Farenheit 9/11 Rocks the Box Office!

sorry for the double post,, but Its a sad world,, where the larger more appealing voice nearly always wins,, weither their telling the truth or not.
it becomes more of a who do you trust thing. But that is nothing to do with the truth.

if you ask me anyone., your a fool if you dont believe in corruption. and selfish attitudes getting in the way of more important things. such as a country's and peoples well being.
 
Sure, corruption exists almost everywhere. It is a human fallacy. What is your point?
 
my point is it very feasable that it exists in very high places.. especially where theres alot of money envolved, and securing money for the future, *cough* oil..

but anyone can figure that out right? :P, theres no real need to ask
 
Javert: I think all of your comments on my post are valid but I believe it is not present much relevance to the point at hand. The point of my posts was to show people what Moore is doing and to provide clear and concise examples of how it had been done in the past and what the consequences of it might be (however extreme). I do agree that Bush has made a lot of mistakes and you will find me very far from the usual Bush supporter, seeing as I am an immigrant who came to the U.S only a year before the 9/11 situation and as a result, my life was completely messed up. My father (with whom I moved here with) lost most of his chances of landing a good job in America due to immigration trouble and increasing regulations, as well as the problem with companies not wanting to hire non-american staff and having to pay for a Visa status change (a work visa, a company has to pay around $5000 so that a non-american worker can be in the payroll). All of this, along with a combination of other problems led me to basically waste 4 years of my life going to High School and making great grades only to waste my efforts by having to go to a community college due to lack of money (international students don't get many scholarships, a lof of them require you to be an American citizen as I was sad to find out). I can honestly tell you that if anything else, Bush screwed up my life.

Why do support his re-election? He's the lesser of two evils, I'm choosing a liar over a thief or a murderer (not real examples, just proving the point). I have seen people like Kerry take power and drive countries into the ground and trample over innocents only to increase their grasp over the grail of corruption. In fact, it is my experience with people like Kerry, who are often wishy-washy on most issues and only seek to say the 'right thing' to get elected, that drove me to move to the U.S in the fist place. People who seek power as desperately as he does and do not have firm ideals are the kind of people who turn around and stab you in the back when you least expect it. Hugo Chavez is my example of people like this, although I was always able (and so was my family) to see past his schemes. Promising people the world and delivering hell-on earth, a constant struggle from his part to turn my dear country into a carbo-copy of communist Cuba.

I believe this information may perhaps provide you with some insight as to where my arguments are leading. I encourage people to see past propaganda and campaigning (Moore may call himself an 'independent' but one can clearly see where he leans in reality) and form their own conclusions based on cold-hard facts. A lot of people can have an opinion, the wisest people however, are the ones that have an INFORMED opinion.

It has come to my attention that most of Moore's supporters are people who pride themselves in saying that Moore is some sort of visionary trying to bring social injustices to light, they believe that when they go to their movies they are doing so to inform themselves of the 'real' political situation and in doing so believe most - if not all - the information in the films to be absolute truth. These are often the kind of people who fall to Moore's emotional appeal, the people who cry and applaud Moore for showing them what was already shown to them in the news if only they had cared to tune in or read the paper. The difference is, the information comes with a spin, and as such, people who come in expecting truth take it as truth and end up being uninformed or misinformed. These are the people who will vote against Bush only because the movie moved them, these are the people I try to warn.

To refute a smaller point, I'd like to ask you what your thoughts on Saddam Hussein are. I've always known the man was at threat to his own country and to the world, I have first-hand experience with dictators like him because my country, which used to be a democracy, fell prey to uninformed voters and willfully elected a piece of trash like him. The US government can no longer assasinate political and international targets, therefore the only way the US could tackle a threat such as Saddam was to go to war with him and attempt to minimize casualties while doing so. Civilian casualties during the war are things I lament dearly because I often place myself in their situation and think about things fro mtheir point of view, however when I think again I think about the fact that Hussein would have probably taken these lives too, and did in fact kill thousands of his own people already in the past as well.
 
omg .essay,, lol, like it matters dude, no matter what anyone thinks is truth or not, its a very odd concept.. because there is an actual truth, and what we believe in, , in our pretty little world in our heads, doesnt mean a thing, unless you have money, lots of money, lol..

