| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Xomicron" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2004 09:07:46 AM |
| Object: |
Moore's anti-US populism |
By Cathy Young, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2004
With "Fahrenheit 9/11" still riding high at the box office and a new book
titled "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" soaring to the best-
seller lists, Michael Moore continues to be at the center of public debate.
(So much the worse for public debate.) While many agree that Moore traffics
in one-sided, nasty agitprop and factually shaky innuendo, quite a few
people are willing to recognize him as a scrappy David battling the Goliath
of the Bush propaganda machine, a hero who may bend or stretch a few facts
but is right about the larger truths. New York Times film critic A.O. Scott
even called him "a credit to the Republic."
So who, exactly, is this populist hero?
Moore isn't just antiwar and anti-Bush; he is also virulently anti-
American. That's a label some right-wing pundits tend to slap on anyone
critical of the war and of President Bush. In Moore's case, however, the
label fits.
Moore, the 50-year-old filmmaker and author of several books, has made a
career of traveling round the world talking about how stupid, brainwashed,
selfish, greedy, and otherwise rotten Americans are. He regales British
audiences with tales of a National Geographic survey which found that many
young Americans cannot find Iraq or England on the map -- neglecting to
mention that the survey results for British youth were quite woeful as
well. Inviting an audience at Cambridge University to share some packs of
Doritos, he comments, according to an account in The New Yorker, "It's
still your way, right, to share? You don't want to turn into us -- a
society where the ethic is me me me me me me me, [expletive] you."
If Moore believes that Scandinavian-style social democracy is preferable to
American capitalism, that's his right. But in his world view, the United
States is judged by a blatant double standard compared to other nations. In
a July 4 piece for the Los Angeles Times, Moore asks the pro-Bush Americans
he regards as mindless flag-wavers, "Are you proud that nearly 3 billion
people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we
have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?" Note that
the other wealthy countries of the world are not told that they must either
remedy the problems of the developing world this very minute or be ashamed
of themselves.
In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore weeps crocodile tears for the American soldiers
killed in Iraq and for their loved ones. Yet in an April 14 message on his
website, commenting on proposals that the administration of Iraq be turned
over to the United Nations, Moore had this to say:
"I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to
extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans
supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now
sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just
maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
In his 2003 book "Dude, Where's My Country," Moore expresses sympathy with
the Palestinians who danced in the streets to celebrate the fall of the
World Trade Center: after all, America supports Israel, which kills
innocent Palestinian children. Then, he makes a statement so mind-boggling
that when I saw it on an anti-Moore website, I thought it might be
distorted. It was not:
"Of course many Israeli children have died too, at the hands of the
Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe
out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response.
Why? Because in their hearts, they know they are wrong, and they know they
would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on
the other foot."
Moore's dishonesty in stringing together his narratives has been amply
documented (see, for instance, the website www.spinsanity.org, which is
dedicated to exposing both left-wing and right-wing spin and not known for
pro-Bush sympathies). But Moore's problem is not just with facts, it's with
basic decency.
In one of his "satirical" routines in England in 2002, Moore derided the
passengers on the planes hijacked on Sept. 11 as white middle-class wimps.
According to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a writer for the London Independent, "If
the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers . . .
would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect
from anybody."
This isn't polemical boldness or satirical hyperbole; this is obscenity.
After this, is there really anything else we need to know about Michael
Moore?
.
|
|
| User: "Tavish" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
19 Jul 2004 10:55:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:07:46 GMT, <Xns952B67080C542ZAP@dragon.cz> Xomicron
<xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
By Cathy Young, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2004
With "Fahrenheit 9/11" still riding high at the box office and a new book
titled "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" soaring to the best-
seller lists, Michael Moore continues to be at the center of public debate.
(So much the worse for public debate.) While many agree that Moore traffics
in one-sided, nasty agitprop and factually shaky innuendo, quite a few
people are willing to recognize him as a scrappy David battling the Goliath
of the Bush propaganda machine, a hero who may bend or stretch a few facts
but is right about the larger truths. New York Times film critic A.O. Scott
even called him "a credit to the Republic."
So who, exactly, is this populist hero?
Moore isn't just antiwar and anti-Bush; he is also virulently anti-
American. That's a label some right-wing pundits tend to slap on anyone
critical of the war and of President Bush. In Moore's case, however, the
label fits.
Moore, the 50-year-old filmmaker and author of several books, has made a
career of traveling round the world talking about how stupid, brainwashed,
selfish, greedy, and otherwise rotten Americans are. He regales British
audiences with tales of a National Geographic survey which found that many
young Americans cannot find Iraq or England on the map -- neglecting to
mention that the survey results for British youth were quite woeful as
well. Inviting an audience at Cambridge University to share some packs of
Doritos, he comments, according to an account in The New Yorker, "It's
still your way, right, to share? You don't want to turn into us -- a
society where the ethic is me me me me me me me, [expletive] you."
If Moore believes that Scandinavian-style social democracy is preferable to
American capitalism, that's his right. But in his world view, the United
States is judged by a blatant double standard compared to other nations. In
a July 4 piece for the Los Angeles Times, Moore asks the pro-Bush Americans
he regards as mindless flag-wavers, "Are you proud that nearly 3 billion
people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we
have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?" Note that
the other wealthy countries of the world are not told that they must either
remedy the problems of the developing world this very minute or be ashamed
of themselves.
In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore weeps crocodile tears for the American soldiers
killed in Iraq and for their loved ones. Yet in an April 14 message on his
website, commenting on proposals that the administration of Iraq be turned
over to the United Nations, Moore had this to say:
"I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to
extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans
supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now
sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just
maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
In his 2003 book "Dude, Where's My Country," Moore expresses sympathy with
the Palestinians who danced in the streets to celebrate the fall of the
World Trade Center: after all, America supports Israel, which kills
innocent Palestinian children. Then, he makes a statement so mind-boggling
that when I saw it on an anti-Moore website, I thought it might be
distorted. It was not:
"Of course many Israeli children have died too, at the hands of the
Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe
out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response.
Why? Because in their hearts, they know they are wrong, and they know they
would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on
the other foot."
Moore's dishonesty in stringing together his narratives has been amply
documented (see, for instance, the website www.spinsanity.org, which is
dedicated to exposing both left-wing and right-wing spin and not known for
pro-Bush sympathies). But Moore's problem is not just with facts, it's with
basic decency.
In one of his "satirical" routines in England in 2002, Moore derided the
passengers on the planes hijacked on Sept. 11 as white middle-class wimps.
According to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a writer for the London Independent, "If
the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers . . .
would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect
from anybody."
This isn't polemical boldness or satirical hyperbole; this is obscenity.
