First of all, welcome back Spiff. Now, what's up with trying to outdo me in post length? That's crap.
Here we go:
Michael Moore - I still have to disagree w/ you BigJohn on that dialog. Moore was completely sidestepping O'Reily's question about what makes something a lie versus a misinformed decision. Yes, O'Reily wouldn't get sucked into Moore's question about letting his kid die for Fallujah because it's a bogus question. The question should have been "If your kid decided to join the armed forced and pledged his willingness to die, if need be, to implement the orders of our Commander and Chief, would you let your child die for Fallujah?". Moore was trying to trap O'Reily into saying he'd sacrifice his kid for Iraq and it's a loaded question, which is why he would only answer for himself. If you haven't figured it out, Moore excels in manipulating situations, context, and the simplicity of his viewers to make his point. Don't get me wrong, I applaud anyone willing to take a stand for what he or she believes. The problem with Moore is the base fact that he distorts events and deceives his viewers by painting pictures that are not supported by reality. I don't doubt his sincerity...I doubt his ethics. A man beating someone up on the street isn't always what it appears to be.....what Moore purposely does is, in order to paint the man as a bully, omits the fact that the man just caught the man fondling his child (yes, hypothetical). The man may have been beating up the other man (FACT), but the implication that he is a bully is not supported by reality....the net effect of the omission of context.
Hillary - You give her too much credit. I don't know all the details, but this internal battle in the Democratic party, Kerry camp and Clinton camp, over control of funds is evidence enough for me of the Clinton power aspirations. If Kerry wins, she's on the sideline for at least 8 years. If he loses, then the door is open for her to be the savior in 4 years....that was before Obama.
Howard Dean - Yep, he took a beating over that. He was doomed from the start....not enough of a politician to satisfy the pallet of the party.
Haliburton - Talk about a nasty word in today's climate. I don't know enough about what they did or did not do that was so bad, but it amazes me how pissed people get about them. My understanding is that they have been contracting to do nation rebuilding since back in the World Wars. I guess it must be similar to the sentiment out there that we went to war solely to make all the cronies rich, which I think is bunk. Because Cheney was associated w/ them, this whole thing must have been to make Cheney rich....a little too much conspiracy theory to me. Regardless, I would love for someone to educate me on what Haliburton did that made them this devil in the eyes of the Democrats.....Caveat: Please provide valid facts that can be confirmed. My Dad hit me recently with the passionate plea of wrongdoing w/out actually providing me with any more substance than "it had to be ....". I am very interested in the reality here and not speculation.
Smaller Government - Yes, Bush has definitely missed the boat on the idea of small government. Because he is so entrenched in the Republican Party structure and all of the outside influences, I don't expect to see any changes in this realm. As I've said before, the benefit to Bush on this front is the mere fact that he's going to spend us into oblivion at a much slower rate that Kerry. If we're lucky, someone will come along in 4 years that has enough idealism to avoid becoming a hoar to the special interests (both sides).
Bush vs Kerry - I will agree with your statements concerning Bush's Black/White approach. There are times when that is good and there are times where that is bad. The way we went into war was one of the latter. If he was intent on doing so, there was arguably better ways to go about it while still achieving the same ends. As far as Kerry goes, I agree somewhat on his seeing gray. My issue is intent. You ascribe this trait to his seeing all sides of an issue. This may be true to some degree...only those close to him know for sure. I, on the other hand, see his approach to be more self-serving. I don't see him analyzing things from all sides for the sake of understanding. I see a man that analyses things from both sides in order to understand only how each position serves his purpose and political aspirations. He is the quintessential politician, which is not a good thing.
The Vietnam movie camera - This story is just coming out, but it appears that Kerry had a camera in Vietnam that he used to record himself reenacting battle scenes and making commentary. Obviously, there will be more details to follow, but this just truly confirms what I said above. kerry has been shaping his life from the start to get to this point. Some may not have a problem with doing that, but it gives me the damn creeps. It just makes me wonder "What kind of person....".
Spiff - I agree fully with your statement about our voting public. This is going to sound very jaded, but I truly believe that we have a large portion of the voting body that are a bunch of sheep voting purely on party lines....based solely upon the sound-bites that they pick up from the commercials between reality programs. When I really start thinking about it, I actually fear for the nation. Our sense of civic understanding and responsibility is going by the wayside...replaced by a self-fulfilling, self-imposed state of ignorance and self-centeredness. Can we blame our politicians for speaking in generalities and focusing on hot-button issues that generally don't affect our day to day lives? Given their audience's unwillingness to educate itself, they have no reason to actually establish a thorough and concise policy platform.
OK...I'm outta here. Again, I love this dialog!!!...just proves that we have a great group of people gathered here….even the Liberals
