| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 03:27:17 PM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 12:40:34 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that
you don't have the "right to bear arms" actually
have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him?
Here in reality, the conclusion of "Bowling For
Columbine" was that the issue WAS NOT GUNS.
What the fil did was compare the U.S. to Canada,
which has a similar gun-ownership rate but a
significantly lower rate of gun violence.
Conclusion: The problem is cultural.
You are lying about Michael Moore. This demonstrates
to us that your hatred of the man is irrational. Why
else would you make up things about him to attack, if
you had any genuine issues with the man?
Psycho.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 12:36:34 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:aNadnVAPwL8j0G3cRVn-qw@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that
you don't have the "right to bear arms" actually
have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him?
Here in reality, the conclusion of "Bowling For
Columbine" was that the issue WAS NOT GUNS.
What the fil did was compare the U.S. to Canada,
which has a similar gun-ownership rate but a
significantly lower rate of gun violence.
Conclusion: The problem is cultural.
You are lying about Michael Moore. This demonstrates
to us that your hatred of the man is irrational. Why
else would you make up things about him to attack, if
you had any genuine issues with the man?
Moore lies to get his conclusions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 01:20:49 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
You are lying about Michael Moore. This demonstrates
to us that your hatred of the man is irrational. Why
else would you make up things about him to attack, if
you had any genuine issues with the man?
Moore lies to get his conclusions.
How ironic, given that I just demonstrated that you are
lying about Michael Moore.
He never said people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
He is a gun owner himself. His film concluded that
guns were not the issue.
You lied. You're a liar.
Michael Moore is not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 12:50:43 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aNadnVAPwL8j0G3cRVn-qw@comcast.com...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that
you don't have the "right to bear arms" actually
have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him?
Here in reality, the conclusion of "Bowling For
Columbine" was that the issue WAS NOT GUNS.
What the fil did was compare the U.S. to Canada,
which has a similar gun-ownership rate but a
significantly lower rate of gun violence.
Conclusion: The problem is cultural.
You are lying about Michael Moore. This demonstrates
to us that your hatred of the man is irrational. Why
else would you make up things about him to attack, if
you had any genuine issues with the man?
Psycho.
And you calling another man a psycho just because he doesn't worship the
same people you do is irrational.
I had respect for Moore, at one time. Until Farenheit 9/11. The film was
not accurate, it was totally biased, and he left out a lot.
What he did was, he fed off of people foaming at the mouths to attack Bush.
I am not saying Bush shouldn't be criticized. What I am saying is, Moore
took advantage and made himself a very wealthy man by doing so.
If you wish to put more money into his pocket, you go right ahead. I will
not. His agenda was clear, his motive was clear, and he made money off it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 04:01:08 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
And you calling another man a psycho just because
he doesn't worship the same people you do is irrational.
You're wrong, but this should come as a surprise to
no one.
I'm calling him a psycho because he is a psycho. He's
clinging to a falsehood. He's lying about someone,
attacking them for a position that was never their
position in the first place.
You people are psychos, because you despise
Michael Moore and yet even you realize you have
no rational reason for doing so. If you had a rational
reason you would state that reason, instead of
making up lies about the man.
You're very own rejection OF YOUR ARGUMENT
is what condemns you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 04:46:34 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1OOdnXGh-sNd4W3cRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
And you calling another man a psycho just because
he doesn't worship the same people you do is irrational.
You're wrong, but this should come as a surprise to
no one.
No, I am absolutely right. You are not mature enough to realize it, but this
should come as a surprise to no one.
I'm calling him a psycho because he is a psycho.
You are psycho
He's
clinging to a falsehood. He's lying about someone,
Look, if you want to worship Moore, even wear Moore pajama's, who cares?
The man used you and many others to make his wealth. I personally choose not
to donate to his wealth. The man distorted the facts on 9/11 and his
credibility is in jeopardy now.
attacking them for a position that was never their
position in the first place.
You people are psychos,
Says the psycho
because you despise
Michael Moore and yet even you realize you have
no rational reason for doing so.
Hey, if you want to worship him that is your business. He thanks you for it
when he goes to the bank.
If you had a rational
reason you would state that reason, instead of
making up lies about the man.
September 11th
Moore deception about 9/11
In a movie based on the devastating terror attacks that occurred on 9/11
that uses emotion of the event to persuade the viewer whenever possible, you
would think Moore would be railing against himself for insensitivity. Or
maybe you wouldn't. That aside - Moore not only manipulates and uses the
emotions suffered from 911, but he twists them with misleads and
inaccuracy...
