which obviously have nothing to do with him (unless he can somehow, miraculously control the weather with his mind, which would provoke a lot of interesting questions). Moore got way high off of his Bush-bashing, got tons of attention for it, tried to go in a different direction, and failed. Now Moore's suffering from withdrawal, so he's got to get on that "wonderful drug" once again. Answer me this: if Bush was such a terrible president, would all these movies blasting him really be necessary? I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves, and if people feel they need to release movies bashing a president with already low approval ratings, it sure looks like they don't feel confident that history will remember him that way. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 05:23 PM Now regardless of your political affiliation, you have to admit that Moore is a brilliant filmmaker. Does he slant thigns? Yes. Does he leave footage out and edit it to make people look bad? Yes. But he also puts footage in his films that people need to see. How many of you saw any real footage of 9/11 or the war in Iraq until you saw Fahrenheit? And the news doesnt cout cuz its all BS. Love him or hate him, the man is saying something, and thats better than 90% of the people in the world who sit in their living rooms and watch American Idol. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 06:45 PM (Off-topic): Why does Fahrenheit not show up in Michael Moore's RT Filmography? Ironically amusing...or is it amusingly ironic? ;) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 06:53 PM Are you insane stoober? Using that logic the nazi propagandists were excellent filmmakers. SOrry but their was no truth in his Fahrenheit 9/11 crapfest. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 08:53 PM To those who wanted a list of scientists in the shadows AGAINST the belief that humans caused global warming (and that challenge Gore's conception of GW to its very http Resp "At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities [17] or risk losing http Ju (Reply to this) |
 on May 15 2008 08:54 PM In reply to this comment (#1736219) WOW!!! What you belive isn't just wrong, it's scary. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 09:26 PM doc·u·men·ta·ry 1: being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing 2: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : factual, objective http Let me re-state that my problem with the film is that it is called a "documentary". It is not factual and it is not objective. It should NOT be called a documentary. Many young people (well, the middle aged and old too) that love to jump on the "make-love, not war" band wagon - they go and see this documentary and come out thinking that it is all fact and that MM's opinions are the absolute truth. (That is how he presents his opinions after all - as facts.) I work for a Unionized Automaker and I talk to these sheep everyday! They would go to Michael Moore church if one existed (and drink the kool ade too). MM submits his movie as a documentary because he wants to dupe as many as possible that his version of events are absolute and true. Trust me it is working and it makes me ill. I have no problem with the movie being made "YAY FREE SPEECH" but I think it is an injustice to allow it to be called a "documentary". (Or any of his other films.) MM should be brave enough to call his work what it is: propaganda... "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" I'm all for free speech but I might be one of the few that feels that there has to be some responsibility used in conjunction with that great freedom. You can not present information to the American public as fact when it is not. That is the crap that China (and many other countries) do to their citizens. What is the use of having freedom of speech if we allow it to be abused to mislead people? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 15 2008 09:27 PM Who really wants another Michael Moore's fricking movie that offers and presents to us lies and distortions as TRUTHS. Michael Moore ought to get a REAL life. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 02:26 AM In reply to this comment (#1736087) Um....if simply making things up and outright lying is "genious" then I guess so.... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 06:54 AM Team Toiletry; Does it cause you physical pain to be that abysmally ignorant? I mean, do you wake up in the morning with some interesting, intelligent thoughts and simply crush them with your iron will, desperate to remain an object of scorn and stupidity? Comparing Al Gore to Nazi Propaganda? It doesn't even matter whether scientists agree or disagree about global warming; ignorance like yours is dangerous to the planet. If I send you some money, will you promise not to procreate? I'm even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt you'll see a (live) woman naked at some point. If you write back, I'll tell you what 'abysmally' means. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 09:58 AM Did Al Gore make a one sided propaganda peice that is disproven and used to push an agenda? Yes, did the nazis do the same thing? Yes. So they are the same. I love tombretard thinks i am ignorant yet he is the one that believes al gore blindly. I love how stupid you are, maybe you can learn what the word propaganda is then you can talk to me. If anyone should not be allowed to procreate it would be a blind little sheep like you. Oh Al Gore told you to jump how high are you going to jump little sheep? Poor little tombretard, liberal sheep, you make 2 year olds seem like Einstein. (Reply to this) |