After this, is there really anything else we need to know about Michael
Moore?
YES! Michael Moore is the poster boy for communist filth vermin!!
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/120006_comment.php
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMoore_Communist1)
Michael Moore: Stupid white man
by David Harsanyi Saturday March 30, 2002 at 08:56 PM
One can only imagine the outrage if this comment would have been reversed. I
suppose the indignation would be appropriately deafening if someone had entitled
a book “Stupid black men.”
MICHAEL MOORE ISN’T YOUR AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE CELEBRITY. His oafish, disheveled
appearance is both physically and intellectually disengaging, so much so that
you might not take him very seriously. You should. Ostensibly, Moore exposes the
hypocrisy and misconduct of establishment figures through his films, TV shows
and books. In reality, Moore, whose political stance is uncommonly demented,
obtuse and juvenile, uses kamikaze journalism to further a clear and precarious
agenda.
To distinguish himself from the flock of privileged leftist gadflies that litter
the progressive causes, Moore likes to emphasize his working class Michigan
upbringing. (Though from all accounts he never labored very hard himself, save
one day on a Buick assembly line.) Despite his open hatred of the rich, Moore
has few qualms about aping an authentic capitalist, peddling his new book,
Stupid White Men... and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, on
seemingly all news, entertainment and radio show running...
Mr. Moore, deluded into believing his fan base “is made up of working stiffs,”
is an advocate of a 70 percent tax rate, infinite governmental expansion and
regulations, rivaling Ralph Nader -- whom he vigilantly campaigned for in 2000.
From the privileged confines of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, this
guilt-ridden progressive with a six-figure deal book deal proposes to double the
tax burden on American working class without a hint of sarcasm.
In his ‘Letter to Elián González,’ Moore further illustrates his allegiance to
the working class, this time the Cuban Americans of Miami, by defending Castro’s
communist regime. Cuba, Moore writes, is a haven where children are only in
jeopardy “of receiving free health …an excellent education in one of the few
countries that has 100% literacy, and a better chance of your baby sister being
born and making it to her first birthday than if she had been born in
Washington, D.C.”
Moore’s enthusiasm with communism extends into popular culture. He directed a
video for the now defunct-communist band, Rage Against the Machine. Rage -- who
must have set aside their left-wing values long enough to ink a multi-million
dollar deal with Sony records – feature a reading list on their website that
includes some of counterculture’s recent champions: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn
and Susan Faludi. The site also features some more noteworthy ‘readings’ like
Lenin’s ‘State and the Revolution,’ Che Guevera’s ‘Guerilla Warfare,’ and Karl
Marx’s ‘Capital, Volume One.
Now, five pages of Marx’s Capital may be sufficient enough reading to turn
anyone away from communism, certainly the ‘working stiffs’ that Moore believes
constitute his fan base. However, most media outlets have failed to properly
define the nature of Moore’s agenda... <END>
© 2000-2003 San Francisco IMC. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all
content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net
and elsewhere.
The San Francisco IMC is a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area
independent media makers and media outlets, and serves as the local organizing
unit of the global Indymedia network.
---------------
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39250
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMooreCommieRaves1)
MEDIA MATTERS
Moore's film gets rave – from Communists
Stalinist Reds love 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' Maoists love it, too
Posted: July 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The Communist Party USA and the Revolutionary Communist Party had a nasty
ideological split years ago as one faction lined up behind Moscow and the Soviet
Union and the other with and China's Mao Zedong.
They still have violent disagreements over goals and tactics, but they agree on
one thing. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" rules.
The film got a rave review yesterday in the Communist Party USA's newspaper
People's Weekly World...
"The movie is a documentary that the American people themselves are a part of,"
explained the paper. "It follows the dark history of the Bush administration,
hatched from the rotten egg of a stolen election. It shines a light on the dark
corners of the Bush family’s brazen disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of
African American voters in Florida, the Bushes’ early – and oily – alliance with
the ruling Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, and the unspeakable toll on
America’s working-class families."
A companion story, reported on a party member who sat in on a conference call
chat with Moore organized by Moveon.org in which it claims 54,975 people
participated...
"Michael Moore has found his own creative way to say "NO!" to this Bush agenda,
to its juggernaut of war and repression," the Revolutionary Worker said. "He has
said it with his satirical, impish and provocateurish riffs – from his own,
social democratic point of view."
<END>
In reference to some of the phrases above:
1) "The film got a rave review yesterday in the Communist Party USA's newspaper
People's Weekly World... "The movie is a documentary that the American people
themselves are a part of," explained the paper. "It follows the dark history of
the Bush administration.." The official link:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5443/1/222
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMooreCommieRaves2)
http://www.pww.org/article/static/320/
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: PWW_CPUSA)
About Us
The People’s Weekly World is the newspaper of the Communist Party, USA reporting
on and analyzing the pressing issues of the day..
2) "Michael Moore has found his own creative way to say "NO!" to this Bush
agenda, to its juggernaut of war and repression," the Revolutionary Worker said.
"He has said it with his satirical, impish and provocateurish riffs – from his
own, social democratic point of view." The official link:
http://rwor.org/a/1245/fahrenheit_911_moore_movie_review.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWORreview)
Who is behind the "Revolutionary Worker"? COMMUNISTS!!!
http://rwor.org/rcp-e.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWOR_RCP)
About the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
"Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
Our Leader is Chairman Avakian."
How is the communist group documented above planning to achieve its revolution?
In their own words:
http://rwor.org/a/v21/1040-049/1048/prog1.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWORviolence)
From the Programme of the RCP,USA
The Revolutionary Process
<<Tavish comment July 18, 2004: I have culled some of the mentally ill
statements made by the RCP USA and show them now below.>>
"Proletarian revolution requires the armed seizure of power and continuing
struggle by the masses to overthrow and finally eliminate the capitalist system,
the bourgeoisie and all class distinctions."
"A revolution," wrote Mao Tsetung, "is not a dinner party, or writing an essay,
or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so
leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.
A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class
overthrows another."
"While the proletariat can and must exercise ruthless dictatorship over the
overthrown bourgeoisie and other outright enemies of the revolution and
socialize their vast holdings almost in one stroke, it cannot and must not apply
this policy to the middle strata. Instead, it must lead and organize them to
develop forms, depending on the conditions (such as cooperative ownership and
collective labor as possible steps) through which to progress to socialized
state ownership--and to take part in the political movements launched by the
proletariat and remold their world outlook in accordance with the socialist
revolution and the ultimate advance to communism."