Pre-911 Briefing
Dave Kopel:
Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, "Or perhaps he just
should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6,
2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by
hijacking airplanes."
Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not
read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore's assertion appears
to be a complete fabrication.
Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because
its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the
title of the Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the
Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather,
Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the
Briefing was "very vague." National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing,
The White House, May 16, 2002.
The content of the Briefing supports Rice's characterization, and refutes
Moore's assertion that the Briefing "said that Osama bin Laden was planning
to attack America by hijacking airplanes." The actual Briefing was highly
equivocal:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat
reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that
Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind
Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
F911 and September 11th
Dave Kopel:
Fahrenheit presents a powerful segment on the September 11 attacks. There
is no narration, and the music is dramatic yet tasteful. The visuals are
reaction shots from pedestrians, as they gasp with horrified astonishment.
Moore has been criticized for using the reaction shots as a clever way to
avoid showing the planes hitting the buildings, and some of the victims
falling to their deaths. Even if this is true, the segment still effectively
evokes the horror that every decent human being felt on September 11.
But remember, Moore does not necessarily feel the same way. As New York's
former Mayor Edward Koch reported, Moore later said,
"I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three
times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act
of terror."
Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September
11 deceit is not part of the film itself. Several of the deceits involve
claim that Moore has made when discussing the film. Like some deceits which
are identified near the end of this report, the September 11 deceit involves
the contradiction between Moore's purported feelings about a topic in the
movie and what appear to be his actual feelings about that topic. If a
Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would
be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of
Parks as a great American hero.
Bush's reaction to the attacks when in Florida
You can download the Emma Booker School video here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/06/scsb.bush.mov
"Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no Secret
Service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and
continued to read 'My Pet Goat' with the children."
The actual title of the book he is reading is:
Reading Mastery II, Storybook 1, by Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine Bruner.
ISBN 0574101284
Publisher SRA/MacMillan/Mcgraw Hill
The story he is reading is "The Pet Goat" in Lesson 60 on page 153
Christopher Hitchens notes:
More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at
the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole
minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say
that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance,
and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such
thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a
month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a
man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be
saying what they already say-that he knew the attack was coming, was using
it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup.
This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that
also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least
Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in
their paranoid box.
Kopel also observes:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a
classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the
September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary
School, praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it
better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and
ran out of the room?".
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the
classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get
through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal,"
Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Saudi's flown out of the country on 9/11
Moore creates a shady picture about a decision made by one of his own
sources
"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film"
liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens says Moore "makes heavy innuendoes
about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the
country after Sept. 11". As Hitchens notes in a recent article, he too had a
problem with this, but changed his position when the facts came out. So why
didn't Moore? From Hitchens:
I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column
drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the
insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent
developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's
triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11
commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of
the flights.
Moore interviews former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who, as
Newsmax noted, served as a principal source for Fahrenheit 9/11. However,
Clarke has gone on record saying that the central premise of Moore's film is
"a mistake." From Newsmax:
In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with
Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including
members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days
after the 9/11 attacks.
Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea
pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big
part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake."
Note the word "HIS". Not president Bush's decision...Richard Clarke's (a
published Bush critic) decision. Once again, Moore's own source proves him
wrong.
"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing
the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they
asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal
request," he explained.
In May, Clarke confessed that he, and he alone made the decision to
approve the flyouts.
A desperate Moore-fan has to really scramble over this one yet again to
find some excuse for Moore to somehow not be lying here. But Clarke leave no
room for honest mistake here.
"It didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill newspaper. "On
9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it
in consultation with the FBI."
STILL want to give Moore a free pass for missing Clarke's confession in
May and still brush this off as an honest mistake that Moore spends a large
chunk of time on in his movie? Not a smart move if you want to keep from
looking foolish.
Clarke told the 9/11 Commission the same thing in March, after first
detailing the episode for Vanity Fair magazine last August - leaving plenty
of time for Moore to adjust his film to the facts as recounted by his
primary source.
And back to Hitches:
This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except
that-as you might expect-Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed
ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very
likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation,
Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush
administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic
"key to all mythologies."
But this entire criticism has a huge gaping damming hole in its logic, as
if we are to believe Moore's argument that Bush is in an unseemly
partnership with the Saudi's, why then didn't they join "the Coalition of
the Willing"? Hitchens asks:
Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional
military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty
live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar
sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come
the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush
from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?