Moore an independant.. doesnt that depend on your view. ..? opinions again, thats just stereotyping. If you could avoid that then maybe he would appear much more independant.

the war is more than just about Saddam, . theres still no proof sadam even lifted a fingure.

its about oil. at the moment, Iraqi's are trying to burn the stuff, to stop Bush and the American oil company's getting there hands on more of it.. basically seems like the US government dont want to be dependant on imported oil, from Saudi Arabia in the future.

so they do something about it early to stop that from happening. You watch , they'll keep control over those oil fields and build new pipelines till it all runs dry, or till prices go through the roof.

Its invasion for the upper hand, a desperate and selfish act, that most shockingly was covered up and lied about from day 1, So they can call the shots on who gets the world power in the future. All cleverly disguised to the public as a 'war on terror' (hmm catchy title),, when world terrorism was on the decline anyway, as I read from another article in another thread.
 
hed get in big trouble as a respected journalist if it was fictional,, lol, so it cant be that bad
 
Clarky: Do you have some sort of insider information that lets you know that all the opinions you statedi n your post (all opinions) are true? It seems to me like its just anti-bush propaganda and you just totally ignored my previous post.

Oh and by the way, Terrorism hasn't been on the decline, it has remained steady if not actually increased during the past years. Terrorism does not involve the U.S alone, stop having such a simplistic and selfish view of the world, look at Israel, look at other countries constantly being attacked by other nations, open your eyes to the world instead of believing everything you're told.

As far as I know (and I'd be glad if someone provided me with information saying otherwise) the U.S has not gained a single penny from invading Iraq, much less oil. Oh and much of your post seems like ill-informed opinion, the U.S cannot simply take Irqui oil refineries and take their oil, and as a matter of fact, the only reason the US depends on imported oil so much is because they are unwilling to use their own reserves. Also Saudi Arabia may be a big oil exporter but you forget my very own country (which I bet you didn't even acknowledge existing much) Venezuela. We are one of the biggest oil exporters in the world too and Chavez's rule has actually cut off most of the oil exports to the US. If the US were after oil as badly as you say, wouldn't it be logical if they had chosen to capture Chavez instead of Saddam? They'd have full support of the population too... We've been trying to get rid of him for a while now.
 
i didnt say I was paying attention :P.. and if your protecting Bush, thinking its all anti bush propaganda, think again, Moore isnt actually ripping into the guy. just questioning his actions..

to me , after that sentence its very clear where you stand.

lol, Rumsfeld even admitted the decline in terrorism, and it was a statistics mistake.

not a penny? in the future, sir... not the present, its future intrests..because when oil gets thin, they'll still be holding it (great plan if you ask me). its so blatant

you sound like you believe the media too much ,the truth is so easy to find :rolleyes: .
 
ya white chicks looked so gay... by the way michael moore has terrible views and knows nothing...

-merc
 
A2597 said:
LMFAO at "non-fiction"
Click to expand...

I knew someone was going to bring that shit up. I don't know. I didn't want to call it a documentary. The movie doesn't have actors or screenwriters etc...It's not fiction in the traditional sense, ie. The Matrix, or Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. What the f*ck do you want me to call it?
 
