You are either with us, or you're fired!

I just recieved the latest news letter from Michael Moore and thought I'd share a small "c & p" from it. I know a lot of you HATE this guy with a passion but I find what he has to say a little refreshing... ;)

Anyway, on to the article-

Quote:

---

October 1, 2002
"YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR YOU ARE FIRED!"

Dear Friends,

I was going to write you a letter about what a pathetic liar George W,
Bush
is -- but then I figured, hey, why waste your time telling you
something
you already know!

You already know that his planned invasion of Iraq is a ruse meant to
distract the public from the real issues, those issues being the
following:
1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by
35%.
2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated;
today
we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.
3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his
occupation of
the Oval Office.
4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.
5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it a
total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.
6. Only 13 corporate crooks out of HUNDREDS have been indicted, and
none of
them have been the close personal friends of Mr. Bush.

THOSE are the real issues facing us, not some phony excuse for a war.

---

That's just a small piece of what he has to say and I didn't want to bore you with the rest. I haven't had time to see if his facts are correct, although they look like they're pretty close to the mark.


If anyone would like to sign his petition to oppose the invasion of Iraq you can do so here.....

So, CK.... what should anyone occupying the US oval-office have-done/be-doing under the circumstances that our present CinC walked into? Just Damn glad i ain't a politician, and double damn glad it wasn't me elected CinC in the year 2000! A good share of the stock-market was an artificially inflated baloon for at least the previous five years, CEO's had learned that their bonuses and wage increases depended on the performance of their stocks, at the same time they found that brokerage houses would push those stocks for a piece of the action under the table, and auditors would give them a clean slate FTC report for the same reason. Fortune-500 "IT" companies that had nothing but paper and bee-es behind them were using self-produced and totally inflated stock to buy up legitimate companies which eventually got their real assets raided to prop up the failing paper companies. In the meanwhile, serious but shadowy enemies were planning the execution of nine-eleven and a bunch of other s#1t while the Fibbies, CIA, polizia-et-all were working with Administrative Restriction legirons fastened by ............. Aw, hell, who cares, nobody is listening anyway. Damn, i gotta quit getting on these rants, it's taking away from the time i can spend learning something here. BTW, i'm not a democrat nor a republican when it comes to support of any one politician, i try to figure out what they stand for, what they're doing, that i either agree with, don't agree with, or really don't care. Just ding-dang glad that your name or my name ain't Commander in Chief, 'cause there'd be a lot of people hollering their heads off at what we did in the same circumstances. Right?

Hi,
The Old Man, I agree with you. Bush inherited a lot of problems. This stuff was brewing before he ever got in office.

Forgive my ignorance, but your rant doesn't really cover any of the topics raised. Topics such as-

The rise in unemployment by 35%

The state of the deficit

The lack of health insurance



And you're right. I'm glad your name "aint Commander in Chief"....Anyone who uses the word "ding-dang" in a sentence should not be able to hold such a high position!

I'm j/k, of course.... ;)

Your a communist. We live in a capitalistic society where the economy is governed by business and not by the president. The free market system decides when jobs should be opened and closed. As long as I'm around, I will not let the government control the business world.

SANDMAn

Quote:

---

Your a communist. We live in a capitalistic society where the economy is governed by business and not by the president. The free market system decides when jobs should be opened and closed. As long as I'm around, I will not let the government control the business world.

---

CK is hardly a Communist. Do you even know what a Communist is? I mean besides a red guy with horns. Yes we live in a CAPITALIST society, so does he. It seems it's not JUST the economy is governed by business. Yes the free market decides when jobs should be opened and closed, just dont ****in ask for welfare when big business ships your job to China. And yes...as long you're around business will control the govt.
DONT flame people you dont know!


No offense to Preacherman481 or The OldMan. Lucas just pissed me off :mad:


Edit: Yes I know I just flamed Lucas, when I was preaching to him about the same :D

Quote:

---

2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated;
today
we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion

---

The "surplus" was based on the projections of the economy.
The performance of the economy was based on the profits
reported by the major corporations.
The major corporations have been lying about their profits
since as far back as 1998.

Therefore, the economy was already in a recession before the election
of 2000, but we were being told it was doing fine.
Bush was sandbagged.