"Communism can only be finally realized on a world scale, and this has profound
implications for the struggle of the proletariat, including in those countries
where it comes to power. For one thing, the proletariat in such countries will
still find itself confronted and perhaps surrounded by hostile imperialist and
reactionary states which will attempt every means to crush, subvert or otherwise
destroy the socialist states. But even beyond this, between capitalist and
communist society there lies a long transition period of socialism in which the
proletariat in the various socialist countries must adhere to proletarian
internationalism, actively promoting and supporting the world revolution, must
maintain and strengthen its dictatorship and the socialization of ownership of
the means of production, strike at, restrict and move toward eliminating the
differences and inequalities left over from the old society and transform the
thinking of the people according to the scientific principles and outlook of
Marxism."
<<Tavish comment July 18, 2004: Everyone should now get a clear picture why the
leftists want to dissolve the private ownership of firearms and they are
achieving it piecemeal in America by their operatives in our Congress!! Commies
can't have armed dissenters in their midst!!>>
"Thus the socialist transition period is not a smooth, broad freeway leading
directly and quickly to communism, but a tortuous path, full of twists and turns
and marked by sharp struggle."
Revolutionary Worker #1048, March 26, 2000
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497
<END>
Where is the House Un-American Committee now that we really need it!?
Here is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA's mentor Karl Marx whom they
claim to follow:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/marx.html
(Link active July 17, 2003. Archived locally as: Kmarx)
Karl Marx, the son of Hirschel and Henrietta Marx..
In January 1846 Marx set up a Communist Correspondence Committee. The
plan was to try and link together socialist leaders living in different parts of
Europe. Influenced by Marx's ideas, socialists in England held a conference in
London where they formed a new organization called the Communist League. Marx
formed a branch in Brussels and in December 1847 attended a meeting of the
Communist League' Central Committee in London. At the meeting it was decided
that the aims of the organization was "the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the
domination of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois society based
on class antagonisms, and the establishment of a new society without classes and
without private property".
When Marx returned to Brussels had concentrated on writing The Communist
Manifesto. Based on a first draft produced by Friedrich Engels called the
Principles of Communism, Marx finished the 12,000 word pamphlet in six weeks.
Unlike most of Marx's work, it was an accessible account of communist ideology.
Written for a mass audience, The Communist Manifesto summarized the forthcoming
revolution and the nature of the communist society that would be established by
the proletariat. The Communist Manifesto was published in February, 1848.
(1) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848)
Communists openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible
overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a
Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
(2) Karl Marx, New Rhenish Gazette (January, 1849)
The liberation of Europe is dependent on a successful uprising by the French
working class. But every French social upheaval necessarily founders on the
English bourgeoisie, on the industrial and commercial world-domination of Great
Britain.... <END>
Remember Karl Marx did espouse: "Communists openly declare that their ends can
be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of
all countries, unite!"
LOOKS LIKE MICHAEL MOORE HAS COMMUNIST ALLIES WHICH SHOULD LET EVERYONE REALLY
KNOW WHAT SORT OF A PERSON MICHAEL MOORE TRULY IS!!!
Need I say more other than Michael Moore is filth and the true Fat *****!
He makes Fat ***** in Austin Power's "The Spy Who Shagged Me" look like a
featherweight. I guess Michael Moore has been gormandizing too much in
Capitalist America and he should emigrate to a communist worker's utopia so he
can work some of that blubber off!
Tavish
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5vs5jv80jhvkdjlp8jbmo8fqqp3nd5kd7r%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Are Democrats Now Communists? R_0807
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:50:56 -0500
Message-ID: <5vs5jv80jhvkdjlp8jbmo8fqqp3nd5kd7r@4ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=fngd20hhnqv51a0oltui57sm0u2si62a5d%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Democratic Socialists in Congress, Their Agenda, Their Values, and
Their FIGHTING Songs! V3.0 S_0208
Message-ID: <fngd20hhnqv51a0oltui57sm0u2si62a5d@4ax.com>
Date: 8 Feb 2004 23:12:27 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=gpu2e09d520ab2gkce5de132saqi2hdknj%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Who says Socialism and Communism aren't the same and are adhered to by
the same people? CP USA Speaks out! V2.5 S_0629
Message-ID: <gpu2e09d520ab2gkce5de132saqi2hdknj@4ax.com>
Date: 29 Jun 2004 15:48:54 GMT
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
20 Jul 2004 05:42:20 PM |
|
|
Does anyone here know that in general - WHO gives a flying F*** about
Michael Moore.
SOLUTION - Don't like Bush - DON'T vote for him.
Don't like John Kerry then don't vote for them.
Second solution is if Bush is re-elected and you don't like him then
"impeach" him.
President's can be impeached. Even the House of Represenatives and Senators
of your state can be removed from office and is often like a governor in
terms of process. It is not an impeachment but a "recall" process. The
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
Remember to make your vote more careful. So next time - think about your
vote before you make you actual vote.
To be aking nicely to PLEASE DON'T post anymore of this in comp.sys.cbm.
"Tavish" <Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote in message
news:gprnf09bvefmlds5nkl3pr9dlbscbu64ag@4ax.com...
YES! Michael Moore is the poster boy for communist filth vermin!!
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/120006_comment.php
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMoore_Communist1)
Michael Moore: Stupid white man
by David Harsanyi Saturday March 30, 2002 at 08:56 PM
One can only imagine the outrage if this comment would have been reversed.
I
suppose the indignation would be appropriately deafening if someone had
entitled
a book "Stupid black men."
<<< SNIP the B.S. DOWN >>>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
20 Jul 2004 06:58:37 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10fr7ug4qj4nk5e@corp.supernews.com...
Does anyone here know that in general - WHO gives a flying F*** about
Michael Moore.
SOLUTION - Don't like Bush - DON'T vote for him.
Don't like John Kerry then don't vote for them.
Second solution is if Bush is re-elected and you don't like him then
"impeach" him.
President's can be impeached. Even the House of Represenatives and
Senators
of your state can be removed from office and is often like a governor in
terms of process. It is not an impeachment but a "recall" process. The
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
Maybe this is true on the planet you live on, but it isn't true on Earth.
Read a book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
20 Jul 2004 07:28:14 PM |
|
|
"Alan" <areed65@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NkiLc.7312$f4.4184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Maybe this is true on the planet you live on, but it isn't true on Earth.
Read a book.
Every person that can be voted in can be voted out.
In fact if the laws violate the constitution can be considered a call ground
for another
"Revolutionary War".
Secondly any law that violates the Bill of Rights is already technically
nullified by the actual Constitution of the United States.
President Bush can be impeached due to such actions he taken.
If Clinton could have been impeached for something he did and what Nixon did
caused resignation. Then President Bush could be held for costing
unnecassary lives of American in a war which we as a country have no
business being there. I don't find it all that beautiful. I will be
concerned about the ones who you don't hear about causing a problem for Iraq
after we leave. Taking Presidency and then taking dictatorship. Remember the
country of Iraq was a "democracy" kind of country before Saddam. Remember
Saddam was "President" of the country. He is "voted" in.