...Why do support his re-election? He's the lesser of two evils, I'm choosing a liar over a thief or a murderer (not real examples, just proving the point). I have seen people like Kerry take power and drive countries into the ground and trample over innocents only to increase their grasp over the grail of corruption. In fact, it is my experience with people like Kerry, who are often wishy-washy on most issues and only seek to say the 'right thing' to get elected, that drove me to move to the U.S in the fist place. People who seek power as desperately as he does and do not have firm ideals are the kind of people who turn around and stab you in the back when you least expect it. ...
Click to expand...
Rico: This is not how the United States works. People like Kerry, or even Bush or even the likes of Nixon do not that in our democratic society. I believe that we live in a dichotomous world, and that you are bringing experiences from another country and applying it onto ours. Seeing how Cuba and the U.S. are so different, you cannot compare Kerry and our political process to a dictator and coup.
I am so sorry for the experiences you faced and the victimization of a brutal bureaucracy. You have every right to blame Bush, but you do not have the right to slam Kerry before he has entered the office, unless you can prove somewhere in his Senate record that he will become a dictator and shun more immigrants such as your own family. The Democratic party is known as pro-immigrant (see their policy with Mexico) and a party of inclusion. The Republicans are known for exclusion for the protection of domestic interests, not to mention the restrictions that have made immigration/international study so difficult in the name of "domestic security". I attend UC Berkeley (berkeley.edu), a large hub of international students, and I hear them complain daily of the red tape you also face. Please re-consider when you vote this fall.
You treat Moore's propoganda and emotion-appealing as if it's a bad thing. I'd like to know why, because the purpose of art (film) is to move us? Have you seen Schindler's List? That moved us, but people don't decry its power as propoganda. I think the conversation has moved beyond Moore lying, since nobody yet can prove he has in F 9/11, to his power over his audience. Well, if he didn't have that power over an audience, he'd probably be a failure, so once again you criticize him on a success. Do not insult your own intelligence, spin is everywhere, not just in Moore. Both sides are subject to this hypocrisy. I also wish everyone would look past propoganda and political campaigns. But without realizing the issues at hand, they only retract to something far worse, apathy. Too view both sides, choose one and counter-argue the other, as you and I are doing right now, is the best thing a Democracy (or Republic for you realists) can ever do.
As for my own personal opinion of Saddam:
He is a very evil man, comparable to Mussolini. He has trampled over human rights, disregarded the international community, and killed many people. He had every right to be ousted from power, tried for his crime, and hell I'd execute him myself. The criticism does not lie in WHETHER Bush invaded Iraq, but HOW and WHY. He invaded Iraq too soon, with too few soldiers and equipment, with an unclear goal beyond combat, alone in the international community, using September 11th and WMD's as an excuse (both which we now know are incorrect).
Democrats have not escaped Moore's wrath either. In an interview following BFC and Gore's capitulation, he called the Democratic Party, "the sorriest excuse for a party we've ever had."

To settle this once and for all: I dare anyone in this forum to find a SINGLE LIE in Fahrenheit 9/11. Not an interviewee, personal opinion, or fancy editing, but when Moore presents or states a SINGLE FALLACY /LIE/ SLANDER/ MISCONCEPTION. If anyone successfully succeeds, I will never post in a Michael Moore thread again.
 
im deeply sorry for anyone like him too, its hard to be compassionate sometimes when your brought up differently. but through all my compassion I can see why he thinks that why, I understand. I wanted some light shed on the whole events taking place, but its still as blurry to me why they still keep making things up.

as for finding lies in Moores film

You wont, and if anyone thinks they do. then their either making it up to feel contempt that theres nothing wrong with the country or the world, and its all as plain as the wonderful media describes.. (ooo real insider information there, if I remember, its not in best intrest for media groups to point the fingure at the governments, the head of BBC got sacked, along with a few others when they pointed it a blair,, weird. lol , but no answer, no why was he sacked?, no details. I cant imagine what really happened :x but im guessing it was in his best intrests at the time, safety wise ) .

Or your in denial that these arnt viable factual statements based on past and up to date occurances (that by all sense shouldnt of happened , but did), and will twist it all till it sounds like lies. and that just means you cant see past your own nose when it comes to modern politics and what drives every action , because Blair and Bush and Co are just the puppets.
 
Javert: First I feel as if I should clarify this as you seem to have misread my post, I am not Cuban, I was born and raised in Venezuela and lived there all my life until I moved to the US.

