Trent

Ahhh, but how about those who say things you respect, but do things you don't? Or those that say things you don't respect, but do things you do? I'd still rather be dealing with someone who makes clear their intentions, than someone who lies and cheats to get their way. Oh, hello again!

Ted, please don't succumb to DZ.com debate policy by reading something I never wrote. My post was ONLY A QUESTION that people aren't really answering. Sure we have a right to say what we want whenever we want, but sometimes it is better to save comments for more appropriate times. Some people I've talked to seem to think that the movie very well might embolden some anti-American militants... it's not hard to believe... look how fired up all these people who have seen it are! Like Moore himself, most people who see it are going to be biased one way or another. Those who generally agree with him will not bother to question the movie as closely as someone who dislike him. So, just as it is your right to question the government, it's mine to question this "director". Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. We may have another president who decides to talk tough but let situations go until someone we like to blame comes into office. My memory is only 27 years long. I can't compare the liberties I've lost under Bush to those my grandparents and other Americans lost during WW2. Will someone please forward me a list of liberties that I am currently being deprived of? Oh, hello again!

Be careful, remember... Millions and millions watch American Idol and Joe Shmoe. Just because millions have seen it and maybe even like it, doesn't mean it has any real value. Maybe it does, I'll let you know... Oh, hello again!

I'll just buy a ticket to something like Dodgeball and go see F911, I'd rather not send my money to the "I LIKE TO PROMOTE ME! Moore fund". And yeah, Jeff... Stevie said it was funny at points but also that he can't believe someone would make a movie like that at a time like this. I gave Moore a chance with BFC, and while I didn't disagree with his premise for the most part, I found his way of presenting "facts" was absolutely infuriating and deceptive. Even the manner that he speaks to people, you can see what he's angling for and it's usually downright arrogant. Relax, I will go see it (and not pay for it) when I have time to stop doing what's much more satisfying... jumping. Oh, hello again!

At least you know what you're dealing with when you're dealing with them. You're very good at trying to twist things like that when you very well knew what I meant. I suppose you have more respect for people that can't be taken for their word. Oh, hello again!

But not everyone can see Osama for themselves, the movie will be easier to see. And yeah, maybe it will be less inspirational than knowing OBL is out there, but it will likely add fuel to the fire. Oh, hello again!

It really really seems like some people have more respect for someone who will talk tough and not back it up. I DO understand what you are saying, but I'm seeing it differently. I see a bunch of people taking a hawkish stance on using force in Iraq, but unable to stomach DOING something about it. It seems that a lot of people in this country simply favor rhetoric over action. And Quade, you overlooked my Somalia comment. Bill did that, then his administration let the situation get fucked. He didn't do much after that. What is your opinion on that? He did try to do something, but lacked the character to see it through. There's some old quote out there: I have more respect for a man who means what he says, even if he's wrong. Oh, hello again!

Well, we probably wouldn't have too much to be divided about in this regard without the terrorist actions in the first place. So yeah, it is dividing us. Just as the beheadings are designed to divide the US from other nations. Just like the terrorists getting their voices on the news telling us how they'll kill us all is designed to make some of us want to leave and some want to kick their asses. Anyway, I want people to really think about the question: If you were an extremist, would seeing this movie make you more likely to do something against the US? Would it encourage you? Be honest. Oh, hello again!

Let's hear what they really meant by saying what they said then? If those quotes are grossly out of context, no problem... it'd be interesting to hear how (paraphrased) "I think Saddam should be removed, we know he has WMD, he must be stopped with force" was taken out of context. Maybe the original quote was something like, "I think Saddam should be removed, we know he has WMD, he must be stopped with force.... just kidding!" Maybe? Oh, hello again!

As an American, I'd avoid deliberately giving the terrorists additional fuel for the fire. I'd avoid letting them get the warm fuzzy feeling that they just might be justified in attacking the US. I'd avoid letting them know that through their actions, people in the US are becoming divided. THAT's what they want, and we're already giving it to them. Oh, hello again!

Okay, it took me a while, but I went throught the IBC list and "kinda" classified events as best I could by who likely did it. Take a look: Who Dunnit Min Max Not Sure 497 579 Both 175 236 Militants 1316 1356 Coalition 1902 2474 Generalized 5546 6672 Not Sure = things like "gunfire" or "bomb" with no target listed Both = events where casualties listed as "crossfire" or civilian killed during US - Iraqi fighting. Militants = Things like "suicide bomb" "RPG fire" "roadside bomb" and targets listed as Iraqi police or US or foreign military or workers. Coalition = "air strike" "heavy artillery" etc. and attacks occuring at checkpoints. Generalized = This one is where there are only aggregate claims of casualties. Many from the first stages of the war, very possible that these aren't ALL civilian deaths. Some of these claims have very high differences between min and max. OF COURSE, this is only my view since I went through the stats myself. I tried to be honest and fair. Interesting given the past conversation. I can email a complete spreadsheet if anyone wants to see what I did. Oh, hello again!