It is the people in the future to worry about. The war on terrorism as well
has put a target sign on ALL Americans and our country getting involve in
foreign affair is the #1 problem. We are not the "police" of the world. We
have NO right being there.
WE the United States can NOT enforce US laws on other countries UNLESS we A)
Take over the country (a hostile method which will cause hatred of country
in the masses) or B) The country merges with the US and thus merge into one
country. For theoretical example - the US and Russia merging together -
which is conceivable today or near future then back in the Cold War. This
may be something that can happen in the future. The reason for hatred is our
involvement and "screwing" the other countries. We should not be involved in
such. The US should be taking care of things closer to home and focus there.
We should be fighting a war with Al'Qaeda not all terrorists.
We should "defend" and prevent "terrorist" actions against terrorist. Not
try to destroy the concept. It just can't be destroyed like that.
I am not for terrorism but I don't agree with Bush and I don't agree with
Michael Moore either. Iraq is just another Vietnam. BIG problem. I do
support the soldiers wish them luck and return home safely but that is
different.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
20 Jul 2004 08:18:12 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10fre53jkn8ms1d@corp.supernews.com...
"Alan" <areed65@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NkiLc.7312$f4.4184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Maybe this is true on the planet you live on, but it isn't true on
Earth.
Read a book.
Every person that can be voted in can be voted out.
That's not a recall. Obviously, you can always vote for the other guy the
next time around.
President Bush can be impeached due to such actions he taken.
No, he can't.
If Clinton could have been impeached for something he did and what Nixon
did
caused resignation. Then President Bush could be held for costing
unnecassary lives of American in a war which we as a country have no
business being there.
Again, you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy (I voted with the majority in 2000), but
you can't just recall the president because you disagree with his policies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter de Vroomen" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
21 Jul 2004 02:34:10 PM |
|
|
President Bush can be impeached due to such actions he taken.
No, he can't.
Well, I think he can be. But every president replaces as much of the
government with friends of him as he can. So in practice nobody is going to
impeach him, they owe him too much.
On the other hand, this sort of thing does tend to stabilize a government.
PeterV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
21 Jul 2004 04:58:20 PM |
|
|
Yes but impeachment would be silly. Just don't vote for the President.
A President is by oath of office is NOT to lie in front of the whole
country.
He is on some really thin ice there. Since voting is only a few months
away - the solution is to not vote for Bush but vote for someone who is
"better". You just have to have a better option. Bush's Patriot "Act" is in
violation of the 14th Ammendment.
An Act is a law NOT a constitutional ammendment.
First clause of the 14th ammendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
Patriot Act is in ways empowering the State or government to violate your
rights of life, liberty and property and denial of people equal protection
of the laws and violates the laws. It also violates several ammendments.
Which is "unconstitutional". The Patriot Act is NOT an ammendment but a law
that violates the constitutionary rights of American citizens.
NO citizen can be denied the right to a speedy trial and no citizen may be
denied equal rights and shall be allowed to have a lawyer. No American
citizen is to be contained/held in jail under law for an indefinite period
UNLESS charged for a crime and then they go to trial. It is in the rights of
all American that you are innocent until you are proven guilty before a
judge or impartial jury.
That in itself is not enough to impeach the president but enough reason to
not vote for him.
"Peter de Vroomen" <retepv@[onzin]retepv.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:10fth9i6r74kqdd@corp.supernews.com...
Well, I think he can be. But every president replaces as much of the
government with friends of him as he can. So in practice nobody is going
to
impeach him, they owe him too much.
On the other hand, this sort of thing does tend to stabilize a government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
22 Jul 2004 01:04:25 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote
in news:10ftpo14e3t6t1e@corp.supernews.com:
Yes but impeachment would be silly. Just don't vote for the President.
A President is by oath of office is NOT to lie in front of the whole
country.
He is on some really thin ice there. Since voting is only a few months
away - the solution is to not vote for Bush but vote for someone who is
"better". You just have to have a better option. Bush's Patriot "Act" is
in violation of the 14th Ammendment.
No, it isn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
02 Aug 2004 12:43:31 AM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10fre53jkn8ms1d@corp.supernews.com>...
I am not for terrorism but I don't agree with Bush and I don't agree with
Michael Moore either. Iraq is just another Vietnam. BIG problem. I do
support the soldiers wish them luck and return home safely but that is
different.
I don't see this at all. Vietnam is a potential market for C64DTV's,
and I don't see Iraq being much of a market for C64DTV's in the near
term future. Maybe you mean "another Vietnam" in some sense that is
not directly connected to Commodore Business Machine hardware or
software? Is so, I imagine there are discussion groups dedicated
to these subjects, where some people shout similar claims and
others try to shout them down with counter claims.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 01:02:32 PM |
|
|
"Alan" <areed65@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<NkiLc.7312$f4.4184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10fr7ug4qj4nk5e@corp.supernews.com...
Does anyone here know that in general - WHO gives a flying F*** about
Michael Moore.
SOLUTION - Don't like Bush - DON'T vote for him.
Don't like John Kerry then don't vote for them.
Second solution is if Bush is re-elected and you don't like him then
"impeach" him.
President's can be impeached. Even the House of Represenatives and
Senators
of your state can be removed from office and is often like a governor in
terms of process. It is not an impeachment but a "recall" process. The
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
Maybe this is true on the planet you live on, but it isn't true on Earth.
Read a book.
This is true. You can't just "recall" a President the way you could
the governor of California. They have to committ an "impeachable"
offense first, and that had better be a pretty clear offense!
(Apparently, having sex in the White House and lying about it doesn't
quite qualify!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 03:06:03 PM |
|
|
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407291002.52318b7f@posting.google.com...
This is true. You can't just "recall" a President the way you could
the governor of California. They have to committ an "impeachable"
offense first, and that had better be a pretty clear offense!
(Apparently, having sex in the White House and lying about it doesn't
quite qualify!)
I never claimed the "President" be recalled. The removal of the President
requires impeachment process. As for the House of Represenatives or Senate.
That would have to be handled by the individual states recalling them. Ok
(it goes down to the zone in which the Represenative is. In Oregon in
Astoria. The people in Astoria and the surrounding area would have to vote a
recall of the Represenative. The people in Portland, Oregon has NO voting
power to recall the represenative of Astoria/Seaside/Warrenton. Due to how
the zone is chopped up. A senator is a little different but a Senator could
be removed. Nevertheless, none of them are totally protected or above the
law so they can be prosecuted for crimes as well. (Ok, if they break a crime
but again is difficult).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 03:21:53 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in
message news:10gim5c8q3j7q81@corp.supernews.com...