Now to continue arguing the point further, I am not comparing Kerry to anyone, I am merely comparing his behavior to that of other people who have in the past done terrible crimes to their countries and have driven them to the ground due to sheer incompetence and greed. I was not deported or any of the such from Venezuela, we came here willingly in order to expand and broaden our views on the world, I also took the chance to learn a new language and meet a new culture so I could expand my take on the world.

I do not fear that Kerry will turn into some dictator and torture people and deport them and such, I fear that he is not the right man for the job, a job that requires swift decision and knowledge on different subjects. When your whole campaign rides on slandering the other side ("Bush wasn't in the military so on and so forth") and past records show that you have a tendency to be wishy-washy (his votes on war with Iraq, Weapons R&D and many other issues) where he would vote one way then vote the other way. I also recall seeing an interview on CNN once where Kerry was talking and they came across those specific topics, he was asked why he voted against such things and he said he was for them, then he was asked why he had voted against them and provided a lame excuse for his change of mind. The whole interview went back and forth like that for about half and hour and Kerry would just cave in to the pressure of trying to please everyone on all the issues . This was the final nail i nthe coffin for me, after it was over I just remember thinking "Wow, this guy has no will power and no stance on ANY subject does he?". I realize democrats have been more open to immigration in the past, however I refuse to let my future be decided by someone such as Kerry.

Back to the original topic:

I do not think Moore has outright lied in any of his films, that's the whole problem and the whole argument people seem to circle around. One side asks the other to point out where he outright lied about something, the other says (as I am about to say) that they don't think he lied, he just stretched the truth to points where it no longer resembles the original information.

It's like I took a famous quote or speech by a major figure. I take a speech and then systematically choose to remove any and all words except "stupid, idiot, fool, lame" and stuff like that and then somehow pieced it together so it says "I am a stupid fool, vote for me and you are a lame idiot." (just a fictional example). This is kind of how I see Moore stretch the truth. Does this mean the content wasn't in the original quote? Not at all, all the words were there but the context was highly different. Words are meaningless unless they are used in the correct context.

This truth 'bending' is what irks me, this and his whole attitude towards his opposition (in his website where he refutes the opposition's claim he uses the term "gun nut" around 20 or maybe more times) where he feels me must prove he is 100% right and that everyone else is 100% wrong is what makes me angry. These are the actions of an irrational human being who fails to acknowledge that he may perhaps be wrong.

He's also very political about the things he writes, he, much like Bush or Kerry and a republican and a democrat tries to go around in circles around the actual topic and instead argues a very different thing. When presented with a question like "Why did you break the jar" he might respond with an argument about how that wasn't really a jar and it was a vase instead. He fails to convince me in his every attempt at arguing a point, instead I see him do a Clinton (hehehe) and argue about the semantics and what the real meaning of the word "is" comes down to.

By the way, every political figure is a puppet in this world. Just as Bush and Kerry are puppets of their very own party, I assure you that Moore's strings are almost as clear as day to me. If you cannot see past his front and look at his political agenda let me provide you with some light on the matter.

Can you give me any examples where Moore points out any flaws in Kerry's character, can you give me any quotes where he says something bad about Kerry or even question his ridiculous statements and interviews? Come on, for such an important figure in politics these days Moore should have already written a piece on Kerry if he really were interested in the "well-being of america" and tyring to "look out for the average joe" as he insists on claiming to be a patriotic American. I could even give you a decent example of something he could analyse and bring to light, here's something:

Why is Kerry painted as some sort of war hero and veteran of the vietnam war? He was no hero and in fact he is no veteran either, it's like saying Hitler was a war hero from WW1 because he was hit by shrapnel from a friendly grenade. All kerry did while he was in the war was be stationed in some low-action spot where he got shot and earned a purple heart, how do you figure he leaped from getting shot and being sent back to being a veteran?
 