Logic and historical fact crush Moore's argument to pieces, but Moore's
appeal is never with facts or logic, but rather emotion, and thus the
audience is tempted to go along with his leaps of believability due to their
presentation. The truth is much different:
The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated
oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation
of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to
collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore
prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where
stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the
local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange
position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this
conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with
a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.
Spinsanity slices at another angle:
In another scene, Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden's
family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air
traffic was grounded after September 11. After an initial report in Newsweek
inaccurately characterized the scene, saying it had made a direct claim to
that effect, Moore's staff replied with a legalistic parsing. The film does
accurately date the Saudi flights out of the country to "after September 13"
as they claim (flights leaving the country resumed on the 14th), but Moore
does not take the important step of explaining the meaning of this date in
the film:
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private
airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could
fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the
highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family
members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up
the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and
nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out
of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of
the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Given that Moore states that "In the days following September 11, all
commercial and private airline traffic was grounded," how are viewers to
know that this description did not include the Saudi flights out of the
country? The "after September 13th" clause may show that Moore's claim was
technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression
that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.
Bush's first 8 months in office
Moore lies about Bush's supposed failures/inaction early in his
presidency
David Koppel:
The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C.,
on the day of Bush's inauguration. Moore continues:
"No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration
day. And for the next eight months it didn't get any better for George W.
Bush. He couldn't get his judges appointed; he had trouble getting his
legislation passed; and he lost Republican control of the Senate. His
approval ratings in the polls began to sink."
Part of this is true. Once Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the
Republican party, Democrats controlled the Senate, and stalled the
confirmation (not "appointment") of some of the judges whom Bush had
nominated for the federal courts.
Congress did enact the top item on Bush's agenda: a large tax cut.
During the summer, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives easily
passed many of Bush's other agenda items, including the bill whose numbering
reflected the President's top priority: H.R. 1, the Bush "No Child Left
Behind" education bill. The fate of the Bush bills in the
Democratic-controlled Senate, as of August 2001, was uncertain. The Senate
later did pass No Child Left Behind, but some other Bush proposals did not
pass.
Did Bush's approval ratings begin to sink? Not really. Moore shows a
screen displaying Bush with 53% job approval on May 3, and 45% on September
5. Strangely, the screen shot includes no source for this alleged poll.
University of Minnesota History Professor Steven Ruggles has compiled
a chart showing Bush's approval ratings in 13 major polls throughout his
Presidency. According the chart, never during 2001 did Bush's approval
rating fall as low as 45% in any of the polls.
Nor did Bush's approval ratings really "sink" after inauguration day.
Bush's popularity ratings rose significantly in April (when his tax cut was
the main issue in Congress), and then returned to more normal levels in
June. From Bush's inaugural until September 10, almost all of his approval
ratings were in the 50-60% range, with only a few results from an occasional
poll either higher or lower.
Lee from Moorewatch picks each issue apart:
Comment @ Moorewatch
About eight minutes into the film we have Michael Moore's thumbnail
look at Bush's first eight months in office. Let's take a look at the
accuracy of his portrayal.
He couldn't get his judges appointed.
Absolutely not true. While there was indeed some issues where
Democrats obstructed some of Bush's judicial nominees, Bush did indeed get a
number of judges appointed and confirmed by Congress. This DOJ page shows
the judicial confirmations that took place during the 107th Congress. Every
one of these was a Bush appointee.
He had trouble getting his legislation passed.
At this point Moore shows a clip of an unfurling Greenpeace banner
protesting drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. However, what
Moore fails to mention is that during this time period Bush got a massive
tax cut passed, the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of
2001. Even if this was the only thing Bush accomplished during this time
period (it wasn't) it would show Moore's assertion to be patently untrue.
And he lost Republican control of the Senate.
Here Moore shows a clip of Sen. Jim Jeffords, who defected from the
GOP to become an independent who caucused with the Democrats. While this is
factually accurate, it is worthwhile to note that the first election cycle
after the defection saw the American people return control of the Senate to
Republican hands, and Jim Jeffords making overtures to his former party to
keep his committee chairmanship.
Bush's August Vacation
From paratrooper, caught by JimK (Discuss @ Moorewatch):
Here's the first actual lie I found in the movie transcript. Not only
is it factually untrue, but it's also wrong in spirit. The Presidency
travels with the President. He had daily security briefings ( except
Sunday). His staff was with him, along with a bunch of reporters. He did
work most days, and TRAVELED away from the ranch.
