AssemblyBoard

My question is why do evangelical Christians get behind the highly unethical arch conservative politicians, especially that dunce in the White House. I've never found their dirty tactics or their inhamane policies Christian yet I've known people in the church who think these people are right and will excuse any they atrocities (especially international) perpetrate.

     I have always wondered why Christians get behind any politician.  To me, voting has always represented choosing the lesser of evils, and the choice is seldom an easy one.  I have yet to find a politician who can convince me he or she is not in some lobby's pocket.

     I am always dismayed by the churches that stage protests regarding political issues, as if godliness can be legislated.   Ban guns, ban drugs, ban abortion, ban smoking, ban the death penalty:  You will not change one person's mind about anything.  All that will change is the ways in which individuals who are bent upon having things their own way go about attaining their goals.  The U.S. proved that during the 20th century with prohibition.

     "History always repeats itself, and we never learn from history."  Who was it used to say that? ??? ::)

al

I have been asking the same questions for a long long time,  When? Why did voteing Democrate qualify you for the Lake of Fire?  Christians use to vote both partys until the 1980's!  That is when Jerry Falwell began his crusade to premote Reagan through "The Moral Majority"  These people constatntly hammered Democrates as "immoral" (Jimmy Carter immoral?  Comon the guy is the most Christ like man in politics!)and Reagan as a "Born Again Christian who believes in God and Country" Issues like abortion became the main reason for voteing against a canidate.  During the 1988 election I voted for Dukakis.  Not because he supported a womans right to choose but that he supported health care for all Americans and he supported education for all Americans. Yet, Curtis Miles just happened to see my registration when he voted and I got lectured when he got home. My thinking is, Why would a guy who struggles to support his family  vote Republican?  Republicans do not cater to the poor- but the rich.  They have been very successful at presenting themselves as the moral party.  When in truth they demonstrate immorality.  During the late 1980's the saints in Fullerton started listening to Rush Limbaugh. They bought into all of the same Falwell rhetoric.  Recently I watched an interview on ABC.  A woman was asked, Who will you vote for?"  "George Bush" was her reply, Why,  "Because he is a Christian"  For this woman it is not an issue about who is best for the job.  It is an issue between God and Satan.  This is wrong!  We need to see that all human beings have the same potential for good deciscions and bad.    

David,

You hit a nerve with me when you bring up the issue of abortion. I just want to put my 2 cents in here.

Abortion is murder of an unborn human being, fetus, if you will, but it is a HUMAN fetus.

It's my belief that someone who has no problem with abortion and in fact, is for it, does not hold the sanctity of human life in the same regard as someone who considers it to be murder. Condoning abortion is a symptom of something gone wrong with the way a person is thinking. It will affect more than just the way they vote in congress or the house.

Someone who is in authority is held responsible for what he allows under his "rule".  I believe that the presidents that we have had, who have allowed abortion and funded it, are going to have to answer for all the deaths that occurred. Partial "birth" abortions? How barbaric, and Clinton would not stand against it when he could have.

There is one big difference that I know of between the democratic party and the republican party: free enterprise. The republican party supports free enterprise: small businesses. Democrats want to tax the businesses to pay for their government programs.
This is quite a general statement, but it is a difference between the two parties.

Democratic party tends to be for more governmental
control, the republican party for less.

Al,
I believe it is important for anyone to speak out against abortion. There are many, many women who have emotional problems for the rest of their life, including suicides due to the guilt involved. Infertility is a problem many of them have as a result. Many don't even know what is involved when they enter a clinic. Someone needs to inform them about the after-effects of abortion.

Will I vote for a pro-lifer? You bet.

It is obvious that Moore is liberal.  I saw him on TV ;) at the Democrat convention.  Has he done an exposee on Kerry?  If not, why not?  or, I should be asking, Why did he do one on Bush?  He has a prejudice and an agenda.

I might have voted for Carter because he is Christian :).  I agree that not all republican presidential candidates are 'the best man for the job'.  Clinton(a democrat) wasn't either, but he was the 'least of the evils' at the time.  And then the US economy was doing so well for some reason or another so Clinton got re-elected; why change and rock the boat eh??

Someone sent me this:
---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FW: I'm Confused
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:47:09 -0500

I'M CONFUSED...