Now, he's not making things any better by wanting to start
a war, but he didn't destroy the economy.
The president doesn't control the economy.
:cool:

Rcgreen: thanks for clearing that up. Basically I was too lazy to go look for it, but it seemed to me that having that kind of a surplus in gov't coffers was wrong. All I've heard about my whole life is the federal deficit...didn't see how we suddenly had that much surplus.

IMO Bush has made one heck of a mess out of being president. But some of what he is now dealing with was there before he got there. I'm just sure that whoever our next president is is going to REALLY have a mess to deal with.

On a different topic, sort of, as some of you know, I live in Florida. I think this years gubernatorial election is going to be quite interesting, since George W's brother is our incumbant governor. The fur is really flying in coffee shops and Wal-Mart and such here...I think we are getting a preview of what our presidential election is going to look like. No one here is really focusing on any of the issues, except whether they like George or not. The ones who like George are fighting tooth and nail for Jeb (our current governor). The ones who don't like George are fighting against Jeb. What is MOST interesting to me though....people who one year ago supported Jeb wholeheartedly have gotten fed up and angry about what is going on on the federal level, and are now fighting it out against a state governor who happens to be related to the prez.

For my .02....Jeb was a waster when he got in office, and now I have him and his less than intelligent brother running my state and federal gov'ts. So I'm literally on the streets campaigning and beating the bushes for voter turn out. This got waaaaay off topic, sort of. Sorry! :D

Deb ;)

alright, perhaps I was a bit harsh with the communist comment. But, his views on the economy and the government are socialist. Welfare and medicaid are a joke, the extra branches of the government are not necessary and should not be controlled by some all-powerful bureaucracy.

SANDMAn

This thread is getting a little off topic. No where have I said that the President controls the economy. If at all, that was implied in The Old Man's post, not mine....


My original post was pointing out how the war on IRAQ is being used as a smoke screen to cover more important issues on the home front. I thought that was clear. Obviously not...


Lucas420- Who the **** are you? I've been going through some of your other posts and already you take me as a dickhead.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucas420
I will not let the government control the business world.

---

Again, what a pathetic thing to say. How are you going to achieve this? As I said before, dickhead...Perhaps give the FAQ a quick read before posting anymore...


Mahakaal- My saviour! LOL...Thanks for rushing to my aide, noble sir..You shall not be forgotten! LOL....

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by preacherman481
Hi,
The Old Man, I agree with you. Bush inherited a lot of problems. This stuff was brewing before he ever got in office.

---

I love hearing that, it's very easy to blame the previous administration for current problems- this debate could go on forever , so I'd rather not get into it. But regardless of who caused the problems or where they came from, it is the present administration's duty to resolve them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Lucas420
Your a communist. We live in a capitalistic society where the economy is governed by business and not by the president. The free market system decides when jobs should be opened and closed. As long as I'm around, I will not let the government control the business world.

SANDMAn

---

While the government doesn't - and shouldn't - control the economy, it sure as hell has a huge impact on it. The US's economic system is that of free enterprise, however it is not in any way completely free from the public sector. The government plays a huge role in the US economy.

Government laws shape much of what businesses can and cannot do. The Fed manipulates interest rates and by several other methods influences the economy. Can you not tell me Alan Greenspan has no effect on the state economy? To find more on the roles of the Fed refer here: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/fe...ief/roles.html .

Do you not think that the 18th amendment of prohibition affected the economy at all? Does it not affect the economy when the national minimum wage is rased? Did WWII not help us out of the Great Depression?

The fact is our free market system, isn't totally free from government. Government is nessarry to atleast enforce the rules of a free market, but how big of a role should government play?

I'm just a hard right-winged son of a gun.

this guy wants me to believe in one side of a one party system. hes no better than the rest everyhting he says is bullshit trying to get us to believe more of the same. vote for the other party and things will be right as rain. sorry, but i think i've been dosed me with a red pill. im not buyen' it.

Well you gotta admit Tedob, we have been getting shafted by both Dems and the Republicans :D. I mean it's gotten to be so that my vote really doesn't count. I want my Rep and my Senator to be accountable to ME! Not some corporation which gave him $10k for his campaign.