I never claimed the "President" be recalled. The removal of the President
requires impeachment process. As for the House of Represenatives or
Senate.
That would have to be handled by the individual states recalling them. Ok
(it goes down to the zone in which the Represenative is. In Oregon in
Astoria. The people in Astoria and the surrounding area would have to vote
a
recall of the Represenative. The people in Portland, Oregon has NO voting
power to recall the represenative of Astoria/Seaside/Warrenton. Due to how
the zone is chopped up. A senator is a little different but a Senator
could
be removed. Nevertheless, none of them are totally protected or above the
law so they can be prosecuted for crimes as well. (Ok, if they break a
crime
but again is difficult).
This is in error - ok.
The House and the Senate does have an "impeachment" process as well.
Different than the President but is internal. A Senator or a Represenative
can be impeached but not recalled either. Ok, it is an impeachment+removal
process NOT a recall. Only governors and perhaps leglislatives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
30 Jul 2004 04:49:38 AM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10gim5c8q3j7q81@corp.supernews.com>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407291002.52318b7f@posting.google.com...
This is true. You can't just "recall" a President the way you could
the governor of California. They have to committ an "impeachable"
offense first, and that had better be a pretty clear offense!
(Apparently, having sex in the White House and lying about it doesn't
quite qualify!)
I never claimed the "President" be recalled.
I'm sorry, I got confused. You are not the person I was agreeing with.
As to you, this is what you wrote;
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
....and that's wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
30 Jul 2004 11:59:17 AM |
|
|
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407300149.5b1919e4@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry, I got confused. You are not the person I was agreeing with.
As to you, this is what you wrote;
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
...and that's wrong.
You read it too literal. It was a parallel and in fact it was used in
parallel to recalling a governor.
Impeachment is the process to remove a President from office as the "Recall"
is the process to remove a governor from office. This was the parallelism I
was using. It is not to be taken "too" literally. Impeachment is the
equivelent process to remove a President.
That was the point I was trying to make. To recall someone is to "remove
someone". To impeach someone is to remove someone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
31 Jul 2004 05:23:03 AM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10gkvj52mnh5251@corp.supernews.com>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407300149.5b1919e4@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry, I got confused. You are not the person I was agreeing with.
As to you, this is what you wrote;
President represents the nation and "impeachment" is a process of
"recalling" the president.
...and that's wrong.
You read it too literal. It was a parallel and in fact it was used in
parallel to recalling a governor.
Impeachment is the process to remove a President from office as the "Recall"
is the process to remove a governor from office. This was the parallelism I
was using. It is not to be taken "too" literally. Impeachment is the
equivelent process to remove a President.
That was the point I was trying to make. To recall someone is to "remove
someone". To impeach someone is to remove someone.
But the processes for both events are so different, there actually no
parallel to make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
31 Jul 2004 10:54:08 AM |
|
|
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407310223.48a42db3@posting.google.com...
You read it too literal. It was a parallel and in fact it was used in
parallel to recalling a governor.
Impeachment is the process to remove a President from office as the
"Recall"
is the process to remove a governor from office. This was the
parallelism I
was using. It is not to be taken "too" literally. Impeachment is the
equivelent process to remove a President.
That was the point I was trying to make. To recall someone is to "remove
someone". To impeach someone is to remove someone.
But the processes for both events are so different, there actually no
parallel to make.
Quit thinking literal. If you are trying to parallel based on process then
you are thinking too literal. The parallelism that I was using here is on
the "purpose" level (lightly at that) and not on the "process" level which
is what you judge by if you are thinking literal. You are judging similarity
in the internal process. Literal thinking again. I damn near drawn a picture
for you.
If the process was the same - they would have the same name wouldn't they.
Common-sense dude, common sense. NOW, I was parallel on the base that they
are both processes to remove officials from their respective office.
Impeachment is for removing a President as Recall is for removing a
governor. NO deep thinking needed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
01 Aug 2004 05:20:43 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10gng4vt0o0tv1e@corp.supernews.com>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407310223.48a42db3@posting.google.com...
You read it too literal. It was a parallel and in fact it was used in
parallel to recalling a governor.
Impeachment is the process to remove a President from office as the
"Recall"
is the process to remove a governor from office. This was the
parallelism I
was using. It is not to be taken "too" literally. Impeachment is the
equivelent process to remove a President.
That was the point I was trying to make. To recall someone is to "remove
someone". To impeach someone is to remove someone.
But the processes for both events are so different, there actually no
parallel to make.
Quit thinking literal. If you are trying to parallel based on process then
you are thinking too literal. The parallelism that I was using here is on
the "purpose" level (lightly at that) and not on the "process" level which
is what you judge by if you are thinking literal. You are judging similarity
in the internal process. Literal thinking again. I damn near drawn a picture
for you.
If the process was the same - they would have the same name wouldn't they.
Common-sense dude, common sense. NOW, I was parallel on the base that they
are both processes to remove officials from their respective office.
Impeachment is for removing a President as Recall is for removing a
governor. NO deep thinking needed.
Well, if you don't think literally sometimes, you end up with the idea
that assasination (sp) is a legitimate political process if you
(really) want to remove someone from office!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
01 Aug 2004 09:24:55 PM |
|
|
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0408011420.22f4ab13@posting.google.com...
Quit thinking literal. If you are trying to parallel based on process
then
you are thinking too literal. The parallelism that I was using here is
on
the "purpose" level (lightly at that) and not on the "process" level
which
is what you judge by if you are thinking literal. You are judging
similarity
in the internal process. Literal thinking again. I damn near drawn a
picture
for you.
If the process was the same - they would have the same name wouldn't
they.
Common-sense dude, common sense. NOW, I was parallel on the base that
they
are both processes to remove officials from their respective office.
Impeachment is for removing a President as Recall is for removing a
governor. NO deep thinking needed.
Well, if you don't think literally sometimes, you end up with the idea
that assasination (sp) is a legitimate political process if you
(really) want to remove someone from office!
Let's remember "common-sense" here. At one time - they use to shoot it out.
Had a disagreement and they go got and have a "duel" which in fact was
"legitimate" at the time.
Assasination was at one time a fair process. Then again laws been put in
place since.
It depends on the society and time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
30 Jul 2004 04:46:35 AM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10gim5c8q3j7q81@corp.supernews.com>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0407291002.52318b7f@posting.google.com...
This is true. You can't just "recall" a President the way you could
the governor of California. They have to committ an "impeachable"
offense first, and that had better be a pretty clear offense!
