|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
January 2, 2008
Friends,
A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.
Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.
Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."
So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?
Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.
Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?
Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.
And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."
Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?
I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?
I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.
Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.
But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?
And then there's John Edwards.
It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.
And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.
Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.
I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.
On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.
Yours,
Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Just thought I would pass this along
RyanEashoo@aol.com
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:49 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
| Damn...that 48 hours went by too fast!!!! |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:58 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
I am sure their may be some members of the forum who gives a rats ass who old Mike decides to back for prez. Ya know those who dont have the brains or gumption to try and decide who they prefer and have to be shown the way. I believe moderates is a term often used to describe them best.
quote:
Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed.
 I assume hes refering to Bush who he like some others I know must believe is running again in 08. Hey Mike what ever happens hes gone, someone new will replace him. Put down the doobie and pay attention.
quote:
My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her.
Ya Hillary has it tough alright.  dumb Broad dosent know what tough is. 
[/b] |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:12 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
| Hey Ryan...wait just a minute...I went back to your 48 hour promise...you lied to us!!! You just couldn't do it , could ya! LOL |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:32 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Ryan, does Michael Moore "lurk" this parts of the Internet? I am not being snotty....
We could have saved Mike a lot of heartbreak, not all of the Dems want Hillary in. Maybe his judgment was thwarted by her beauty. |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:47 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Being interested in Michael Moore's opinion is not the same as not being able to think for oneself.
Personally, I am always interested in his point of view, but that doesn't mean I agree with him always. Which I guess is also why I read editorials every day <shrug> |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:47 pm |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
Michael Moore is everywhere!
quote:
andi03 schreef:
Ryan, does Michael Moore "lurk" this parts of the Internet? I am not being snotty....
We could have saved Mike a lot of heartbreak, not all of the Dems want Hillary in. Maybe his judgment was thwarted by her beauty.
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:00 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Michael Moore is everywhere!
Ill bet anyone who was forced to set next to him on an airline or in a theatre would agree 100%
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:11 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
2tap, why do you dislike him so much??
i haven't had a problem with any of his "documentaries"! |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:23 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Whoever Mickie's for, I'm against. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:36 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
2tap, why do you dislike him so much??
i haven't had a problem with any of his "documentaries"!
My main problems with Moore are I remember him when he had his little Marxist inspired newspaper called the Voice. He would constantly slam general motors and basically any thing to do with the system of capitalism this country ueses. He also pulled a fast one on Charlton Heston who was in the early stages of Alzheimers when he allowed Mike to interview him for that Dumb Ass Movie Bowling for Columbine. He used Mr Hestons comments out of context and twisted what he said to fit his movie.As it is old Mikes Parents both worked for GM he himself has used the Capitalist society to make himself rich, and he is lucky MR heston was not in his prime as he would have kicked his fat ass off his property. The guy is a phony piece of crap period. Hows That. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
oh............ 
mr. "from my cold dead hands!" heston?? |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:44 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Unless I read Michael Moore's opinions I don't know how he thinks. The same goes for anyone else who expresses a political opinion. I don't agree with everything Moore says and does, but the letter that opened this thread provides food for thought along the subject line of this Political Talk forum.
I'm disappointed that some of you seem to prefer needling Ryan for making the Moore post, or instead bashing Moore the man for what you consider his blunders, rather than offering intelligent discourse about the points made in Moore's letter.  |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:48 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
...bashing Moore the man for what you consider his blunders, rather than offering intelligent discourse about the points made in Moore's letter.
I don't believe Michael Moore has ever blundered. I believe he has continually and purposefully slanted, stretched, molded and manufactured his "truth" to further his political agenda (and his bank account).
As for intelligent discourse, when I see some from him I may take the time to offer a rebuttal. Personally, I can't stand to watch/read/listen to his absolutely juvenile antics.
Just one example...Republican National Convention, 2004. Mr. Moore gets a "press" pass (as if he were a journalist?) from USA Today. The result? A friendly wave to Senator John McCain.
|
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:24 pm |
|
|
simon
F L I N T O I D
|
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
-and a conversation [retort]
January 2, 2008
Friends,
-Friend [retort]
A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.
Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed.
-Mike our leaders failed us. Mabey we failed ourselves! We should have fought harder, demanded truth.[retort]
Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted.
-I share your thoughts, but we need the generations that follows us[me too] to fight this fight, they are not there ! Why![retort]
But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.
-Right on. We have a childlike submission to the parent symbol and will revert to juvenile behavior stupidly assuming our leaders will get us out of this republican mess and our personal behavior does not matter. Wrong.[retort]
Do you feel the same as me?
-Yes but you feel it so much better and humbly.[retort]
That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were?
-Hyperactive children in the playground all...but one. Biden hes like the greaser who flunked a couple of grades that wants to play but knows more serious matters need attention.[retort]
Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them.
-No they all will double dip their chips, skim instead of read and leave the toilet seat up or the eyebrows too dark Hard working self made people, except for the Romney guy.[retort]
Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now.
-yes ..yes double dog yes [retort]
Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo).
-Missionary! I am confused here.[retort]
But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."
-Mike he is a realist. But He really intended to state Hillary first.[retort]
So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?
-Watch a Menage a trois [retort]
Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.
- It’s a chick thing.[retort]
Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?
-Lower polling numbers?[retort]
Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.
-
Dang Mike clean and back tract up a little? [retort]
And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq.
- It is the Clinton way. When they are on they are really one. But polling anomalies can create a chaotic distortion,i.e. a vote for war![retort]
I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve.
-Middle of the pack strategy, everyone else gets a hit first.[retort]
She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war.
- Hummm What was that globe trotting between Bill and George senior all about! Did somebody get bought!!![retort]
She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."
-From her pollster.[retort]
Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled?
-We got one now.[retort]
I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?
- See the Hmmm retort above.[retort]
I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mind set, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?
-Gloria Steinman look what you got us all into.[retort]
I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.
-But Mike, a president is part of a system of governance with the American invention of two party politics. She will not be alone and the Dem team is better for us than the Rep team! I know this is where you call me naive, but I am right![retort]
Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...
-Veritable saints they are to assist the Moore market share.[retort]
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air!
-YES [retort]
There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.
-They will eat him with a cherry sauce and sweet wine.[retort]
But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he elect able? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?
-Yes we are.[retort]
And then there's John Edwards.
-Now there’s a hair cut and a suit second only to Mitty [retort]
It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.
-Too much of a pretty boy smart on talk short on fight.[retort]
And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.
-Its just a number [retort]
Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.
-Your winning me on this one.[retort]
I am not endorsing anyone at this point.
-You just endorsed John Edwards or admitted a lack of backbone.[retort]
This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.
-Wrong, it should be say it aint so Joe Biden say it aint so, your not the one, cant mount a campaign..we need ya and you cant find first base.[retort]
On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.
-I knew it, I am writing this cold, did not know where you were going. John Edwards is your guy.......
I am voting for Joe Biden, I would have stayed on the titanic too.[retort]
Yours,
and yours [retort]
Michael Moore
and Simon the retorter [retort]
aka..aka |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:46 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
