Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog


Saturday, June 26, 2004
Zell Miller will be at the GOP Convention.

It's hard to find upstanding people nowadays, much less honorable politicians.

So when politicians like Zell Miller come around, you have to appreciate who this man is and what he represents.

It's real simple; he could not let party loyalty come before the loyalty of his country and state.

I was living in Georgia when Paul Coverdell died unexpectantly in 2000.  I witnessed the disgraceful attitudes of the Democrats in Georgia.  Paul Coverdell body hadn't even grown cold yet and John Lewis, Cynthia McKinney, and many others started lobbying then-Governor Roy Barnes in order to get that Senate seat.  It got so bad that Roy Barnes had to rebuke them in public.

So what did Barnes do?  He appointed the one person who didn't want it....Zell Miller.

There were a number of Republicans who felt that a Republican should replace Coverdell, since he was a Republican.  In retrospect, I think conservatives are glad that Zell Miller is representing that state.

But he doesn't only represent Georgians.  Zell Miller is America's Senator.

Miller didn't buy his soul for a committee chair, like Jim Jeffords did.  He stayed on, and criticized his fellow party members in Washington.  He never was to be an Al Gore, who couldn't even beat George Bush in his home state because of his joyride to the left over the years.  He's probably the most popular politician in Georgia, and is definitely the most visible member of the Georgia delegation in Washington.

When I heard he's going to speak at the GOP convention, it really didn't surprise me.  Miller serves as a stark reminder that there are two Democrat parties; the Washingtonians and the Southerners.  And Democrats are upset because Miller did not conform into what they wanted him to be.

It's a shame others don't agree with me, including a former classmate of mine who just happened to work in Miller's office.  While I am pleased to see Anthony Coley rubbing noses with the Washington elite, since I know that's what he's always wanted to do, I sure hope he remembers Zell Miller's words.  Unfortunately, I know he just blew them off and will go the typical route of most African-Americans in Washington.  Maybe one day he'll see the light.

Posted at 01:11 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home




Friday, June 25, 2004
North Korea's playing the same ole games

Let's hope Bush isn't fooled by this charade.

North Korea is back up to their ole tricks again, as they've been doing for over a decade now.  They're doing everything they can to act belligerent and confrontational, then try to portray themselves as the victim.

It's a normal trait of North Korea and other former Soviet Bloc countries; always claim a U.S. conspiracy to undermine them and eventually invade them.  Meanwhile, North Korea is turning into a weapons manufacturer, supplying every two-bit nation with weapons.  I'm sure terrorist organizations will be next, as long as they can show them the money.

So now these hoes got the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia for these talks in Beijing.  Now they are considering testing a nuclear bomb.  As expected, none of the other parties want this, and are willing to give concessions (aka bribes) in order for North Korea to eventually end that program.

But we've seen this before.  In fact, this is the third time in the last 20 years.  North Korea has no intention to end their nuclear program.  Nor do they have any intention to stop selling weapons to other despotic countries.

So why do we continue to pander to these idiots?  Of course, no one wants these weapons to get into the wrong hands, nor do they want North Korea to continue with their aggressive stance against the U.S. and other countries.  But they are using our fear of their actions to try to manipulate us.  It's akin to a 4-year old kid that is about to throw a tantrum in a busy supermarket, attempting to embarrass you in public in order to get you to buy them some candy.
If Bush is determined to find some kind of solution to this North Korea problem, he must state that North Korea will not get a dime until they allow unfettered access with that country to investigators, and there must be a public disposal of any and all nuclear weapons development.  Only then should we allow a broad humanitarian project to help boost North Korea's economy.

But not one dime until then.  If North Korea continues its antics, we should cut off any current projects we have, and veto any United Nations aid to them as well.  In a world where international terror is the leading threat to global security and peace, we cannot allow parasites like North Korea to continue to be rewarded while destabilizing the global theatre.

Posted at 12:55 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

And now, an Ann Coulter moment.

From this week's column, Moby's Dick (Isn't that a lil racy, Ann?):

"If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 Democratic National Convention speech nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War and a Piece."

Now, I don't care whether you like Coulter or not, but you CAN'T deny that this woman is one of the best creative writers within the political realm.  Now I consider myself witty and downright brutal at times, but man...I don't think I can reach Ann's level on my BEST day.

Maybe I will, within time.

Posted at 12:04 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Jack Ryan, I ain't mad atcha.

For real though....people need to get over themselves.

Now people are calling for Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Jack Ryan, to step down due to some allegations made by his wife during a custody case, actress Jeri Ryan.  According to Jeri Ryan, while they were married Jack took her to some sex clubs and tried to get her to have sex with him in public.  The judge working on the case allowed her testimony to be unsealed, against both of their wishes, which caused this unnecessary commotion.

Now, sex clubs?  That isn't my cup of tea.  But all of these people getting their panties in a bunch need to get a life.  They were a married couple.  That is between that man and that woman.  Even if we took her testimony for face value (because there's really no way this can be proven), he asked, she said no, end of story.