(Apparently, having sex in the White House and lying about it doesn't
quite qualify!)
I never claimed the "President" be recalled. The removal of the President
requires impeachment process.
I was agreeing with you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diogenes" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 01:14:43 PM |
|
|
lensman1955 wrote:
"Alan" <areed65@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<NkiLc.7312$f4.4184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com>
wrote in message news:10fr7ug4qj4nk5e@corp.supernews.com...
Does anyone here know that in general - WHO gives a flying F***
about Michael Moore.
SOLUTION - Don't like Bush - DON'T vote for him.
Don't like John Kerry then don't vote for them.
Second solution is if Bush is re-elected and you don't like him then
"impeach" him.
President's can be impeached. Even the House of Represenatives and
Senators
of your state can be removed from office and is often like a
governor in terms of process. It is not an impeachment but a
"recall" process. The President represents the nation and
"impeachment" is a process of "recalling" the president.
Maybe this is true on the planet you live on, but it isn't true on
Earth. Read a book.
This is true. You can't just "recall" a President the way you could
the governor of California. They have to committ an "impeachable"
offense first, and that had better be a pretty clear offense!
(Apparently, having sex in the White House and lying about it doesn't
quite qualify!)
....but Clinton _was_ impeached! Just not removed from office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 03:32:46 PM |
|
|
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:66bOc.341$vJ6.286@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
...but Clinton _was_ impeached! Just not removed from office.
Clinton was NOT impeached. Impeachement is two part.
The "Impeachment Hearing" - done by the House of Represenatives.
The "Impeachment" trial - done by the Senate who are the ONLY ones with the
sole power to try.
The U.S. Constitution specifies that the Senate has the "sole power to try
all impeachments." Beyond what the Constitution specifies regarding
impeachment trials, the Senate has established certain rules of procedure
for these trials.
But the Senate does NOT initiate the impeachment. The House of
Represenatives - first must vote for the "Impeachment" trial. In case of
President Clinton - the House of Represenatives voted to put the President
on "Impeachment" trial.
Now the role of the Senate when the House of Representatives vote a
President into "impeachment trial":
In the event of an impeachment trial, the full Senate sits as a jury--with
the Chief Justice of the United States (was William H. Rehnquist/ who is now
?) presiding over the proceeding in cases of presidential impeachment.
Designated members of the House, referred to as "managers," would prosecute
the case by "exhibiting" the articles of impeachment. The Senate has powers
to carry out its constitutional authority to try impeachments (issuing
writs, mandates, contempt citations, etc.).
The Presiding Officer makes initial rulings on motions and objections, but
these judgments may be reviewed by the Senate and reversed by a simple
majority. In this sense, Senators also can function as judges in the
proceeding. Under current rules, witnesses are subject to examination and
cross-examination by the parties (represented by the prosecuting "managers"
and the impeached official's attorneys). Senators may not speak during the
trial. They may submit questions for witnesses to the Presiding Officer, but
must do so in writing. After hearing the evidence, the Senators meet in
closed session, as a jury in a courtroom would, to discuss the verdict. They
then meet in open session to vote for either conviction or acquittal on each
article: "The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; thereafter
each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in his place and answer:
guilty or not guilty" Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When
Sitting on Impeachment Trials from Rules and Manual of the Senate, revised
1986).
Conviction requires the vote of two-thirds of the members present, or 67
Senators if all 100 members (2 for each of the 50 states) are present. If
convicted on any one article of impeachment, the official is immediately
removed from office. If it chooses, the Senate may also vote to disqualify a
convicted official from further service in any federal office. This
additional step requires only a simple majority of those present.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House votes to put the President on Impeachment trial, they assign
members of the House to take role as the "prosecutors" while the full Senate
operates as the Grand Jury and the Chief of Justice as the Supreme Judge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 02:59:43 PM |
|
|
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:66bOc.341$vJ6.286@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
...but Clinton _was_ impeached! Just not removed from office.
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President". But it takes BOTH the House
of Representatives and the Senate. Impeachment is done via a two stage
process.
It is like a law being passed through the House then through the Senate.
Ok - with laws/ammendments and the sort requires all three parts but the
Impeachment doesn't require the president since what president would vote
for his removal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 03:24:08 PM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote
in news:10gilpg78svnh74@corp.supernews.com:
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:66bOc.341$vJ6.286@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
...but Clinton _was_ impeached! Just not removed from office.
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President".
No, impeachment is not the same thing as removal. Clinton was impeached.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diogenes" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 04:20:18 PM |
|
|
Rick Balkins wrote:
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:66bOc.341$vJ6.286@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
...but Clinton _was_ impeached! Just not removed from office.
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President". But it takes BOTH the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Impeachment is done via a
two stage process.
It is like a law being passed through the House then through the
Senate. Ok - with laws/ammendments and the sort requires all three
parts but the Impeachment doesn't require the president since what
president would vote for his removal.
Oh, too bad... you didn't pass.
http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous3.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 09:17:42 PM |
|
|
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:5QdOc.1038$vJ6.743@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President". But it takes BOTH the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Impeachment is done via a
two stage process.
It is like a law being passed through the House then through the
Senate. Ok - with laws/ammendments and the sort requires all three
parts but the Impeachment doesn't require the president since what
president would vote for his removal.
Oh, too bad... you didn't pass.
http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous3.html
Ok, he was half-way impeached.
It is constitutionally incorrect to say the House of Represenatives have
impeached President Clinton because they do NOT have the constitutional
right.
The House of Represenative did NOT impeached. They simply voted to put an
impeachment case. What the house of Represenatives did was like a Prosecutor
filing a case but in an impeachment process requires that the House of
Represenatives having a sucessful majority vote to basically "file" an
impeachment case through the Senate. The Senate has the final word. The
House of Represenatives essentially does is "file" the case and "establish a
hearing" then vote whether or not to proceed the case to the Senate. Then
the case is tried at the Senate under the Chief of Justice (presiding as
"Judge") and the Senate and the "Grand Jury". Only when the Senate has a
sucessful 2/3rd majority vote to impeach the President is the President
impeached. Under the Constitution, when the Senate has sucessfully voted to
impeach the President the President is "immediately" impeached and thus is
immediated removed from office. Basically - the President is no longer
President when the Senate makes their vote if they successfully have a 2/3rd
or more votes of the Senate to impeach the president. "Impeachment" means
"removal" of the President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
30 Jul 2004 03:08:07 AM |
|
|
"Rick Balkins" <rickbalkins.nospam@nospam.wavestarinteractive.com> wrote in message news:<10gjbuc16hekge4@corp.supernews.com>...
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:5QdOc.1038$vJ6.743@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President". But it takes BOTH the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Impeachment is done via a
two stage process.