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out
in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one
guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to
believe? Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------

Marcia

When I was just under the voting age, I would have voted for Jimmy Carter.  Back then, I think you were right.  Christians voted across different parties.

Perhaps to an extent that was changed by Jerry Fallwell's moral majority, but I don't think that is completly it.  A large portion of conservative Chrstians do not get behind the ideas of the defunct moral majority.  We see trying to change society from the top down is wrongheaded and misguided.

What has happened since 1976 is that the parties have become polarized on moral issues that Christians are deeply concerned about - abortion and the institute of marriage (there are a few prolife Democrats but they will never get anywhere in their party).  We are at a loss as to why we can't find a solution for both the mother and the baby instead of just the mother.

 A further coelary is that, being people who study a book, we want the constitution to be taken literally (e.g., Congress should not make a law to establish a religion is what the constitution says, but local governments being forced to remove Christian, but not other religous, symbols from their seals has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Further, the constitution teaches "the right to bear arms", not "the right to privacy for abortion".  If such changes are to be made, they should be made through the legislature, not activist judges.)  With this postmodern approach to government, we are concerned at a continuing trend to spiritualize the Constitution into whatever people want to make it.

Also, we Christians feel that with the Democrats in bed with the National Teacher's Assiociation, humanistic public schools will be the only options afforded anyone.  We are a diverse nation now and should be able to choose the the quality and content of the education we are paying for.

These issues tend to fall very rigidly down party lines which is why conservative Christians tend to see Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

What it basically comes down to is this:  what are your worst fears?  Everyone understands that society is heading somewhere.  They know where they want it to go and where they don't want it to go.  Everyone has in their head the worst case scenerio for society.  Whatever side addresses your worst fears, that is the side you tend to vote for.  Whatever side seems to fulfill your worst fears, that is the side you see as the enemy.

-Dave

P.S. to Shin:  Conservatives see liberals as the party of anger and baseless accusations that has nothing to offer but inconsolable hatred against Bush.  Your post had done nothing to change that perseption.

OK, I've never been thrilled that Bush is in office. I am not soft selling that. I do not believe he is office by honest means at all.

During the 90's, conservatives seemed to have a lot of anger and inconsolable hatred towards Clinton to the point that there was a lot of dirty politics in the form of all those proceedings against him.

That is true, Shin.  We beat up on President Clinton pretty bad.  

I think there are two forces at work.  First, people's fears.  When someone is in office who contradicts our personal values we fear the worst.  When people are afraid, the natural instinct is to react in anger while characterizing and demonizing the one that holds the power.  This is true regardless of what political side you are on.

Second, it is much easier to criticize an incumbent.  The party that is out of office can speak in terms of ideals (if I were in power, I would do it this way . . .).  The one in office has to deal with practical facts, pressures, decisions and compromises.  Again, this is true for both parties.

So, when you look at Bush, you see an incompetent dope who masterfully deceived the nation.  When I look at Clinton, I see a self-serving slick talker who can't keep his pants zipped.   Both are images built upon our fears.  Neither one are true reflections of these men and what they have accomplished.

I suppose the 2000 election debate will never be resolved and it fuels the anger for revenge in 2004.  I personally had problems with the media announcing that Gore won Florida before the results were in (which probably had an impact in the election in people not going to the polls thinking their candidate had already won or lost).

I also felt that Gore's attempt to cherry-pick favorable presincts for recounts was rather dubious.

My understanding is that the surpreme court simply upheld existing election law.   I can understand liberal's anger because it is one of the few times they weren't able to press their adjenda upon America through the courts.

I'll tell you what, if we let Gore (or Kerry) be president, can we have "Row vs. Wade" and the "Gay Marriage" decision back?  We would like to work these issues through the legislature instead of activist judges like they are supposed to.  I'm sure someone will eventually find the right court to get "under God" out of the pledge.

So, stop griping about the court decision that was lost in 2000.  Most of the decisions go liberal's way which is why they use this means so often instead of the constitutional one involving the legislature.

Some of those things were true, i.e. Monica Lewinsky. While this had little bearing on the Paula Jones case (because Lewinsky was not a victim of sexual harassment but a willing participant), it was something very unprofessional and unbecoming of the President. However, the whole investigation was a waste of national resources. The only people who really seemed to profit from it were Paula Jones, who got a make-over, and some drag queens who were incapable of impersonating Madonna so they did Linda Tripp instead.