And you know where all of this stems from.  The Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Instead of looking at the legal stature of the case - the perjury and obstruction of justice part - everyone wants to look at the adultery and immorality aspect. 

"Allegations of sex clubs in Paris, New Orleans and New York do not play well in Quincy, Macomb, La Salle and Peru," Dillard said. "I think their eyes roll when you talk about sex clubs."
Obama could be a facsict for all they know..but hey, at least he isn't going to some devilish sex club, right?

But on a lighter note, if I HAD to have sex with someone in public, Jeri Ryan SURE wouldn't be at the bottom of the list.  Hell; now that I think about it, if I had a wife that looked like Jeri Ryan I'd want everyone to know I was hitting this too.  I'd would be on some "Look at what "I"got" type steeze.  "This....is what I'm sleeping with every night."

Okay.  Let me behave.

But for real.  Jack Ryan gets a pass; if not for the mere fact that his wife is hot, then for the fact that it's nobody's damned business.

Now if it was Bill and Hillary (which would never happen), or John and Teresa, that's a violation.  Hell I would feel bad for the ones watching it.  I'm sure something like that would take MONTHS of rehabilitation.

Posted at 04:51 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Thursday, June 24, 2004
"FAIR" lies about Bush Administration and 9/11 Commission

One good thing about posting on predominantly leftist  discussion boards is that you're given a heads-up on certain pieces of propaganda that will soon come out within the political realm.

Hence, imagine how I felt when I received
this goodie.  It seems as if FAIR didn't like how Dick Cheney and others jumped on the mainstream media last week, so they decided to jump back.  But just like most leftist propaganda, it consists of assertions that are full of holes and devoid of plain logic, as well as some highly deceptive statements.

Let's get started:

"On Fox's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."

In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."


It would be one thing if he did quoted the beginning paragraph, but he didn't.  Then FAIR lies about the initial statement in the story.

Here is the
AP article:

"Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein. In hair-raising detail, the commission said the terror network had envisioned a much larger attack and is working hard to strike again."
So they can't even get that straight.

And what Brit Hume was referring to was the NEXT paragraph:

"Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes."
You see?  The Associated Press first started off stating that there was no Saddam/Al Qaeda link.  Then in the very next paragraph, they state that Saddam had no links to September 11th, blurring the assertions of the Bush Administration.

Also, the Associated Press never clarified the kind of report this was.  If you look at a previous post on this blog, you'll see 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman's statements in regards to the kind of report this was.  This was not a finding or a confirmation by the 9/11 Commission itself, it was done by the Commission's staff.  In this article, he decides to make that assertion in the article, but as for other articles - created by the Associated Press and others, they did not make that specific, and that this was not a ruling or consensus made by the Commission itself.  That's why Lehman and Cheney among others have labelled these articles as lazy journalism.

Finally, the 9/11 Commission's job was to investigate the circumstances and controversies surrounding 9/11.  It was not their responsibility to do it for each and every terrorist link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  And considering the staff only took the time to address Iraq and Al-Qaeda in vague terms and with only one paragraph out of a 12 page report suggests that they didn't do a full inquiry into it.

Let's move on (no pun intended):

"Hume changed the allegation, from Hussein having ties with Al Qaeda to his having ties to the September 11 attacks, in order to knock it down, claiming that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to September 11. But that is not accurate either: Bush's letter to Congress formally announcing the commencement of hostilities against Iraq (3/18/03) explained that the use of force would be directed against "terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

When I saw this I almost wanted to throw up.  This is supposed to be a so-called "media watchdog".  Yet, who is watching them? 

Well I am, and it just so happened that I remembered that
James Taranto just checked USA Today for pulling this very same trick last week.

Here's what the letter REALLY said:

"Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So, Bush never said that Iraq planned or aided 9/11.  He only said any measures taken against Iraq was consistent with the fight against terrorism.  Either FAIR's research was sloppy, or they outright distorted what Bush said.

Here's some more:

"And during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press (9/14/03), when Vice President Dick Cheney was asked if he was "surprised" that so many Americans connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, Cheney responded:

"No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW , that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."
FAIR tries to use this as proof that Cheney continued to lead people on.  However, the only one that's leading anyone on is FAIR, who continues to mislead the readers into thinking the Commission said there was no link, when it was their staff.  Then they tried to say there was no collaborative relationship, "that Iraq did not have with Al-Qaeda", when they simply say they couldn't find enough credible evidence.

Not finding enough credible evidence does not equate that something never happened.  It means that either sufficient information wasn't requested and brought to them, or it means that they never highlighted an Iraq link as the key to an Al-Qaeda investigation.  If they actually found evidence that pointed towards Iraq and Al-Qaeda not having a relationship, I think they would have said so.  However, most of the information given, if FAIR had looked at the report, never showed any kind of animosity by Iraq to Al Qaeda nor did it show any evidence, as the wording of the report implies, that Al Qaeda was indeed rebuffed by Saddam. I'm sure that the Commission members would say there is alot to find out about Iraq and Al-Qaeda that we don't know now.  But don't tell that to FAIR.

Either way you put it, FAIR is UNFAIR.  And they need to start telling the truth instead of being a defender of the type of journalism - as well becoming an example of it themselves - that they are supposed to be protecting the public from.