 on May 16 2008 11:05 AM Well, Bush did say, while trying to get re-elected in 2004, that by saying the same thing one-sided thing over and over again and repeating himself, that he was doing it because he was trying to "catapult the propaganda". So...going by your analysis and equating the spreading of propaganda (which the U.S. does distribute, too, make no mistake), Bush should be like a Nazi, too...right? See, there are both sides. C'mon, you guys...this is pointless. This is exactly why I went Independent around 2005 mainly because I'm sick of the fighting and name-calling and want actual progress. So far, the Democratic Party seems to have their head back on their shoulders again and we'll probably see Barak Obama in the White House in 2008 (mainly because nobody is going to vote the old-as-dirt, same-ideals-as-Bush, John McCain over youth and promise) but I want to see forward-progress and a different direction and have both parties unite for the greater good or else I WILL be voting for another party's candidate in 2012. Let's get along here because all this fighting crap about which side is the best and talk about "Liberal sheep" and "Republican NeoCons" is incredibly outdated. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 04:59 PM The democrats are even in turmoil, way too much fighting between Obama and Clinton. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 10:22 PM 'Tombretard' D#mn, son. That must've taken you all day with a thesaurus and two friends. I'm honored, but you should probably take a nap now before the headaches start again. Just to finish this romper-room debate: I didn't say whether or not I believe Al Gore. I didn't even see his movie. You are a sad, weak-minded little creature for your blind hatred, ignorance and complete lack of depth, not for any political beliefs. I don't care what you claim to stand for because you're not bright enough to take the time or energy to understand any point of view that's not on the cereal box blocking your television. I've wasted enough time with you. Good luck, son. Tobascoman; kudos for taking the high road. I say to Michael Moore and all other documentarians- Bring it on. Teach me somethin' and hope that, whatever my beliefs, I have the brains to listen and seek the truth for myself. I do think Michael Moore needlessly diluted some very salient points by going for sensationalism. Good movie, though. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 16 2008 11:25 PM In reply to this comment (#1737636) Andrew, that's called "democracy". The battle between two political rivals for the most coveted spot in politics is nothing new. And to be honest, Hillary isn't going to be in it much longer. She's mathematically done. Obama is already prepping to beat McCain in November since he's got the most delegates in the race and is only 8 Super Delegates away from clinching 25 and he's already said that it's Hillary's right to continue to campaign, regardless of the outcome. The Democrats are going to win in November, barring a major miracle on McCain's part. I welcome Obama's POV and what he can bring to the nation and I look forward to the country uniting behind him. Hey, Tombstone... Thanks for the compliments. I'm the same way, too. I don't believe everything I'm fed and I'm smart enough to go out and do my research, no matter what I have seen. I also find it VERY amusing that everyone trashes Michael Moore for his point of view and talks about how much he editorializes but, apparently, nobody seems up in arms over the books Ann Coulter writes and how many half-truths and lies she parades as "fact". But, she has the right to do so because that's the way of things. There is no harm in editorializing and giving your opinion. Dissent is what this country was founded on and that will never change. The fighting is done every single day representing every single major media source. It could be liberal, conservative, or otherwise, from Sean Hannity to Keith Olbermann, from Bill O'Reilly to Al Franken, from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes. What you cannot deny is Michael Moore's ultimate point: to show that America is in trouble with Bush at the helm and, unfortunately, he's right. Things aren't so great right now. The economy is in the toilet, gas is over $4 a gallon (here in California, and elsewhere), and the President is itching to go to war with another country he can't even prove has any WMD's (yet again) and with whom the CIA has already exonerated. I'm not gonna sit here and fault Bush for Katrina and the weather change (which is ridiculous because nobody EVER blamed Bush for either of the two, the conservative media in this country came up with that myth) but his response to Katrina was terrible and he refuses to help change the environment for the better. In his tepid response, you CAN blame him for making things worse. In any case, I am happy to see things change. This country needs help and, right now, anything but Bush or his ideals are welcome. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 17 2008 08:42 AM Even a documentary of the scale of something like 'War and Peace' wouldn't even scratch the surface of the corruption and malfeasance underlying the American political system. I foresee a 'Fahrenheit 9/11 Pt 13! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 17 2008 05:29 PM I love how tombstone actually thinks he is smart. I HATE TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE BUT I AM SMARTER, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN ALWAYS WILL BE. Get over it, go ask your boyfriend for a better insult. P.S. Obama has not clinched anything, he royally screwed up Illinois and he is way too liberal for most moderates to vote for so he may not win, he has to cater to the middle more and no pander to the far left if he hopes to win, basically all he has to say is that he is against abortion and he will win the election hands down, even though he still follows a pastor who thinks AIDs was created to kill the black man. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 18 2008 01:39 PM In reply to this comment (#1737215) The difference is Al Gore wasn't responsible for the systematic genocide of over 6 million people. Seriously I've voiced my opinion about the overuse of the Nazi comparison, so I won't bore anyone with that again, but it's this kind of thinking which makes otherwise rational people believe that the basically hardcore college hazing that took place at Abu Ghurayb is somehow comparable to separating someones head from their body with a knife and broadcasting it on the internet. Many of the worlds problems would be solved if people could maintain a little perspective. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 18 2008 01:45 PM In reply to this comment (#1737264) OK, I missed this first time thru with all the namecalling and such, and I haven't watched the news for a couple of days, but when the hell did John McCain become someone who "shares the same idea's as Bush"? I think you'd have trouble finding someone in the Republican party who's further from W than Senator McCain. Not sure which genius came up with that, but they're obviously retarded. McCain has frequently broken with Republican dogma and was virtually unelectable until recent times because he was considered too moderate. Is W too moderate for anyone? Seriously I'm baffled by that statement. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 10:55 AM "Obama has not clinched anything, he royally screwed up Illinois and he is way too liberal for most moderates to vote for so he may not win, he has to cater to the middle more and no pander to the far left if he hopes to win, basically all he has to say is that he is against abortion and he will win the election hands down, even though he still follows a pastor who thinks AIDs was created to kill the black man." Well...if he "hasn't clinched anything", then why are he and his people getting prepared to fight McCain? :-/ I mean...if he screwed up, then why are the Democrats telling Hillary to quit? C'mon, Andrew...read the newspaper. The fight between Hillary and Obama is over. And, as far as "Reverend Wright" goes, aside from the fact that nobody cares about that whole saga (everyone has a black sheep in their life that says or does dumb things...doesn't mean they agree with them or indentify them) is that it would be hypocritical to say it's not okay to have a minister or pastor that says horrible things but be all right with John McCain having a minister who ALSO says idiotic things such as calling the Catholic Church, "The Great Whore" or proclaiming that Katrina struck New Orleans because it was a punishment from God, both for having a homosexual parade and Bush's pressure on Israel to leave their settlements and land. Nice guy. Of course, media didn't care about what Hagee said and that was handled quickly and quietly. In either case, while both men have people on their side who have said dumb things, it's a non-issue. Nobody cares. I have an idiotic uncle who I love but keep at an arm's length because I can't stand what he says or does in life. Obama WILL win in November. Mark my words. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 11:36 AM "...but it's this kind of thinking which makes otherwise rational people believe that the basically hardcore college hazing that took place at Abu Ghurayb is somehow comparable to separating someones head from their body with a knife and broadcasting it on the internet. Many of the worlds problems would be solved if people could maintain a little perspective." Oh god...so, essentially, you're just echoing Rush Limbaugh's "fraternity hazing" quote? The fact that you're echoing Limbaugh and that you STILL believe it and actually have to FED that in order to justify the events at the prison just speaks volumes for how susceptible your brain is to propaganda. What happened at Abu Ghraib is NO different than what happened with Daniel Pearl. While we didn't murder anybody, we tortured them both physicall and mentally. This is America. The kind of crap that was pulled at the prison by our troops is something that Al Qaeda would pull, not US. And if you really want to come back at me saying "it's revenge", violence begets violence. You want to take a look at WHY these people continue to hate what we do? There's a good example. We're supposed to be SETTING an example and ending the hate and destruction, not creating more of these guys because we chose to do something that Donald Rumsfeld (and even the President) apologized for. I'm all for fighting terror and wiping these *******s from the face of the planet. I'm NOT for taking them out of their cells and beating them, raping them, pissing on them, shocking them, burning them with acid and then photographing it all (which was really stupid on their part). They're caught, they're gonna be tried and possibly executed anyhow. The example to make is that it doesn't pay to attack us and that you will be brought to justice, not do the same things they do to our prisoners. That helps NOTHING. But the mere fact that you JUSTIFY all of that by echoing Rush Limbaugh's cute little "hazing" explanation really makes my stomach turn. I would think you're a more intelligent human being than that. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 12:29 PM Wait, how is McCain "further" from Bush? Both support bans on gay marriage. Both want to privatize Social Security. Both approved of the surge and defend it. Both said that the war would be quick. Both say that the Democrats are "appeasers". Both want a war with Iran. That's just scratching the surface. I'm sure there are several others... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 12:45 PM In reply to this comment (#1740991) OK bud, I'm going to ignore your obviously hostile tone and try to stay on subject. First off I never even heard the Rush Limbaugh quote as I try to avoid talking heads as much as possible. If you think you're the only one capable of forming your own opinions then you're just wrong and I can't help you. Secondly I don't recall any incidents of "beating them, raping them, pissing on them, shocking them, burning them with acid" What I remember was a naked pyramid with some redneck girl pointing at it like she was at a wrestling event. That aside, I completely agree with you that Americans should set a higher example than this and the actions that occured there DID deserve an apology, but on the same note you can't look at that and say taking someone and leading them around by a dog collar or placing a holy book in the vicinity of a toilet is comparable with decapitation or the willful killing of an innocent journalist or that because these yahoo's who lost their way did this, somehow now everybody the terrorists kill have it coming because we don't expect as much from the terrorists. Yes, we have to be accountable for our own actions, but we also have to not forget who the real enemy is. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 01:02 PM In reply to this comment (#1741040) Mate, give me any two politicians and I can probably find half a dozen things they agree on. You conveniently forgot to include McCains campaign finance reform stance, immigration policy and numerous other non-conventional conservative views. Also, I don't think McCain has come out hard one way or another on banning Gay marriage, which I can kinda understand if he did at least from the perspective of marriage as a religious ceremony. Each religion has the right to deny thier sactaments to whomever they choose. The most the govt SHOULD do is legalize civil unions where homosexual couples are granted all the legal benefits of marriage while maintaining the standards the churches put on the sacrement of marriage. I also don't see support for the surge as a bad thing, much better than pulling up chalks and making the last 5 years a complete waste and allowing Iraq to come apart at the seems. Like it or not, supported the war or not, we now have an obligation to those people. I think McCain did say the war would be over quickly, but was referring to the initial ground conflict in as far as he went he was right. You also neglected to mention how he was one of the harshest critics of Rumsfeld and his policies for AFTER the intial conflict. Lastly, no one WANTS a war with Iran, probably least of all a Vietnam era military man like McCain, but when you remove the option of military action you greatly reduce your ability to use effective diplomacy. You fall into the Team America "We will send you an angry letter, telling you how angry we are" style of diplomacy which is oh so not effective. I am not a sucker for propaganda, neither republican or democrat and especially not yours. Independant and proud of it and I will be voting McCain this year because I feel he has a serious experience edge over Obama and is a moderate enough thinker to heal the divisions we've experienced over the last 8 years. If you choose to do the same I'll be tickled pink, if not such is your right. God Bless America. I still think Obama is a good man, but don't particularly care for the political move of trying to paint McCain as another George Bush that you seem to have bought into wholesale. Propaganda is a double edge sword my friend and you've gotta be careful not to support the propaganda you agree with while dissing the ones you don't. Only you know if that's what you're actually doing, but that's the way it seemed to me. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 01:18 PM "First off I never even heard the Rush Limbaugh quote as I try to avoid talking heads as much as R He' "Secondly I don't recall any incidents of "beating them, raping them, pissing on them, shocking them, burning them with acid" What I remember was a naked pyramid with some redneck girl pointing at it like she was at a wrestling event." Then, you need to go back and read the original report that was filed. It will make you wince. Yeah, these guys were far from innocent but you don't treat prisoners like this. They've been defeated and captured and will be punished. What happened at that prison will make you sick to your stomach. No human being should ever be treated like that. I don't care who you are. Punish them, bring them to justice, try them, let them rot, whatever...they should never have to endure that. They'll get that treatment in Hell if there even IS a hell. "That aside, I completely agree with you that Americans should set a higher example than this and the actions that occured there