It is like a law being passed through the House then through the
Senate. Ok - with laws/ammendments and the sort requires all three
parts but the Impeachment doesn't require the president since what
president would vote for his removal.
Oh, too bad... you didn't pass.
http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous3.html
Ok, he was half-way impeached.
It is constitutionally incorrect to say the House of Represenatives have
impeached President Clinton because they do NOT have the constitutional
right.
Closer analogy is a court of law. The House of
Representatives can "indict" the President, but only the
Senate can "convict" the President. The House of
Representatives can impeach (legislative indictment), but
not find the President (or VP or federal judges) guilty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Balkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
30 Jul 2004 11:54:57 AM |
|
|
It is like saying I sue you but I not win. They "impeach" him but didn't
"impeached" him.
Like I sue you but not "sued" you. Typical usage. If I sued you - it implies
I won. I sue you implies we are in law suit. (Ok, it sounds silly but that
is often a play in this silly game of law).
Ok, the House basically "sued" the president and failed. (They basically
unsuccessfully impeached the president. Since it is more then the Hearing.
They are just the hearing. It is like OJ Simpson. They had the Hearing then
they go to the trial.
The House had their "Hearing" and voted to take it to "trial" before the
Senate. It failed in the actual "trial" (the impeachment trial was before
the Senate and it failed there).
I think you are along the lines here.
"Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c8cbc925.0407300008.1760760e@posting.google.com...
Closer analogy is a court of law. The House of
Representatives can "indict" the President, but only the
Senate can "convict" the President. The House of
Representatives can impeach (legislative indictment), but
not find the President (or VP or federal judges) guilty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christian Lott" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
29 Jul 2004 11:46:09 PM |
|
|
Rick Balkins wrote:
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr.com> wrote in message
news:5QdOc.1038$vJ6.743@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
NOT quite.
Impeachment is "the removal of the President". But it takes BOTH the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Impeachment is done via a
two stage process.
It is like a law being passed through the House then through the
Senate. Ok - with laws/ammendments and the sort requires all three
parts but the Impeachment doesn't require the president since what
president would vote for his removal.
Oh, too bad... you didn't pass.
http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous3.html
Ok, he was half-way impeached.
It is constitutionally incorrect to say the House of Represenatives have
impeached President Clinton because they do NOT have the constitutional
right.
The House of Represenative did NOT impeached. They simply voted to put an
impeachment case. What the house of Represenatives did was like a Prosecutor
filing a case but in an impeachment process requires that the House of
Represenatives having a sucessful majority vote to basically "file" an
impeachment case through the Senate. The Senate has the final word. The
House of Represenatives essentially does is "file" the case and "establish a
hearing" then vote whether or not to proceed the case to the Senate. Then
the case is tried at the Senate under the Chief of Justice (presiding as
"Judge") and the Senate and the "Grand Jury". Only when the Senate has a
sucessful 2/3rd majority vote to impeach the President is the President
impeached. Under the Constitution, when the Senate has sucessfully voted to
impeach the President the President is "immediately" impeached and thus is
immediated removed from office. Basically - the President is no longer
President when the Senate makes their vote if they successfully have a 2/3rd
or more votes of the Senate to impeach the president. "Impeachment" means
"removal" of the President.
Let's just put it this way, guys. Bill Clinton was and still is an
idiot, impeached or not. He definetly did not set a good example in
anyones eyes except for fellow philanderers. A godless and (likewise)
valueless society will always vote for slime (read - democrat). Onan and
Mammon guide the wicked in their selfish deeds to eternal dust.
--
Christian Lott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ThomasT" |
|
| Title: Re: Moore's anti-US populism |
19 Jul 2004 10:14:06 PM |
|
|
Funny, it is much easier to trash others than it is to find something
positive about bush. He is a traitor and moore is a patriot. I hope he
makes more money than bill gates, that will put a bee in the rothchild
bonnet.
"Tavish" <Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote in message
news:gprnf09bvefmlds5nkl3pr9dlbscbu64ag@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:07:46 GMT, <Xns952B67080C542ZAP@dragon.cz> Xomicron
<xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
By Cathy Young, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2004
With "Fahrenheit 9/11" still riding high at the box office and a new book
titled "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" soaring to the best-
seller lists, Michael Moore continues to be at the center of public
debate.
(So much the worse for public debate.) While many agree that Moore
traffics
in one-sided, nasty agitprop and factually shaky innuendo, quite a few
people are willing to recognize him as a scrappy David battling the
Goliath
of the Bush propaganda machine, a hero who may bend or stretch a few
facts
but is right about the larger truths. New York Times film critic A.O.
Scott
even called him "a credit to the Republic."
So who, exactly, is this populist hero?
Moore isn't just antiwar and anti-Bush; he is also virulently anti-
American. That's a label some right-wing pundits tend to slap on anyone
critical of the war and of President Bush. In Moore's case, however, the
label fits.
Moore, the 50-year-old filmmaker and author of several books, has made a
career of traveling round the world talking about how stupid,
brainwashed,
selfish, greedy, and otherwise rotten Americans are. He regales British
audiences with tales of a National Geographic survey which found that
many
young Americans cannot find Iraq or England on the map -- neglecting to
mention that the survey results for British youth were quite woeful as
well. Inviting an audience at Cambridge University to share some packs of
Doritos, he comments, according to an account in The New Yorker, "It's
still your way, right, to share? You don't want to turn into us -- a
society where the ethic is me me me me me me me, [expletive] you."
If Moore believes that Scandinavian-style social democracy is preferable
to
American capitalism, that's his right. But in his world view, the United
States is judged by a blatant double standard compared to other nations.
In
a July 4 piece for the Los Angeles Times, Moore asks the pro-Bush
Americans
he regards as mindless flag-wavers, "Are you proud that nearly 3 billion
people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we
have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?" Note that
the other wealthy countries of the world are not told that they must
either
remedy the problems of the developing world this very minute or be
ashamed
of themselves.
In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore weeps crocodile tears for the American
soldiers
killed in Iraq and for their loved ones. Yet in an April 14 message on
his
website, commenting on proposals that the administration of Iraq be
turned
over to the United Nations, Moore had this to say:
"I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to
extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans
supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now
sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe --
just
maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
In his 2003 book "Dude, Where's My Country," Moore expresses sympathy
with
the Palestinians who danced in the streets to celebrate the fall of the
World Trade Center: after all, America supports Israel, which kills
innocent Palestinian children. Then, he makes a statement so
mind-boggling
that when I saw it on an anti-Moore website, I thought it might be
distorted. It was not:
"Of course many Israeli children have died too, at the hands of the
Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe
out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response.
Why? Because in their hearts, they know they are wrong, and they know
they
would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on
the other foot."