That's a good point. And strangely enough, any candidate who seems to have integrity on either side never see the light of day in an election. Fear and mudslinging, unfortunately, is much more effective in getting a vote than discussing the real issues. So is mud slinging.


People in the out of office party usually have political track records which give some indication of how they would be as presidents, espcially Clinton and Bush, former governors of some very southern states. However, it is nothing compared to the incumbent selling his current track record in office for re-election.


I certainly agree about Clinton being a slick talker. The lamest thing he ever said was to say he didn't inhale. He smoked the damn joint! Maybe even more. You can't try and not inhale unless it's a brownie. So maybe he ate one instead. That is nothing compared to his lack of follow through on his most liberal promises. He catered to a more moderate and somewhat conservative agenda (which ironically frustrated his conservative foes). Bush, while never using Clinton's "tried but didn't inhale" when asked about any past drug use, bluntly said, "It's none of your business." I think he has used, otherwise he would have simply said no. This, like Clinton's half-ass admission, is nothing compared to similarly blunt but deflective rhetoric is constantly used to evade criticism or to justify our state of war which seems to hop from one hot spot to another in the Middle East.

Your fears about Gore or Kerry are not shared by me. My fears about Bush, especially those that surround the Patriot Act, may not be shared by you.

Marcia,  from what little I understand about the Yugoslavia situation was that a group of people, (Albanian Muslims) were being systematically anihilated. (Genocide) Clinton, with the full approval and full involvment of  of the U.N., saved millions of lives by intervening, Yes bombing the Serbs!  (Of which he was critisized by a right winger named Michael Moore in the film Bowling for Columbine.)  It is interesting to read your account of the situation.  Bush on the other hand has invaded a country that was not presently commiting genocide. (although in the late 80s' Saddam did gas the kurds with weapons sold to him by our Country.) Yet at the time Bush invaded Iraq Saddam was not openly doing anything that meritted an invasion. He was allowing weapon inspectors to make sure he wasn't doing anything. All Bush had to do was continue the inspections. The U.N. refused to sanction the invasion by President Bush because Bush could not prove "A real and present danger" in Iraq.  There is a lot I do not know about the whole Eastern European situation but I believe that Clinton did the honorable thing. A year after Clinton bombed the Serbs there was and is a relative peace and stability in Yugoslavia.  Yet a year after Bush invaded Iraq there is a much different situation!

David M,

The real diference of opinion here is that you are liberal and I am conservative.  So I am interested in the reasons that you support the democrat point of view.

On the topic of U.N. approval, I have a few other comments.  The UN is not the conscience of the world.  Many in the UN are from Arab nations, so it was very unlikely that they would vote for war on an Arab brother nation ie Iraq.  Yugoslavia, on the other hand, well a group of people were being annihilated, so that was an easier call.

Yesterday I watched Pearl Harbor, an American story, produced by Americans, so the American cause was pre-dominant.  But then, it was an unforgetable and trajic event.  Who came to aid the US and rebuild Pearl Harbor?  It reminded me of 9/11 when a foregin enemy 'invaded' the American people on their soil without a prior declaration of war.  IMO Bush's motivation was to protect his country from further terrorism.  In WWII the Americans were criticized for not entering the war effort soon enough.  Now they are criticized for entering it too soon because Sadaam was not presently commiting genocide.  For the most part the Iraqi people themselves are very happy to be liberated from their tyrant dictator (as we ex-assemblyites are for being liberated from ours).

From Dave Sable's post I gathered that the main diff between republican and democrat is their stand on moral issues.

Watergate was big news when I was a teenager.  Then the movie All the President's Men was released and I thought that it was a factual documentary of the events surrounding Watergate.  Until years later when I read Born Again by Chuck Colson.  I discovered that the 'informer' was actually feeding the reporters propoganda and it was not really 'the truth of the matter'.  It created in me a certain distrust/caution in all that is reported.

This Michael Moore guy is a democrat, so Bush is always the 'bad' guy to him just because Bush is republican.  I'm sure Kerry has his 'failings' too on top of being liberal ;).