He did not stay at the ranch for the rest of August. He was in and
out.
FROM THE MOVIE:
George Bush spent the rest of August at the ranch where life was
less complicated.
This is said to give the impression that Bush wasn't working for a
whole month, and never traveled away from the ranch.
BUT.............
From the Official White House Press Briefing for August travel
arrangements;
While in Texas, he will have a working vacation there. I was going
to do this at the end of the briefing. Let me give you some information now.
But the President will travel for approximately two days a week each week
during his visit to Texas. The upcoming week, he will travel one day to
build a house in nearby Waco, Texas, to participate in a Habitat for
Humanity event.
The following week, the President will travel to Colorado and New
Mexico. The week following that, the President will travel roughly three
days to Wisconsin and other locations TBD. He'll also travel to Pennsylvania
that week.
The following week, the President will have an event in nearby San
Antonio, and you can also anticipate travel over Labor Day weekend to some
unnamed cities as of this point.
Now, before you asshats say "Is that the best you can do?"
I must say , yes.
That's the best I can do with the first 4 minutes of the movie.
Now.............to minute 5.
Here's some further information:
August 1, 2001: Nominated six US Attorneys, two judges for
affirmation by Congress.
Placed phone calls to PM Blair and Ahern to discuss matters
between
Britain and Northern Ireland.
President announces an agreement on the Patients Bill of Right
President addresses National Urban League Conference
August 2, 2001: President meets with House and Senate education
leaders.
August 3, 2001: Placed six more nominations for US Attorneys.
President speaks to press at meeting to discuss his first six
months in
office and the agenda for the future.
President attends a ceremony in East Room honoring Lance Armstrong
August 4, 2001: President's Radio Address
August 7, 2001: Press conference in Waco, TX with pool of
reporters
August 8, 2001: President helps build a home with Habitat For
Humanity, then addresses
the group on faith-based and community initiatives.
August 9, 2001: Addressed the nation on stem-cell research
August 10, 2001: Announces nomination of two US Ambassadors
August 11, 2001: President's Radio Address
August 13, 2001: Presidential Ceremony to sign the Agriculture
Supplemental Bill
President holds two press conferences with traveling White House
pool.
The rest of the month had just as much, if not more, activity. I will
omit it here to save space,
but you can find complete information at the following pages:
White House, -News releases for August 2001"
White House Press Briefing, August 1, 2001
White House Press Briefing, August 3, 2001
White House Press Briefing, August 9, 2001
White House Press Briefing, August 22, 2001
White House Press Briefing, August 31, 2001
The President was in Texas from August 7-13 and 21-25. The rest of the
month was spent traveling to New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri and
then back to Washington at the end of the month.
A review of the White House news archive for August 2001 shows this
month to be anything but a -vacation". It is naïve to think that the
President spent an entire month doing nothing, as Michael Moore implies.
Arguing both sides again
Christopher Hitchens points out the inconsistency of this phony
criticism as well as another misrepresentation by Moore's sneaky camera
tricks:
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can
only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed
up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush
is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the
way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive
wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side
with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so
briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A
meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this
prime minister, is not a goof-off.
Hitchens also comments on my absolute favorite Bush line ever: the "Now
watch this drive" line.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf
course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then
asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you
catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he
often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton
had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm.
Exactly.
George Bush's Connections with Saudi Arabia
Moore distorts Bush Saudi Ties
As noted on this site, Michael Moore completely misrepresents the action
of certain Saudi's that were flown out of the country on 9/11. Working off
the same theme, Moore paints an inaccurate portrait of Bush's ties to Saudi
Arabia. Ignoring completely the connection every president has had to the
Saudi's since FDR, Moore goes to lengths to defame Bush.
Christopher Hitchens in Slate:
Moore asks, "Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up
in the morning they might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis
instead of what's best for you?" But his Bush/Saudi conspiracy theory is
contradicted by very obvious facts:
.why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the
Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its
regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud
dynasty live in each other's pockets.then how come the most reactionary
regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its
clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they
did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge
their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so
despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic
edifice of the film's "theory."
Bush and Prince Bandar
Dave Kopel:
Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi
Arabia's ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not
explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for
decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance
Clinton's own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, "The Prince. How the Saudi
Ambassador became Washington's indispensable operator," The New Yorker, Mar.