DID deserve an apology, but on the same note you can't look at that and say taking someone and leading them around by a dog collar or placing a holy book in the vicinity of a toilet is comparable with decapitation or the willful killing of an innocent journalist" Yes, I can. Ok, first, that wasn't ALL that happened. What you saw was the watered-down version. Secondly, it IS the same thing. The same evil and anger that was seen in the murder of Daniel Pearl was also required when our own people did what they did to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. All of the things I mentioned? That happened on top of the "naked pyramid" and dog-leashing. Third, the acts that you describe (disrobing and being made to pose in humiliating photos, being led by a dog collar) are considered mentally abusive as well as physically. Child molesters and rapists do that. I respect my military (I have family overseas) and I hold them in high regard because they're good people who believe in their country. There is NO philosophical way you could possibly defend the actions that took place or even begin to say that it wasn't as bad as Daniel Pearl. We may not have murdered those people but our military proved to us and the rest of the world that we are NO different than the guys we're fighting and that's a damn shame. We may have thought that we were shaming and humiliating them and having a laugh over their situation and all it did was humiliate and bring shame on our country. I don't know about you but I don't want to be thought of as the country that is capable of such actions and I am appalled that our troops did what they did. I haven't forgotten who the enemy is but it IS funny you should say that, considering we took our eye off OBL who we gave weapons to during the end of the Cold War and went into Iraq to take out a dictator whose country we helped build and equip to fight Iran. I want OBL caught and I want him executed for his crimes but I'm not so sure that the military knew when they were torturing POW's at Abu Ghraib. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 01:38 PM I do take issue with this: "The most the govt SHOULD do is legalize civil unions where homosexual couples are granted all the legal benefits of marriage while maintaining the standards the churches put on the sacrement of marriage." This is America. Since when does the church make the rules in this country? Since when is it any of their business to decide who is ready to marry who? That's frightening. Talk about civil rights being impacted...I thought we were past this point in this country. Personally, I don't care if a person wants to marry a guy, girl, goat, or watermelon just as long as they're not murdering people or hurting kids in any way. What do I care? Yeah, it's not my preference...but I'm sure a gay guy doesn't share my preferences either. If you want religion to run YOUR life, so be it. The church should have no say in MY life nor anybody else's who does not WANT that. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 03:28 PM In reply to this comment (#1736640) have you seen triumph of the will? As disturbing and frightening as it is, its still powerful and incredible film making. The honesty of Michael moore's work may be questionable, but his films are very well made, and he has genuine talent. he gets people to ask questions which I believe is his main goal. So his films are a success in that regards. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 04:31 PM stoober, you're absolutely right. Moore's movies are editorials. They're filmic editorials. I will admit that easily. However, everything I have seen in rebuttal to his movies has insulted Moore directly, rather than his accusations. Everyone who doesn't dismiss Moore himself, dismisses the movie and calls his stuff, "propaganda"...but has nothing to back that up. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 06:31 PM Wait so embarrassing someone is equal to killing someone? Are you insane? Using that logic Abu is the same as the Holocaust. Typical liberal retardedness. Maybe you should learn how to read, he said he is okay with civil unions but he thinks that gays should not have to force religions to marry them, what gays want goes against MY civil liberties. USE SOME COMMON SENSE. I cant wait for Obama to get elected and run this country even farther into the ground so that i can laugh the liberals. Wait and see a guy who in his short career has ruined the great state of illinois with a bunch of idiotic choices, a man who will raise taxes on us the middle class, a man who will cut and run and sit and allow Iraq to be destroyed, a man who will force gay marriage upon everyone, a man who supports the wholesale murder of babies, a man who supports boarder jumpers taking our jobs and taking money from our system, etc. Liberals are blind. If anything Obama and CLinton are the same, Bush and McCain are nothing alike. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 19 2008 10:50 PM In reply to this comment (#1741078) I think you kinda missed the point of what I was saying. People, generally ones with strong party affiliations one way or another, tend to forget that these laws like in this case separation of Church and State cut both ways. Whereas the church can't tell the govt what to do, the govt has no right to tell the church how to run itself unless it comes directly into violation of one of the govt's laws. You can't force say the baptist church to perform cermonies they feel are not in keeping with their religion.. This is America and in America we have freedom of religion, whether that conforms to our personal belief system or not. If you don't like the basic tenants of any religion you also have the freedom NOT to be a member of that particular sect. Civil unions give everyone the same rights under the law while simultaneously protecting the churches right to govern themselves, anything more than that and it seems to me you're just looking to punish the churches and force them to conform to your own personal dogma and I for one would have no part in that. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 07:38 AM gettin' a little far afield from the Moore sequel, but good debate! Re: Farehnheit, I tend to agree with Stoober; Triumph of the Will is so disturbing partly because it is so effective a piece of cinema. The film itself was a documentary by Leni Riefenstahl about the 1934 Reich Party at Nuremberg, which actually won a number of international awards-- until after the war when it was condemned and Riefenstahl was vilified. tobasco- the most scathing indictments I've seen against Moore on this film usually involve allegations of ambush interviews (duh- kind of the point) that were unfairly edited and that bit about the government letting Bin Laden's family fly out. There's a movie called 'Farehnhype' supposedly debunking the whole movie that I keep failing to work up the energy to rent.. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 10:31 AM "Wait so embarrassing someone is equal to killing someone? Are you insane?" Ok, Andrew... Number one, they were more than "embarrassed". They were shocked, beaten, raped, urinated on, and had acid poured on their skin on top of being stripped naked and having photos shot of them. Read the report. Second, it doesn't matter if none of the above happened and they were just led around naked. The point is...our military is supposed to be ABOVE that behavior. We don't do that sort of thing. I expect that kind of behavior from Al Qaeda, not our good troops and I am appalled at their behavior and I REALLY worry for you that you aren't appalled because even George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were. Both men apologized for it. "Using that logic Abu is the same as the Holocaust. Typical liberal retardedness." ...ok. What does THAT mean? Are you saying that my line of thinking is somehow like Hitler's? That I shouldn't be upset that our troops abused prisoners of war and that, if I do, that I am somehow justifying some sort of like for the Holocaust...? Could you be more clear here? "what gays want goes against MY civil liberties. USE SOME COMMON SENSE." Wait...explain that... How do gays getting married interfere with YOUR civil liberties? And, no, that isn't common sense at all. In fact, that makes little to NO sense. So, what you're saying is that, because black people were granted civil rights years ago, that somehow violated the civil rights of white people? Explain your rationale, please. "I cant wait for Obama to get elected and run this country even farther into the ground so that i can laugh the liberals." Good to know that you're rooting for the country's destruction just so you can continue to hate people. "Wait and see a guy who in his short career has ruined the great state of illinois with a bunch of idiotic choices," Such as? "a man who will raise taxes on us the middle class," Proof? "a man who will cut and run and sit and allow Iraq to be destroyed," It's already destroyed. Why not get out of there and let them cut each other's heads off. Let 'em fight and blow each other up. Isn't our problem. "a man who will force gay marriage upon everyone," EVERYONE? Are you actually saying that Obama is going to force you get married to another man? LOL... "a man who supports the wholesale murder of babies," *Yawn*...you're gettin' a little unhinged here... "a man who supports boarder jumpers taking our jobs and taking money from our system, etc." Bad news: it's already happening and it's been happening for years on nearly every single President's watch. "Liberals are blind. If anything Obama and CLinton are the same, Bush and McCain are nothing alike." Really? Then why does McCain support every single major initiative that Bush makes or has made aside from gay marriage being decided by separate states? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 11:19 AM Tobasco; I grant you that picking apart genius' arguments is a fun and easy activity, but if there is one thing that age and experience are begrudgingly teaching me, it is that there are battles worth fighting and battles not, just as there are worthy opponents and the just plain worthless. I would submit, for example, that bigbrother is worthy of the debate based upon his posts. It is also pretty much beyond argument that 'Andrew' is not worth the time or attention for anything more than one or two amusing exchanges because he is simply too dumb and/or insecure to allow new thoughts to challenge what he already believes. Then again, it seems very clear you know him better than I do. If there is something there worthwhile, I commend your willingness to reach out to it. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 11:36 AM In reply to this comment (#1741716) BIGBROTHER: Thanks for your feedback... "You can't force say the baptist church to perform cermonies they feel are not in keeping with their religion..." Yes, but there ARE churches that do welcome everybody and anybody to worship. Throw that idea at them. We have a couple of them here in San Jose and I know there are several across California. Find churches across the country who will do it. It can't be that hard. "This is America and in America we have freedom of religion, whether that conforms to our personal belief system or not. If you don't like the basic tenants of any religion you also have the freedom NOT to be a member of that particular sect." I agree, wholeheartedly. "Civil unions give everyone the same rights under the law while simultaneously protecting the churches right to govern themselves, anything more than that and it seems to me you're just looking to punish the churches and force them to conform to your own personal dogma and I for one would have no part in that." Wait a second...are you saying that homosexuality is a religious belief? I know PLENTY of gay men and women that are Catholic/Christian, so how in the world does that change things? Hate to break it to you...but homosexuality is a SEXUAL PREFERENCE to a pretty good majority of the nation and the world. It's not a RELIGIOUS BELIEF and a church shouldn't be taking the "word" of a gigantic invisible thing in the sky (who may or may not exist) so seriously as to make somebody's preference part of their religious beliefs. It's just one more reason why I'm not even remotely religious and why I also think that religion can be incredibly dangerous: people let it control their lives and develop hostility towards those who are different from them up to (and including) helping their government outlaw the rights of others. You know that phrase from "To Kill a Mockingbird" where Atticus Finch tells his little girl, "You don't truly know who a person is until you've jumped inside their skin"? I think you need to see it from the perspective of somebody who is homosexual and wants to be with the person they love for the rest of their lives. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 12:01 PM In reply to this comment (#1742272) Tombstone: I agree. Bigbrother is a good person to argue with even though I don't believe in the stuff that he believes. He actually debates in a clear, concise manner and doesn't resort to cheap shots. Andrew, I've known here on the boards for a year, I believe. He used to be "aknddon3". If you ever wanna see the havoc he's created on the boards, just look him up in Google or something. At this point, though, I'm ready to say to bigbrother that I agree to disagree. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 20 2008 06:55 PM Look at the economy of illinois before obama came into office then after, his decisions led the state into debt. I do not wish harm on the country but i am also a realist unlike tombstone and most liberals i know that Obama will do nothing but ruin the country and the only way for liberals to understand that is for it to happen. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:31 AM In reply to this comment (#1742291) I think we've come to the common ground we're looking for here. I completely agree if the church(just a generic term for all the varied religious groups that make up our country) want to perform the marriage ceremony I think that's fantastic, but the fact remains that many of them still consider marriage to be a sacred union between a man and a woman. Agree with that belief or not (I personally do not), but they have every right to determine the beliefs of their own religion. The point I'm trying to argue is you can't force people in this case the churches who chose not to allow homosexuals to partake of their religious ceremonies, how to think. That is the danger of govt systems like fascism. You start by doing something that everyone or the vast majority thinks is right and you can quickly fall astray to burning books and telling people what they can eat just as quickly as any religion can. I'm not a gay man and I'm not really concerned about the issue enough to sleep with another dude just to "walk a mile in his shoe's" to find out, so the best I can do is conjecture. If I WAS a gay man I personally think I wouldn't want anything to do with an organization that didn't want me. I would be and am concerned that our govt would deny rights to people because of their sexual preference, I just don't think the sacrement of marriage is a right it's a ceremony to express a belief st forth by a religious entity. The legal benefits cerainly those are rights which shouldn't be denied, and honestly I think if a generation of children grow up with civil unions as the norm it's only a matter of time before the thinking of the religious hierachy's are changed with no need for bloodshed, massive marches and protests or even hurt feelings on either side. maybe that's wishful thinking, but I prefer to think of it as looking to the long term. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:36 AM In reply to this comment (#1742847) To that point man, look at the state of most of the country before Obama came to office and then after...Was Obama responsible for that? I personally think it has more to do with 9/11, OPEC and the state of the middle east and our standing in the world than the election of one senator from Illinois. The only thing that really concerns me about Obama is the message of hope (Which I actually like) with sometimes a lack of focus on how he's going to make that hope a reality (kinda afraid he'll be a lot of smoke with no fire), but the main campaign hasn't started yet, so hopefully he can allay some of those fears in that time. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:37 AM In reply to this comment (#1742036) Sorry for branching far afield from Moore, but I've been on here long enough that I've said what I need to say on that point and really don't want to beat a dead horse anymore. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 11:37 AM In reply to this comment (#1742847) Andrew, I don't know where you're getting your information but Illinois is currently 5th in the nation when it comes to the economy. They have a healthy industrial economy and are a home to Boeing, Motorola, McDonald's, and United Air. As of 2008, according to their flash index, their economic growth is currently at 102.8, which means that they have grown over the last 4 years. The only time the economy ever took a hit was around the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, it's gone up 6 points. So, as much as you would like to see Obama fail, I think that record speaks for itself. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 12:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1742847) Brother, you're a good debater and good American. :) I respect your point of view but just want to say something else here: I'm not telling you to "sleep with another dude" just to get a point of view, I think my point is more like you would probably never know what it would be like unless you were gay. To me, I don't even see color, creed or preference. I have my friends and family and that's it. I was brought up to treat everyone equally and with great respect. I have no problem with the beliefs of others, as short-sighted and ignorant as they may be (I have a few of those people in my family, believe me) but I do have a problem with religions not accepting those who are homosexual because, really, that's contradictory of the teachings of Christ. The way I was taught was that God is a loving being who loves all his/her/its children. The Bible is nothing more than a book of teachings passed down over the years and is no more a holy document then a napkin I used to quickly scribble out a phone number. It's the numbers of believers that make it holy and it's also, unfortunately, the number of believers who misrepresent the things that are said inside it and distort the messages and passages to support their own short-sighted beliefs. That's why I stay away from religion. I believe there could be something out there and it's nice to believe in fairy tales of great, big, huge things that live in the clouds but I'm a realist. I live my own life, make my own way, and I've done it without praying to a great big deity that watches everyone like Big Brother (no pun intended :) ) I DO encourage those who believe to open their minds and study religious history and you'll see a lot of your beliefs challenged. It's not a bad thing. I think that if the other side of the story was told, we might have a lot of people re-thinking their lives. But I don't think there will ever be religious harmony in this world. Everyone's beliefs clash and too many "believers" get so passionate that they get violent in defense. Yes, religion can be a good thing but it's just associated with so much hate. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 04:07 PM Go to Chicago and see how good the economy is because of his choices, see how our great public transportation system is almost bankrupt because of his income cuts, etc. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:20 AM In reply to this comment (#1743474) Yeah, I wasn't serious about the sleeping with another dude comment anyway, just using the absurdity of it for comic value. I can easily see your point of view about religion, but would agree more with your premise if you took it even one step further, religion like almost anything is what you make of it. People who use their faith in God, Allah or Buddha as a means to strengthen their own morality and make themselves generally better people are to be encouraged and lauded for it, just the opposite people who use their beliefs as a means to further their own often twisted agenda's should be looked down upon for it and railed against, but neither belief should color the entire picture. Thanks for the kind words about my debating skills, but I prefer the term discussion to debate cause to me debate generally means a discussion in which one person tries to prove the absolute truth of his point of view at the expense of someone elses whereas discussion is two people talking in order to discover a common truth thus possibly making both the richer for the discussion. Just submitting to one of my common needs to wax philosophical. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:21 AM Andrew, what are you talking about? Chicago has the THIRD largest Gross Metro Product in the nation as is rated one of the most economically balanced cities in the U.S. due to how diversified it is! The transportation system not only efficiently transports the city's inhabitants, but also serves as a major hub for just about every major American city by rail. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to read what ever sources you can provide. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1744807) Yeah, I think this would be a discussion. You're right. I guess I always love a healthy debate and kinda group the two together. I don't mean to keep going on and on about the whole gay marriage issue...it's just that I can't understand the whole uproar about it. I know the churches and religions have their own belief system but things change. The fact that this country seriously can't get over the private lives of others is just mind-blowing to me. I'm not for everything |