These are my opinios and not intended to slam you.
Lord bless,
Marcia

 :)Hello David:

You are a history buff arent you, and a political science expert too.

I read your post, and amaze at the world affairs you are so knowledgeable about.

SO I am going to test that history, political world affairs knowledge of yours.

What do you know of the FLQ crisis here in Canada in the 1970's.

And if you have any editorial comments on it , I will be very interested in reading it.

"Just having abit of fun"...........BUT............



Lenore

Thank you, Shin for your honest exchange.

I have been listening to Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) commentary on Romans (I have his entire through the Bible on MP3 which I bought for $40.00 when I was in California a few years ago).  He was talking about how prevelant pornography was in society and said "I can't imagine it getting any worse than it is."

I had to chuckle because the message was given in 1983.  Who had any idea of the PC revolution and the internet?

Elijah couldn't imagine things being any worse when he was chased by Jezebel yet God said, "I have reserved for myself 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

The point is, as bad as things seem to get, God's people are sustained by God.  Ultimately, God is sovereign.  Christians, resting upon God's provision, have survived any form of government.  

So, to balance my comments on fear, after the debate, campaigning, and voting, God will allow his leader to go forth whoever that may be (he may just give us the government we deserve).  If days grow darker, the church will just have to start being the church and allow God to empower them through the Holy Spirit.

The FLQ had to do with the Fun Loving Queers who avioded the draft and sought refuge in Canada. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Marcia,  Michael Moore is an independent who is a critic of democrates and republicans alike.  I became aware of politics during the 8os when an obnoxious jerk I worked with slammed his republican views down everyones throat.  I have always believed that the government should take an active role in education.  This is the vision of Thomas Jefferson and the best way to keep citizens from being taken advantaged by their leaders.
Also, I  think our country (the U.S.A.) (over 40% do not have coverage) is way behind in healthcare benefits for its citizens. (I have worked in healthcare for over 24 years)  I also am a public school teacher. Lenore?  I never claimed to be a history buff.  I have claimed to be very uneducated and in the last post I said I really didn't understand the Yugoslavia situation.  I do have a B.A. in Liberal Studies and have done a lot of reading on my own (15 years in the assembly with no T.V. will do that to you.) Forthe past 10 years I have studied the Viet Nam war.  I have asked the questions.  Why? What went wrong?  How could a little island of communist Viet Cong defeat the U.S.A.?  my conclusions were, 1.  we were fighting against people who believed in what they were doing more than we did.  2.  It is impossible to fight an enemy who wont play by your rules.  These are the same problems I could forsee happening in Iraq.  Yes an uneducated fool as myself could forsee it.  How ironic?  I have also read about 20 books on the civil war.  My folks were confederates!  I have just finished teaching 6th grade and had to do a lot of research in ancient history, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans.  (My understanding of the scriptures was greatly enlightened by this research!) As for the FLQ  I have enjoyed G.O.s Animal farm because it shows the failures without destroying the ideal!

David M,

Yes, obnoxious people can definitely turn others off what they were being obnoxious about. :P

I can see your parallel points re. Vietnam and Iraq.  Vietnam was a fiasco.  I pray that Iraq will not be the same.  Have you seen Path to War, the HBO production on the Johnson administration's Vietnam policy?

Re. health care, Clinton promised to implement a government controlled health care system, but failed to do so.  I heard that sometimes the doctors/nurses charge ridiculous rates if one has health insurance, like $10 to administer a Tylenol.

Lord bless,
Marcia

"We were used to such things in the communist days."

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, after watching the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. He predicted that the film would have little impact on public opinion in the nation: "Everybody has open eyes and can understand that this is propaganda." —•

http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9420 (http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9420)

Dave & All,

     Klaus has not spent his life in the USA & is viewing the situation through Czech eyes.  With their national history, the average Czech is surely far more politics/propaganda-savvy than the average American.  As a nation, we have grown docile & sloppy from living in relative safety, while Czech fortunes, families, & lives have hinged on what is done by those who hold the microphone & address the cameras...

just my opinion,
al

How's this for accountability?