24, 2003.)
President Clinton's former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler,
has been earning a lucrative living as a Saudi apologist and serving as
Chairman of the Middle East Institute-a research organization heavily funded
by Saudi Arabia. (Joel Mowbray, "Feeding at the Saudi Trough," Townhall.com,
Oct. 1, 2003.)
I am not suggesting that Mr. Fowler is in any way corrupt; I'm sure
that he is sincere (although, in my view, mistaken) in his strongly
pro-Saudi viewpoint. What is misleading is for Moore to look at the web of
Saudi influence in Washington only in regard to the Republican Bushes, and
to ignore the fact that Saudi influence and money are widespread in both
parties.
Saudi Investments in the United States
Dave Kopel:
Moore asks Craig Unger: "How much money do the Saudis have invested in
America, roughly?"
Unger replies "Uh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion
dollars."
Instead of relying on unsourced figures that someone says he "heard,"
let's look at the available data. According to the Institute for Research
Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the
importance of Saudi money to the United States), in February 2003 total
worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700 billion. Sixty percent of the
Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had about 420
billion invested in the U.S.-a large amount, but less than half of the
amount that Moore's source claims he "heard." (Tanya C. Hsu , "The United
States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment" Sept. 23, 2003.)
Special Protection for Saudi Embassy
Dave Kopel:
Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in
Washington, D.C.:
Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House,
for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing
standing across the street from the Saudi embassy..
Officer: That's fine. Just wanted to get some information on what
was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn't realize the Secret Service
guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.
But in fact:
Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service
Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such
protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings,
it's the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service's Uniformed
Division.
Debbie Schlussel, "FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore's Latest Fiction,"
June 25, 2004.
According to the Secret Service website:
Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House
Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and
Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC
area.
So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the
Saudi embassy in Washington-especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken
place against Saudi Arabia.
More on Saudi ties...
Newsmax reports:
A central theme of Michael Moore's controversial documentary
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a bare allegation that Saudi Arabian interests provided
$1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President
George W. Bush.
However, as a special Newsweek investigative report notes, there is
really less - not more - than meets the eye re the dramatic Moore claim:
a.. Nearly 90 percent of that claimed amount, $1.18 billion, comes
from contracts in the early to mid-1990's that the Saudi Arabian government
awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country's
military and National Guard. The "Bush" connection: The firm at the time was
owned by the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate
advisory board once included the president's father, George H.W. Bush.
a.. But, points out Newsweek, former president Bush didn't join the
Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998 -- five months after Carlyle had
already sold BDM to another defense firm.
a.. As for the sitting president's own Carlyle link, his service on
the board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor -- a few months
before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was
awarded.
a.. The Carlyle Group is hardly a "Bush Inc," noted Newsweek - but
rather features a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. "Its
founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top
domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm's senior advisors is
Thomas "Mack" McLarty, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, and
Arthur Levitt, Clinton's former chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton's
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission."
a.. According to the report, the movie neglects to offer any evidence
that Bush White House intervened in any way to bolster the interests of the
Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most
directly affected the company's interest was the cancellation of a $11
billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system. The Crusader was
manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until
it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001. Carlyle still
owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld canceled the Crusader program the
following year.
a.. As to Moore's dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis
flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror
attacks, the 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi
passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of
them and asked many of them "detailed questions." "Nobody of interest to the
FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,"
the commission stated.
a.. The entity in the White House that approved the flights wasn't the
president, or the vice president -- it was Richard Clarke, the
counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration.
Clarke has testified that he gave the approval conditioned on FBI clearance.
Congressman war sign up
Moore lies about congressman's willingness to have offspring in war
By Dave Kopel:
Early in this segment, Moore states that "only one" member of Congress
has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting
Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the
military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress
wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."
Moore's conclusion is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course
no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is,
Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are
both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic
Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in
Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter
quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery
unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau
Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and
therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because
the answer would not fit Moore's thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft's
son is on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
..Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in
Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he
would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a
nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his
son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had
already served in the armed forces. Kennedy's side of the conversation,
however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and
defensive.
What was Michael's excuse for trimming the key segment?
Kennedy's remarks didn't help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew
that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said 'No,
no, that's not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq.