Kinda like Somalia? What was that all about? Was Aidid an immenent threat to the US? I'd say that was where Clinton learned that he didn't have the stomach to send US troops into action. I'd think that THAT was more reason why he only ordered airstrikes and resisted using force. So let's not be bothered by what people actually said, right? Forget the facts, let's just be mad at Bush! Did these people say these things or not? I guess it's okay to talk tough, as long as you don't plan on doing anything about it, right? The bottom line is that if these were comments from Republicans while a Dem was in office, people would be screaming about how bad they "flip-flop"ed and wanting some answers. But since it was Dems, people should ignore it because someone already said it before? How about actually holding some of these guys to their words? Or are people just going to become dem-apologists? Oh, hello again!

Okay, I gotta ask... Moore haters and lovers alike... If you were a muslim extremist somewhere, would this film make you want to go out and kill some Americans? Would it make you feel more justified in doing so? Be honest... do you think that this film will make it easier for the extremists to justify their actions? Not that I'd give Moore THAT much credit, but with the publicity in the media, I'm sure there are many many angry arabs wanting to see it. Oh, hello again!

Yeah, me and Steve will be there from Houston, and Guano will be there to organize ONLY. So stop by the freefly tent, get some coaching with Mr. Brown and then come make some jumps with us. Check the website: http://www.freefall.com Oh, hello again!

FREE THE DRUG DEALERS!! IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT!! edit: Yeah, I'm being obtuse. Those are interesting stats regardless. Oh, hello again!

People should stop buying and selling drugs then... it's getting expensive to house them. Oh, hello again!

No I read that one too... the other part of the suit involves being denied pay for prescriptions. Read the ruling. And yes, that case where a patient was seriously jeopardized by the HMO's refusal to keep him hospitalized is a travesty and he deserves compensation so that it won't happen again. But we do not need multi-million dollar suits for smaller stuff. Oh, hello again!

Well at least you have the facts now. I won't disagree that him taking credit for it is no good. BUT, if you read his statements, it seems that he only felt that these cases should be heard in federal courts, and have limited punitive damages. I hate insurance companies as much as the next guy, but 2 million bucks for not paying for a prescription? Come on. I read through the actual ruling too, it just says that (in a large nutshell) that federal law supercedes any state law pertaining to HMO lawsuits and those cases should be heard in federal court. Technically it wouldn't be a double flip anyway: I beleive A (flip) I beleive B (flop) I beleive A So YOU (all you guys) are saying that Kerry didn't flip flop really because there were mitigating circumstances, but Bush did. Do more reading on the Texas HMO deal and you'll realize that at best, it's taking credit for something you didn't do... kinda like the Al Gore Internet. (not saying that it justifies anything) For the record, I do not agree with the ruling. Oh, hello again!

Kallend says: From the first article posted by newsstand: No signature on that bill from GWB. Oops, guess there wasn't a flip flop there, at least not from as far back as 1995. But there's no way you're wrong, right? Oh, hello again!

Nice, now we're getting somewhere. I'll look into where he may have said that... but as is... the Supreme Court went ahead and took that issue off his hands. WITHOUT him swaying them one way or another. I'll read the complete ruling when I have more time. So we're no longer blaming Bush or his administration for the ruling, correct? Your just saying that he changed his stance on the issue. Oh, hello again!

And I asked for, and have not recieved, a statement from Bush or his administration stating his opinion on the matter. None of the articles I read about it mentioned Bush. Oh, hello again!

Re-read the first post, and tell me that kallend didn't want to put the blame on GWB and his administration. Heck, look at your first few posts too. Oh, hello again!

Benny, it appears that your understanding of the US government is lacking. The supreme court made the decision, not the lawyers. And... hmmm, you'd think that it'd be lawyers for the HMOs arguing this case, not the justice department or any other governmental agency. But, hey, I'm just a freeflier and you're the expert on government. Oh, hello again!

From EricTheRed: ... and I replied to all a yous, so that wasn't specific. Oh, hello again!

First, I didn't bring flip-flopping into this discussion. Second, I never said anything about whether or not Bush DID or DIDN'T change his mind. I merely mentioned that all of you are showing YOUR ASSES by saying that Bush is responsible for the supreme court ruling. So unless you're all ready to hold any future and past president responsible for supreme court rulings, stop blaming the current one for the HMO ruling. Mmmmkay? I still think Kerry is more likely to change his mind. Bush is much more stubborn. Oh, hello again!