Moore's dishonesty in stringing together his narratives has been amply
documented (see, for instance, the website www.spinsanity.org, which is
dedicated to exposing both left-wing and right-wing spin and not known
for
pro-Bush sympathies). But Moore's problem is not just with facts, it's
with
basic decency.
In one of his "satirical" routines in England in 2002, Moore derided the
passengers on the planes hijacked on Sept. 11 as white middle-class
wimps.
According to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a writer for the London Independent,
"If
the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers . . .
would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no
disrespect
from anybody."
This isn't polemical boldness or satirical hyperbole; this is obscenity.
After this, is there really anything else we need to know about Michael
Moore?
YES! Michael Moore is the poster boy for communist filth vermin!!
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/120006_comment.php
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMoore_Communist1)
Michael Moore: Stupid white man
by David Harsanyi Saturday March 30, 2002 at 08:56 PM
One can only imagine the outrage if this comment would have been reversed.
I
suppose the indignation would be appropriately deafening if someone had
entitled
a book "Stupid black men."
MICHAEL MOORE ISN'T YOUR AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE CELEBRITY. His oafish,
disheveled
appearance is both physically and intellectually disengaging, so much so
that
you might not take him very seriously. You should. Ostensibly, Moore
exposes the
hypocrisy and misconduct of establishment figures through his films, TV
shows
and books. In reality, Moore, whose political stance is uncommonly
demented,
obtuse and juvenile, uses kamikaze journalism to further a clear and
precarious
agenda.
To distinguish himself from the flock of privileged leftist gadflies that
litter
the progressive causes, Moore likes to emphasize his working class
Michigan
upbringing. (Though from all accounts he never labored very hard himself,
save
one day on a Buick assembly line.) Despite his open hatred of the rich,
Moore
has few qualms about aping an authentic capitalist, peddling his new book,
Stupid White Men... and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation,
on
seemingly all news, entertainment and radio show running...
Mr. Moore, deluded into believing his fan base "is made up of working
stiffs,"
is an advocate of a 70 percent tax rate, infinite governmental expansion
and
regulations, rivaling Ralph Nader -- whom he vigilantly campaigned for in
2000.
From the privileged confines of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, this
guilt-ridden progressive with a six-figure deal book deal proposes to
double the
tax burden on American working class without a hint of sarcasm.
In his 'Letter to Elián González,' Moore further illustrates his
allegiance to
the working class, this time the Cuban Americans of Miami, by defending
Castro's
communist regime. Cuba, Moore writes, is a haven where children are only
in
jeopardy "of receiving free health .an excellent education in one of the
few
countries that has 100% literacy, and a better chance of your baby sister
being
born and making it to her first birthday than if she had been born in
Washington, D.C."
Moore's enthusiasm with communism extends into popular culture. He
directed a
video for the now defunct-communist band, Rage Against the Machine.
Rage -- who
must have set aside their left-wing values long enough to ink a
multi-million
dollar deal with Sony records - feature a reading list on their website
that
includes some of counterculture's recent champions: Noam Chomsky, Howard
Zinn
and Susan Faludi. The site also features some more noteworthy 'readings'
like
Lenin's 'State and the Revolution,' Che Guevera's 'Guerilla Warfare,' and
Karl
Marx's 'Capital, Volume One.
Now, five pages of Marx's Capital may be sufficient enough reading to turn
anyone away from communism, certainly the 'working stiffs' that Moore
believes
constitute his fan base. However, most media outlets have failed to
properly
define the nature of Moore's agenda... <END>
© 2000-2003 San Francisco IMC. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all
content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the
net
and elsewhere.
The San Francisco IMC is a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay
area
independent media makers and media outlets, and serves as the local
organizing
unit of the global Indymedia network.
---------------
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39250
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMooreCommieRaves1)
MEDIA MATTERS
Moore's film gets rave - from Communists
Stalinist Reds love 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' Maoists love it, too
Posted: July 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The Communist Party USA and the Revolutionary Communist Party had a nasty
ideological split years ago as one faction lined up behind Moscow and the
Soviet
Union and the other with and China's Mao Zedong.
They still have violent disagreements over goals and tactics, but they
agree on
one thing. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" rules.
The film got a rave review yesterday in the Communist Party USA's
newspaper
People's Weekly World...
"The movie is a documentary that the American people themselves are a part
of,"
explained the paper. "It follows the dark history of the Bush
administration,
hatched from the rotten egg of a stolen election. It shines a light on the
dark
corners of the Bush family's brazen disenfranchisement of tens of
thousands of
African American voters in Florida, the Bushes' early - and oily -
alliance with
the ruling Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, and the unspeakable
toll on
America's working-class families."
A companion story, reported on a party member who sat in on a conference
call
chat with Moore organized by Moveon.org in which it claims 54,975 people
participated...
"Michael Moore has found his own creative way to say "NO!" to this Bush
agenda,
to its juggernaut of war and repression," the Revolutionary Worker said.
"He has
said it with his satirical, impish and provocateurish riffs - from his
own,
social democratic point of view."
<END>
In reference to some of the phrases above:
1) "The film got a rave review yesterday in the Communist Party USA's
newspaper
People's Weekly World... "The movie is a documentary that the American
people
themselves are a part of," explained the paper. "It follows the dark
history of
the Bush administration.." The official link:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5443/1/222
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: MikeMooreCommieRaves2)
http://www.pww.org/article/static/320/
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: PWW_CPUSA)
About Us
The People's Weekly World is the newspaper of the Communist Party, USA
reporting
on and analyzing the pressing issues of the day..
2) "Michael Moore has found his own creative way to say "NO!" to this Bush
agenda, to its juggernaut of war and repression," the Revolutionary Worker
said.
"He has said it with his satirical, impish and provocateurish riffs - from
his
own, social democratic point of view." The official link:
http://rwor.org/a/1245/fahrenheit_911_moore_movie_review.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWORreview)
Who is behind the "Revolutionary Worker"? COMMUNISTS!!!
http://rwor.org/rcp-e.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWOR_RCP)
About the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
"Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Our Vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party
Our Leader is Chairman Avakian."
How is the communist group documented above planning to achieve its
revolution?
In their own words:
http://rwor.org/a/v21/1040-049/1048/prog1.htm
(Link active July 18, 2004. Archived locally as: RWORviolence)
From the Programme of the RCP,USA
The Revolutionary Process
<<Tavish comment July 18, 2004: I have culled some of the mentally ill
statements made by the RCP USA and show them now below.>>
"Proletarian revolution requires the armed seizure of power and continuing
struggle by the masses to overthrow and finally eliminate the capitalist
system,
the bourgeoisie a | | |