Not a nephew.'"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading"
after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective
cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you're up on Capitol Hill
encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons
and daughters to enlist . in the military. And one of those members of
Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he
told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in
Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn't always give
the whole truth. He's a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn't have
any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this
movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid
in-
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:. No, he didn't. And we released the transcript and we put it
on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like
this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going
to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he's lying. And I've got the raw
footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come
at me like this, this is exactly what they're going to get. And people can
go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just
said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy.
He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy's
staff agrees that Moore's Website is accurate but insists the movie version
is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I'm trying to get
members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to
Iraq." But, from the transcript, here's the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I'd be happy to - especially those who voted for the war. I
have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy
agreed to help Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael
Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is
presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What
the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children
from other families? Let's use Moore's methodology, and ignore members of
extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect
Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many
countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families
(like Rep. Castle's) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there was one (Brooks
Johnson) with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with
American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in
Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could
estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point.
According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the
United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of
ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to
300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service
personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ration of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more
likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi
serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more
sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households
from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military.
Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived
viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different
from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving
in Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the
military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at
risk to protect their country.
Veterans in Congress?
David Kopel & the Fahrenheit Fact blog also notes that a large number of
Congress people are veterans. Moore's thesis relies on U.S. Congress people
being wealthy, ignorant aristocrats who send poor soldiers to die in a war
zone to which they will not commit their own children. (FF):
However, a bit of research shows us that our representatives and
senators may not be as aloof as Moore implies:
According to a tally compiled by Richard Aragon and John Rossie, 101
of the men and women sitting in the House of Representatives formerly served
in the military. Of these, 17 saw active duty in combat zones. When we
consider that there are 435 seats in the House, we see that close to a
fourth of them gave a portion of their lives to the U.S. military.
The Senate numbers are even more surprising. Of the 100 U.S. Senators,
36 of them are former military servicemen (9 of whom saw combat duty). That
means a little over a third of America's senators once served in the very
vocation Moore implies they know nothing about.
You're very own rejection OF YOUR ARGUMENT
is what condemns you.
Go ahead and worship Moore, he is finished.
Not that he cares, liberals like yourself have him set for the rest of his
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 09:11:33 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
The man distorted the facts on 9/11 and his
credibility is in jeopardy now.
You're proving my point.
Michael Moore scaled back his charges concerning
9/11 for the film, limiting himself to public facts
that he knew would stand up to scrutiny.
Michael Moore was totally accurate about the
special Saudi flights, and we know that even
without reading the Saudi ambassador's
confirmation in a NYT interview...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm
But you don't care about the truth. Your
God, Bush, cares only for loyalty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 09:56:36 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oIWdnQTk1sQdWG3cRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
The man distorted the facts on 9/11 and his
credibility is in jeopardy now.
You're proving my point.
And you have proven mine, you are obsessed with a man from Canada who used
you to gain wealth.
I have given you WAY MORE evidence of how he lied and distorted, and you are
so far up his ***** you snipped it.
Michael Moore scaled back his charges concerning
9/11 for the film, limiting himself to public facts
that he knew would stand up to scrutiny.
Michael Moore was totally accurate about the
special Saudi flights, and we know that even
without reading the Saudi ambassador's
confirmation in a NYT interview...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm
But you don't care about the truth.
Says the one who snipped everything out that was against his new love.
Your
God, Bush, cares only for loyalty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 10:05:40 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
You're proving my point.
And you have proven mine, you are obsessed with a
man from Canada
Once again, you've proven my point. Michael Moore
isn't from Canada. He's an American, a patriot.
You're not attacking Michael Moore. You're attacking
a fictional character that you pretend is Michael Moore.
Michael Moore was totally accurate about the
special Saudi flights, and we know that even
without reading the Saudi ambassador's
confirmation in a NYT interview...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm
But you don't care about the truth.
Says the one who snipped everything
I have no intention of reading a 43kb rant from a
drooling imbecile who lacks a firm grasp of
reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 10:26:29 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9ednamMJNVy52zcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
You're proving my point.
And you have proven mine, you are obsessed with a
man from Canada
Once again, you've proven my point. Michael Moore
isn't from Canada. He's an American, a patriot.
I was wrong about the Canada part, yes he is from America.
A patriot? Not even close.
But you go right on worshiping him...why don't you donate some more of your
money to him? He will take it.
You're not attacking Michael Moore. You're attacking
a fictional character that you pretend is Michael Moore.
Michael Moore was totally accurate about the
special Saudi flights, and we know that even
without reading the Saudi ambassador's
confirmation in a NYT interview...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm
But you don't care about the truth.