-Dave

Illinois Paper Hits Michael Moore for Copyright Infringement
Mon Aug 2, 7:01 PM ET


Published: July 31, 2004
   

NEW YORK The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington, Ill., has sent a letter to Michael Moore, drafted by its lawyer, citing him for copyright infringement, admonishing him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of the paper in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," and asking for an apology.


It is also seeking compensatory damages of exactly one dollar.


"While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie," said the newspaper's President and Publisher Henry Bird, "we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented."


Early in the movie, according to the paper, a large headline appears in the film, purporting to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of the paper, and reading "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." The paper contends that the headline actually appeared on Dec. 5, 2001, in much smaller type, and above a letter to the editor, hardly a factual news story or editorial.


The letter to Moore from the paper calls this a "misrepresentation of facts." The newspaper said it had been unsuccessful in attempts to reach Moore through his film company, Lion's Gate, by phone and e-mail.


"In an instance that The Pantagraph prints material in which there is a mistake, it is corrected," the letter to Moore reads. "It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard."


Moore could not be reached for comment.


--E&P Staff


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=90&u=/ep/20040802/en_bpiep/illinoispaperhitsmichaelmooreforcopyrightinfringement&printer=1

Is this a "Smoking Gun"??  Dave I can remember reading the same headlines and articles in the L.A. Times. It doesn't prove Moore was trying to mislead someone, his point is that there was a controvery as to who received the most votes.   Honestly,  I have been reading all I can that would support what you guys are saying about Moore.  All I have found so far amount to the same critisicms people find in an e. e. cummings poem.  "He didn't use the proper rules of grammar and  punctuation!!!!  The author of "Uncle Toms Cabin"  received the same kind of critisicms"  so did the author of "Black Like Me"by John Howard Griffen. Yet history has proven these individuals as true evaluators of their society.  I believe that history will prove Moore also.

I felt the same way about George Geftakys as you do about Moore.  So often I gave him (GG) the benefit of the doubt; made excuses for him, and gave of my time and resources and money to support the guy and his ministry.  And he turned out to be a fraud.
The evidence against Moore is evident.  A certain type of 'prejudice' may be hindering your seeing it even as 'prejudice' clouded the correct evaluation of the 2 authors you mentioned.  I am prejudiced again automatice FORD Escorts and Mazda automatics as well, after a bad experience with one.  I do not like Ford Taurus' either because they have a peculiar rust problem...

Marcia

No, this article is not the smoking gun.  It is just demonstrates the typical techniques Moore uses in order to persuade and stir up the emotionally inclined to his point of view.  In case you missed it, he created a prop - a fake newspaper story - to be the factual basis of his point that Gore had won the election.  If this was true, why couldn't he find a real newspaper story?  I understand his premise - that Bush stole the election from under Gore - but if he can't substantiate it, isn't is just ungrounded opinion?  You and I can share our opinions all we want, but it's not a documentary if you make up stuff to make your point.

For example, his main thesis in Roger and Me was to show how the GM layoffs devastated Mr. Moore's hometown of Flint, MI and the lame "corporate" responses to the problem by building a theme park, sending Robert Shuller there for comfort, sending Reagan there, etc.

The film met with high acclaim until a respected film critic interviewed Mr. Moore and revealed:
1.  Mr. Moore didn't actually grow up in blue- collar Flint as he claimed, but in a white suburban neighborhood of Davidson.
2.  The lame responses Mr. Moore cites actually happened before the layoffs, not after - the true timeline kind of destroyed the main premise of the film.
3.  When confronted with this inaccuracy, Mr. Moore simply accused his critics of being paid off by GM instead of taking the lesson to heart and doing better next time.

In Bowling for Columbine, Mr. Moore went out of his way to show that the NRA is heartless in that right after the Columbine shooting, the NRA rushed in to have a rally in spite of tearful pleas for them not to come.  There, Charleston Heston made a passionate speech where he raised a rifle and said, "they will only remove this rifle from my cold, dead hands!"

It turns out that the NRA meeting that took place did not take place in Columbine, but Denver.  The NRA was sensitive to the situation and scaled back their meeting to only the required business portion that were required by law.  Charleston Heston did not make a speech, let alone the "my cold dead hands" speech.  That speech was made several months later in Charlotte, NC where Mr. Heston was giving a brief word of appreciation to those who had just given him an authentic civil war musket.  But, Mr. Moore's crafty editing arranged facts to support a premise that simply was not true.