I really don't see an argument here. If you're a liberal, your film will be slanted to the left. If you're a conservative, then your film will slide to the right. Of course it's partisan. Micheal Moore didn't lie. Of course he stretched the truth. Conservatives would have, in my ever-so-not-really-humble-right-now opinion, stretched it to the breaking point, as, throughout history, they always have.

*runs the hell away*
 
Rico said:
Javert:...
Click to expand...
Wow, good stuff indeed! :thumbs:
My responses and comments.

1) My utmost apologies for the locational mistake, I saw Cuba in the analogy and authomatically assumed so.

2) You contradict yourself in the first paragraph. You state you aren't comparing Kerry to a dictator, but only the behaviors of Kerry to a dictator? And if he's so "wishy-washy", is he honestly able to do so then?

3) I for one completely agree that Kerry is not the best candidate for Bush and he does change his viewpoints too much (wishy-washy is pretty much on the dot). A point of clarification though, the $86 billion budget which he reported to have been "wishy-washy" on was poorly conceived ($400 million for a Postal Service and Zip Code placement, wth) and he was not alone to reject it, it was the Revised budget he agreed upon. He was against the war on Iraq before the invasion, and only supported the war after because our soldiers were already there. But on the whole, I agree that his indecisiveness ("Hmm, I'll throw away my medals, but keep the ribbons...") will hurt him until he proves that it's flexibility more than indecisiveness.

4) Well, Moore doesn't like the Democratic party either (see my P.S.), so I don't think his opinion for Kerry is very high either. He, such as myself, would be characterized more as a "Anyone but Bush" rather than "Yes Kerry!" However, since Kerry is the only alternative, it's not in Moore's best interest to bash Kerry (yet, but watch. Once he's elected, Moore will have fresh meat).

5) Ah...the editing again. No, Moore doesn't cut up Heston's speech for him to say something like "Over my dead body". Heston DID say "Over my dead body." If he says "I support guns" in, for example, Tatooine, would it make any difference to assume he'd say the same thing in Columbine? Would he actually say, "I don't support guns. Not over my dead body." when he's there. No, Moore culls Heston's ideas, not his word-of-mouth. I don't get it, everyone rallies when he says "Over my dead body." All of a sudden, it becomes something Heston DIDN"T EVER OMG say. Is Moore infallible? No, he's human. But his success of proving his point can only be seen by all his opponents (such as yourself) vainly trying to disprove it. When someone said he went forward in time and predicted blah, blah, blah (forgot that guy's name ohnoes!), no one raised a finger to disprove him except to the point of telling him to "stfu".

6) Haven't seen Moore ever go in circles around before...please provide a source (a news or intellectual source would be best). For an example of some REAL circles, refer to Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Ironically, four years ago we were arguing what the definition of "is" was. Now we're arguing what the definition of "torture" is...we've definitely made a large improvement</sarcasm>.

7) I don't recall Kerry exactly a hero in the normal sense of the word, but he did see combat in Vietnam, was wounded by enemy fire, and therefore is "a veteran". Veteran /= Rambo heroics. However, I'd call anyone who served in war a hero, regardless of their obligation (but dependent on their actions, prison abuse isn't heroic, nor is its allowance or cover-up). Bush on the other hand......Texas Air National Guard? Not to mention absent for the majority of his duty and on substance abuse. So if we're to compare candidates by their war actions, then on my count: Kerry does better; and by your count: they're the same.

8) For the future: though debatable, I will no longer bother with attacks that are equally applicable to the opposite party. This includes, stretching the truth, lying, dodging the question, near-sightedness. Both parties can be held against these, and any mention of those broad and ultimately vague weaknesses I guarantee I can counter with a counter-example. So don't waste either of our time. (Not directed solely at you Rico, but others as well).
 
EvilEwok2.5 said:
Alex Jones's movies are better.
Click to expand...

EWOK ARE BACK RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :afro: :afro: :afro: :afro: :burp: :burp: :burp:
 
EvilEwok2.5 said:
Alex Jones's movies are better.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones is a conspiracy-theorist nut. That said, his movies are entertaining and interesting.
 