And Lucas, we are actually socialist. Ever heard of govt subsidies? Ever heard of the WTO allowing the EU to slap sanctions on US products coz it constituted unfair trade practices? Ever heard of Worldcom and Enron filing for bankruptcy protection?What do you think that means...it means my tax dollars go to boost a lousily run corp and payoff shareholders. while the CEO makes a 20 mil mansion in Fl! We're socialist and dont let anyone tell you otherwise :) Just not in it's true sense.

Anyone wanna know how much their companies CEO makes visit AFL-CIO

My rant is done....and anyone looking for a laugh can visit this website

Peace

I used to be skeptical of Iraq being a 'phony excuse for a war'. But from all the articles I have read on this whole issue, it sounds like the US is targeting Saddam, not Iraq, and also that Saddam has very little support from his fellow Iraqis. If the aim of the US is truly 'regime change' (not something I agree with btw) then they could achieve this without having to start another war. And if even half of those accusations from CK's first post are true, then a war would be a very effective way of encouraging the public to forget about these things - remember Wag the Dog?

Also, there are no truly capitalist or truly socialist nations in the world. Capitalism in its pure form entails no government interference in business whatsoever. Look at the Microsoft antitrust case for an example of this happening in the US. Public welfare also has absolutely no place in a capitalist society. But these things do not make the US a socialist nation - more a capitalist nation with parts of socialism, just as the nations that we think of as socialist or communist have parts of capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Wickdgin
Government is nessarry to atleast enforce the rules of a free market, but how big of a role should government play?

---

Ideally, the only thing the government should do as far as business is concerned is protect from undue force in transactions, to ensure that each of these transactions is based entirely on the merits of the product or service involved, rather than on any other influencing factors (threats, violence etc.). However, this is not a limit placed on governmental activity in most 'capitalist' nations.

-toad

its only socialist if your amoung the economically elite, its the working person that always has to shell it out. we must subsidise the airlines, who in turn ****-over all the travel agents, not to mention their own employees.

your right Mahakaal our government no longer represents us. its all about big bucks.

Just to point out that there is no way we could have had a "budget surplus" during the Draft-Doger- in- Chiefs run as President or when GW took office... The National Debt is well over a trillion dollars... As long as the debt exists there can be no surplus... Unless the US decides to implement a Marshal Plan for ourselves and forgive the debt we will always have a deficit... To blame GW for the deficit is wrong... To say that the war with Iraq is just a smoke screan is just as wrong... Iraq is a prblem because of the paper tiger that is the UN... If they had allowed for his remoal during the Gulf War there would not be talk of war with Iraq now... The blame lays with the UN and no where else... unemployment was going up before GW took office... I doubt it has risen 35% since he took office... I do not know for sure but I doubt it... Since I have a bigger stake than most here, as far as I know, in any war we may or may not have with Iraq I and my wife feel that war with Iraq is justifed... He is a despot who has the serious potential to bring an even worse attack to America... Not the Iraqis themselves but terrorists... Who IMO he would not hesitate to give biological or chemical weapons to if he thought he could get away with it... And if not us than Israel... I for one think that if he did hit Israel with any type of chemical or biological weapon the middle east would become a lake of nuclear fire in lees time then it would take the UN to grab its colective butt and say ooops... maybe we should have supported the US... I would rather it gets over with now than wait for him to build even more of the crap...

Just an observation here....there are three sides to every story. Side 1 (Republican), side 2 (Democrat) and side 3 (the truth), which lies somewhere inbetween sides 1 and 2.

When it comes to the economy, it's kind of hard for me to put the blame on one administration. The Federal Reserve has been run by the same man since the Reagan administration, and IF you have to assign blame to a branch of the government, thats where the blame should go. To be perfectly honest though, GREED is what got our economy into the shape its in today, pure and simple. People were out to make a quick buck, and were willing to go to whatever means neccesary to do so.

But now don't think I'm defending GWB....I'm not. I don't think that the executive branch should have the far-reaching powers that our president covets so much....thats a sttart down the road to a dictatorship, and I don't want to go there....EVER. And I do think that Kenny-boy Lay, along with the rest of our scandelous corporate execs need to be waking up snuggled up to 'Bubba' every morning, having lost their ability to make noise while 'breaking wind' in the process. Put the SOB's in jail and sell their assets to refinance the 401k's they destroyed. So yeah, GWB is guilty of taking advantage of the crisis to divert our attention from the really important stuff, but I would bet the farm that Bill Clinton would have loved to have had a crisis like this about the time Monica and her stained dress took a stroll across the headlines. Bad qualities don't recognize party lines folks.