Posted at 05:59 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home

Why would you airbrush Serena Williams?

Could somebody PLEASE explain this ridiculous mess to me?

This has got to be the worst airbrush I've ever seen.  Serena looks pale as hell, and her head is bigger than the rest of her body.  What genius at Black Men actually gave the green light for this?  He/She should be fired on the spot.

And what makes it so bad, it's an insult to Serena's body.  Her body is TEN times better than that mess.  Why airbrush something that looks good as hell already?

Ugh.

Posted at 04:32 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Cheney wins Supreme Court decision

Well, Cheney got his way.

He doesn't have to give Judicial Watch any records of his Energy Task Force meetings. 

And check this out, the The AP didn't go into any specific details in regards to the court ruling.  Instead, they decided to talk about Scalia, despite the ruling being 7-2.

"Scalia, a Reagan administration appointee and close friend of the vice president, had said the duck hunting trip was acceptable socializing that wouldn't cloud his judgment. "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo."
Disgusting.  Then again, what you expect from the mainstream press?


Posted at 11:08 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Mike Adams's letter to the Arab World

Mike Adams is a trip.

I've been slacking off of reading his columns on Townhall.com.  And that's bad because I'm a fellow North Carolinian, and he only teaches an hour an a half away from where I live.  I don't agree with him on everything, particularly on social topics, but I do respect his advocacy for conservative expression at UNC-Wilmington and the rest of the UNC College System.

Here's a column  from last week, in which he wrote a letter to the Arab World:

Dear Arabs,

I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.

I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.
 
I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the “leaders” of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.

I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian “cause.”  I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them.

I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems.

I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. It’s probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, I’m sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. That’s bad for your health, too.

I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their “food for oil” money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafat’s “cause.”
 
I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood.

I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other.
 
I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. By the way, you shouldn’t be sorry about that.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.  I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort.

I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, that’s about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, I’m sorry we haven’t sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.

I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a “Holy Site.”

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does.

I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted Leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you.

Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. I’m probably just having a bad day.

For that I am truly sorry.

Ya gotta love it.  I wonder would he mind if I signed this letter, too?

Posted at 11:30 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Rabbis oppose special ID's for illegal aliens.

Rabbis in California have grouped up and called for Schwarznegger not to give illegal immigrants special markings on their identification, saying it is too much of a reminder of the Holocaust era, where Jews had to walk around with a yellow Star of David on their shirts to identify them for discrimination.

The rabbis are right.  This could subject them to unnecessary discrimination.  But what should happen is that they get no driver's licenses at all.

More than likely this will kill off the Schwarznegger plan, since, as the AP states, he is close to a number of Jewish organizations.  But this only half-steps the problem.  The real problem lies in accommodating illegal aliens in this country to begin with.

Posted at 10:18 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Christopher Hitchens "Unfairenheit 9/11" destroy's Moore's Film

This column is just unbelievable

Being a political nut, I've read alot of columns in my day.  But it will be hard to find one that outright destroys each and every argument the opponent places up in a confrontational POV. 

I don't know Hitchens that well.  In fact, the first time I read any of his stuff, that I can recall, was for his shameful column that he wrote about Ronald Reagan.  So when Drudge actually linked this story on his website, I never expected this.

I mean, I expected a little bit.  After all, some leftists have scruples too.  If Bill Clinton can go so far as to defend on several occasions the motives and actions of the Bush Administration for Iraq, I suppose some leftists can actually listen to their conscience and criticize Moore.

But Hitchens?  This was an all out ass whipping.  I couldn't believe he had THAT much to say about Moore's movie and practically dissects everything in it.  I don't understand how ANYONE could actually read that whole column and could still think Moore even has a CLUE of what he was talking about.


Here's some comments from Hitchen's column:

"It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal."
Hitchens straight up exposed him in this passage.  I've always stated, particularly once I saw Bowling For Columbine, that Moore is a very poor debater.  His arguments are terribly sloppy, and he absolutely lives by the "cut off the nose to spite the face" principle.  He doesn't care what his facts really state, or what they imply.  Never mind that those arguments often contradict each other.  As long as he can use it to bash Bush, it doesn't matter.

Here's more:

"That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)"
 
This passage was killer.  After this, Hitchens really wouldn't have to say anything else, and Moore would have been completely discredited.  It is simply unfathomable, on it's own, for people to state that Saddam wasn't considered a threat in and of itself.  But to go another level and say that he NEVER threatened any American?  Either you're a Baathist member, or just plain stupid.  I'll give Moore the benefit of the doubt and say the latter.

Even after this, he continued dismantling Moore:

"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation."
This simply shows that "freedom-loving" Moore is now trying to protect his image and use tactics to try to intimidate others from criticizing his movie.  That simply shows he indeed does have some idea that his arguments and tactics for this movie are weak.

Anyway, I think I have quoted enough.  If you wanna see more, read the column. 

Posted at 01:07 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Next Page



   









Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed

BLOGDRIVE
TEMPLATES

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Blogdrive