You see, in real journalism, the documenter will find representatives of both sides of the issue and, to the best of his ability, attempt to accurately represent the heart of their argument.  He might order the conversations to make their point shine brighter (as 60 minutes and NPR does), but they at least acknowledge that there are other views and represent them honestly.  

Moore, on the other hand will shoot a scene from who knows well and tell us that it is representative of pre-war Iraq and that people were happy, flying kites before the bombing.  There are no other views of mass graves and defiance towards weapon inspectors in Moore's world.  He will film a scene interviewing Charleston Heston that makes Mr. Heston look like a jerk, but the expert cinematologies breaking down the film can see that it would have been impossible to film such a scene sequentially.  Instead, the camera had to be stopped, moved, and refilmed out of order so that Mr. Moore presents to you a scene that could not ever have happened without expert editing creating the desired effect and illusion.

When Mr. Moore is confronted with inaccuracies, he typically does not address the concerns, but labels his critics as "whacko atackos".  

This is why conservatives and thinking liberals see his films as propaganda, not documentaries.  It is used primarily to energize the young and impressionable among the liberal voting base.

I am intrigued with Moore because he is so much like George.  He orders facts into his alternative context, appeals to fears and emotions, sells an image of himself that is different than who he really is, writes off any criticism by labeling his accusers, builds his base among the young and impressionable and gets rich in the process (Mr. "voice of the common guy" lives in Manhattan and has a summer home in Michigan).

Maybe everything that Mr. Moore says about Bush is true.  Maybe he has some keen insight just like George had that causes him to understand things that no one else sees.  But if it were true, you would think that someone could produce a credible piece of journalism that demonstrates this.

I believe Mr. Moore will eventually come to a sad end just like George.  I think we should pray for him.  He may go down in history as the man who helped extract George W. Bush from office.  But, I think that epitaph will pale in comparison to the one that says, "I walked in integrity and I lost."

All right Dave I admit your points are well thought out and deserve my investigation.  Yet I am apprehensive.  Why because time demands me elswhere.  (Does your wife get irritatted at you for spending to much time on the web?)  The other is even if as you say that Moore is misleading with his facts the basic story he is telling is true!

            1.  General Motors moved their billion dollar industries across the border in order to avoid paying their labor force decent wages and benefits.  The people who built this company with their blood sweat and tears were left with nothing! No future! Although words were said to the contrary Moore showed that the head of G.M. Roger Smith could care less about all the problems brought upon working class citizens in America.

            2. Two High School losers murder classmates and a teacher because....?  The country has not been able to adequately answer this question.  Niether does Moore, BUT he does ask questions such as Why are Americans in perportion to other nations,  so violent???  The yearly murder rate in Tokyo Japan is equal to one day in Los angeles!!!  Why??  Yes I agree he did wrong to Charlton Heston.  But this didn't obliterate the fact that his movie was a very real eye opening learning medium for me.


            3.  The United States President declared war on a country upon the premise that they were a "real and present danger". Many people were left asking the questions yet the majority of Americans said,"Support the troops"  most were thinking/hopeing "Our government must know what it is doing!"  Today the overwhelming evidence is showing that Bush was "Misinformed" The movie just brings this out plain and simple.  If Moore has bad motives then good pray for him.  But what I can clearly see is the movie shows the truth. If history does show that Moore is a low life muckraker then he deserves the neglect he will get from the public.  but as for now he is the recipiant of an Oscar, Caanes film festival best movie" award and no doubt will be up for another one again

David M.

Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda and other Japanese companies outsource much of their production to South Korea, Taiwan and other SE Asian countries because of the high wages they must pay in Japan proper.   Then they export their products to us.

Would you pay twice as much for a Chevrolet as you would for a Toyota?  That's what failure to compete would mean for GM.  Since most of the people in the USA would not pay such a price, GM would go under.

Result?  No jobs for Mexicans or for Americans.   Why is this better?

The Left seems to think that businesses can operate in violation of economics.

We have tried that.  How many people work for Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, Willys, Kaiser or American Moters, (Nash)?  Seems to me that the grand total comes to about zero.  

You guys need to find a world where your ideas will actually work.  

Thomas Maddux