To put it plainly, we need election reform in this country BIG-TIME, and fast. America is run by big business at the present time, and will continue to be until the system as it is now is re-vamped. For a look at a discussion of this very subject (and hopefully some fresh input), take a look at The separation of Corp. and State , although I had some difficulty getting that thread to pull up, it was a pretty good discussion of the problems with our electoral and campaign finance systems.



<EDIT> Lucas420......please do not post while under the influence of mind altering drugs....it confuses us...

For Allen...the Fed isn't actually Federal. It is owned by it's members which happen to be either private OR publicly held banks who want to make use of it's facilities(like storing/xfering currency). I should know, I work at one.



Edit:Oops :D I'm getting off topic.

2nd Edit: I wasn't at all trying to take the blame off the Fed that belongs to it.

Point well taken my friend, but I still think it belongs in the crosshairs when shooting the bullet of economic blame. Not to say it is the only place to direct responsibility for the current situation, just one of the main ones. Don't even get me started on the SEC.... ;)

OKOK, i won't use my more earthy offduty language anymore, CK, folks. One of my acquaintances is a rather highly placed member of government (lots of room there, right?) who by nature of his work is required to constantly speak "off the cuff" using perfect english structure and word usage while making perfect sense the first time around; no corrections or misunderstanding allowed in his world. "Offduty" is a hoot, and if you did not know who he was you would swear you were listening to some cowboy poet or mountainman, redneck or recluse, as the tone, accent, and words change when he's among friends. I came to the conclusion long ago that it's his way of relaxing. Perhaps some of his comical habit has rubbed off. But any-hooo; a group of us were having coffee or whatever some months ago and one of the group related how he had received an invite from the RNC to attend the ceremonies on the Capital steps for the new president. He felt pleased as he read the invitation, since he had donated well over seven solid figures to the recent political race at various levels. "Offduty" asked him; "Well, Bub, did'ja hav a good time, slap a lot a backs, shake a lota hands, drink lotsa bubbly?" ... "No, I didn't attend." ..."Whycome?" ..."Well, I got to the bottom of the invitation and they invited me to donate another ten thousand for the honor of attending." We all kind of looked around, probably a tad confused, and "Offduty" asked; "Well, Bub, that's pocket change fer you, why'nt ya go an' mingle?" ..."'Cause the bill for another ten grand irritated me, that's why, so i called them and politely told them to not reserve my chair, and while they were at it to not hold their breath while they waited for my next donation."
Don't know what that's got to do with the thread, but if i get to usin' poor English 'an actin' like a hillbilly, may i beg your pardon in advance.
Besides, P481 was on target, rcgreen hit the bullseye again here as usual, deb was on target and we all owe her for living in Florida so the rest of us don't have to :), tdob1 was ruthlessly accurate in his thoughts, toad was correct in that most governments are not purely what they claim to be, and i thought 4MH's comments were almost hilariously on target if it was not such a sober subject, and ab1963 gave valid thoughts.
I'm still dang glad i ain't president, and even gladder that you aint, CK, 'cuz we'd have ta change flags or you'd have ta move about 6,000 miles and change citizenship! (there i go, jokin' again 'an murderin' th' king's english as well...). Hey, i like all of ya. Some more than others, but all of ya nonetheless! :D

Just to add a little bit more to this thread (as a tax-paying law-abiding citizen that I am)...

In America, where we have freedoms no other country has, everyone has the right to live out their dream, whether it's go to college, own a business, or raise a family in a "free" environment and sending kids to school. That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with economic structure that's been tolling out a beating to the average workers of the US (me, as well as most of the middle-class). How is this done?

1: the scheme in place now and a few years back before the internet blowup supported the "Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer". The rich get the tax breaks while the poor get on or stay on welfare which is a dying system, just like the social security system is. What's left is the middleman, most of your work force, left holding the bag with nowhere to advance.

2: supporting #1, businesses have way too much leniency in the market. Books being cooked well over the past few decades ramped up with the internet boom while putting more money into making your numbers look good rather than actually creating a product and content behind that flash-driven website. There's a lot more in that, but when companies are found out about cooking books (like MCI overstating 7 billion total or Enron or countless others we haven't heard of), the internet boom is over, as well as the 9/11 attacks, what do you have?