Says the one who snipped everything
I have no intention of reading a 43kb rant from a
drooling imbecile who lacks a firm grasp of
reality.
Of course you have no intention...you would rather kiss his *****..and there
is plenty there to kiss...and bury your head in the sand. Typical left
winger.
The truth hurts...well in your case it doesn't because you are too afraid to
face the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 09:54:55 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
I was wrong about the Canada part,
You're wrong now.
That is to say, it wasn't just "the Canada part".
It's simply the only mistake, the only portion
of your fantasy that you can acknowledge.
Your "truth" isn't in the facts, it's in which
side of your partisan world you believe it's
coming from.
Not coincidentally, it's the only factual error
that was pointed out to you by a fellow
drooling imbecile.
It's "Safe" for you to remove "the Canada part"
from your fictional view of Michael Moore,
because someone on your side of your
invisible partisan lines said so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 01:27:06 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:OqqdnavWg4C3vG_cRVn-2g@comcast.com:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
I was wrong about the Canada part,
You're wrong now.
That is to say, it wasn't just "the Canada part".
It's simply the only mistake, the only portion
of your fantasy that you can acknowledge.
Your "truth" isn't in the facts, it's in which
side of your partisan world you believe it's
coming from.
Not coincidentally, it's the only factual error
that was pointed out to you by a fellow
drooling imbecile.
It's "Safe" for you to remove "the Canada part"
from your fictional view of Michael Moore,
because someone on your side of your
invisible partisan lines said so.
Snipping posts now? You fucking coward.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 10:13:49 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OqqdnavWg4C3vG_cRVn-2g@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
I was wrong about the Canada part,
You're wrong now.
That is to say, it wasn't just "the Canada part".
That was the only part I was wrong on.
I provided plenty of evidence, with sources, that Moore distorted the truth,
and like the true coward most liberals are...you snipped and ran.
You deserve no respect.
Now, in return I snip your dibble. If you wish to worship Moore do so. But
you worship a liar and one who used you to line his pocket.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 05:45:24 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
That is to say, it wasn't just "the Canada part".
That was the only part I was wrong on.
No, it's the only part of your fiction you can remove,
because someone on your side of your invisible
partisan line told you to.
Again, you don't live in reality. Your "truth" isn't
in the facts. For you, all that matters is which
side of your partisan line it's coming from.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:08:03 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OqqdnavWg4C3vG_cRVn-2g@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
I was wrong about the Canada part,
You're wrong now.
That is to say, it wasn't just "the Canada part".
That was the only part I was wrong on.
I provided plenty of evidence, with sources, that Moore distorted the truth,
and like the true coward most liberals are...you snipped and ran.
You deserve no respect.
Now, in return I snip your dibble. If you wish to worship Moore do so. But
you worship a liar and one who used you to line his pocket.
<snip>
I'll hand him a wet-wipe so he can clean Moores ***** off for
kissing.
<shudder>
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:07:03 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
I was wrong about the Canada part,
You're wrong now.
You're snipping his posts now. How dishonest.
Moore is nothing more than a spoiled pig.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:15:23 PM |
|
|
"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote
You're snipping his posts now.
How remarkably observant of you!
Image that, trimming articles down to what
you're actually responding to! Who could
have thought of that?
Oh yes! Now I remember! The people who
set up usenet in the first place!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 02:26:14 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9ednamMJNVy52zcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
You're proving my point.
And you have proven mine, you are obsessed with a
man from Canada
Once again, you've proven my point. Michael Moore
isn't from Canada. He's an American, a patriot.
I was wrong about the Canada part, yes he is from America.
A patriot? Not even close.
But you go right on worshiping him...why don't you donate some more of your
money to him? He will take it.
You're not attacking Michael Moore. You're attacking
a fictional character that you pretend is Michael Moore.
Michael Moore was totally accurate about the
special Saudi flights, and we know that even
without reading the Saudi ambassador's
confirmation in a NYT interview...
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/8885976.htm
But you don't care about the truth.
Says the one who snipped everything
I have no intention of reading a 43kb rant from a
drooling imbecile who lacks a firm grasp of
reality.
Of course you have no intention...you would rather kiss his *****..and there
is plenty there to kiss...and bury your head in the sand. Typical left
winger.
LOL!!! He'll have to wash his ***** thouroughly before he
does kiss Moores *****.
The guy is a filthy bum.
The truth hurts...well in your case it doesn't because you are too afraid to
face the truth.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