...

You have an economic collapse on one front (technology) while the stock market takes one of the biggest dumps outside of the Great Depression (any event that closes Wall Street is pretty catastrophic) at the same time that the unemployment skyrockets because thousands upon thousands of people without jobs are dumped into an already saturated market while the people to blame in the businesses are scot-free with severances that rank in the millions mark or they've still got a job during "reorganization".

Bush isn't to blame for all of this. I will say that his "here's a check from Uncle Sam, go spend some cash" was a bad idea. That was a card that could only be played once as people had to list that on their taxes the next year. I do find it funny how Florida (where I live as well) is the site of the "voting" problem as well as the "terrorist" scare (this was something that happened three weeks ago along I-75). And you know what's coincidental in all of this? His brother, good ol' Jeb Bush, is governor of Florida.

Bottom line, before I continue off-topic, hehe, Bush has a lot of skeletons in his closet, just like every other president before him. The problem is, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people were just wishing it was as easily spotted like a stain on Monica's dress and not something to do with Enron (which he and countless others in DC knew about and were involved in).
We know he won't make another term, that's for sure. The American Public has seen that votes *do* count and that in 2004, I'm sure you'll see a turnout that'll break historic records.

Dont know much about that it may concern those people living in the state maybe it's close to that i can only say that what he's doing right now (bush) is'nt right bout that iraq thing maybe bush is trying to hide some "thing" on he must focused his attention towards American Citizens not to this s**t war against iraq , iraq hasn't done anything yet if he insist to forced iraq goverment this might coz a lot of trouble globally

this is only my concern and my opinion hope it does not offend other people you may give your comments or pm me what ever you want to say against what ive just written

thanks

As much as I try to stay out of political discussions, I think that I am going to give my two-cents.

First off, anyone that believes statistics at face value is just looking to be lied to. Generically speaking, someone saying that unemployment is up 35% implies that unemployment has risen from 5.9% to around 40%. That just isn't true. The last unemployment numbers that I saw said that unemployment is actually down to 5.8% of eligible working adults from 5.9% a month ago.

Second, the budget surplus that everyone was talking about was a projected surplus over a number of years, not an actual one. There hasn't been a true budget surplus since the federal deficit first began, so there is no point in arguing about that.

Third, why do we always hear about jobs being eliminated, but not the ones that are created. I would bet that the total number of jobs hasn't actually changed very much at all. You never see on CNN.COM when a company builds a new plant or opens new warehouses or stores, but it is happening all over the place. As far as job cuts go, a lot of corporations are taking advantage of the down economy to do downsizing that they wanted to do during the 'stock bubble' but couldn't really justify while times were good.

The reductions in headcount in the technology sector are, in my opinion, the result of corporations not NEEDING to upgrade hardware and software, not because they can't afford to. If you have a 1.5 GHZ Pentium 4 and a 2.5 GHZ Pentium 4 comes out do you just go out and upgrade? No, because you can't surf the web any faster on the new one than you can on the old one. I don't see corporate spending increasing on technology any time soon because the technology has grown faster than the need for it. It's that simple.

I think that the statement about the stock market being down 34% is too general. The major indexes are down right now, but the indexes don't actually reflect the entire market. And the market alone does not indicate the health of the economy. The market REACTS to the economy, it doesn't drive it.

There are a lot of people that don't have health insurance, that's true. But in America there is a certain amount of personal responsibility that one has to take to make sure that you and your family are taken care of. If I don't have what I need to survive it isn't the governments fault and it isn't my boss' fault. It is mine. Besides. basic health care can be found for free. Children can be immunized for free. Emergency rooms have to treat you even if you can't pay. This is just another statistic.

And finally, more and more corporate crooks are being held accountable every day. One more turned himself in yesterday according to CNN. There are two issues that I see with corporate crooks. First, they have to be found. If you stole $250 million would you sit at home and wait for the FBI to come and get you? Or would you head for Mexico? And second, there is this thing that we have in America called the Constitution. You have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people intended to defraud investors. The premise is simple, innocent until PROVEN guilty. But don't worry, in time more and more people will be hauled in.

/rant