People who seek to abuse power will use any means necessary to acquire it. Hence the wishy-washy comparison to dictators. I am not saying this trait immediately makes you someone evil, I'm saying I wouldn't trust a person like this to keep their word under any circumstances.

Responses:

4) Kerry isn't much better than Bush as a candidate as it stands right now, and at least we've seen what Bush can do. Meanwhile, we have Kerry who has questionable experience and has no firm stand on any issues, this is the kind of president (like Jimmy Carter) who get fail miserably at dealing with foreign threats and are often unable to solve any problems that may come up during their administration.

5) I was not refering to Heston's speech when I stated that example, I was merely providing a good reference to the kind of "truth stretching" that I was talking about earlier

6) I saw that in one of the articles in his site, I can hardly tolerate going to his website these days without getting a gag reflex, but please, do look around there a bit if you can stand it :)

7) A big portion of his campaign is based on his "military career" which is nearly non-existent. While Bush may not have had a very memorable military career, Kerry's attempts to claim that Bush had actually dodged the draft make him look all the more desperate to find anything to tug away to destroy his reputation. This shows that this man clearly lacks anything else he can use to challenge him. I would hardly call him a veteran or a hero for getting wounded in a war, a veteran is someone who has seen repeated combat and managed to survive, Kerry saw one firefight and he had to be sent back immediately. I also doubt Kerry went into the army willingly, I'm pretty sure he had to be drafted so I really wouldn't call him a hero, heroes are not forced into their roles.

8) What's the point of saying that? As far as I know nobody has made any films that oppose Moore's point of view so make this sort of statement is somewhat useless. there are no films in the opposition we can compare to his so as to say they stretch the truth. Unless you're speaking about political partisanship in which case I have always agreed, I do not trust either party, every single political figure lies and lies and lies again. I usually root for the one that lies the least or looks the least dangerous of them all.
 
With all of this going around about Kerry 'flip-flopping', I though this link might help.

link here

I anticipate that many people will cry "But that's a biased source!" I say yes it is, but it is also meticulously referenced. All backed up by the public record.
 
It's one thing to correct your mistakes, its another to change it to gain support for an election.

It's the equivalent of writing down the wrong answer and the erasing it and writing down the correct answer after finding out the first answer was wrong. It's a good thing when Bush corrected his mistakes and most if not all of those headlines have to do with this sort of correction. Read the actual sources instead of just looking at that page, you will notice a trend of fixing rather than changing policies to please the public.

A lot of presidents and political figures "flip-flop" it's worse when they flop before they even get into office (Kerry). If you think Bush is bad, I hope you're not rooting for Kerry...
 
Since this became yet another Kerry-Bush thread, I'll just quote:

British Diplomat said:
I just came back from America. Everyone is sad. My republican friends are sad because they will have to vote for Bush, and my democrat friends are sad because they will have to vote for Kerry....
Click to expand...

And Michael Moore doesn't "lies" he gives you the facts he wants to. He shows you what he wants you to see.

And a Jon Stewart quote:

Jon Stewart said:
How can Kerry look like a dick saying the truth while Bush looks good lying?
Click to expand...

I said what I had to say.
 
Rico said:
It's one thing to correct your mistakes, its another to change it to gain support for an election.

It's the equivalent of writing down the wrong answer and the erasing it and writing down the correct answer after finding out the first answer was wrong. It's a good thing when Bush corrected his mistakes and most if not all of those headlines have to do with this sort of correction. Read the actual sources instead of just looking at that page, you will notice a trend of fixing rather than changing policies to please the public.

A lot of presidents and political figures "flip-flop" it's worse when they flop before they even get into office (Kerry). If you think Bush is bad, I hope you're not rooting for Kerry...
Click to expand...


Those are not "correcting mistakes", as you say. They are more like caving in to public pressure.

Or just plain flip-flopping.

Case in point:

1) Bush refusing to lobby the OPEC leaders after promising to do so. Thereby catering more to business interests than civilian interests.

2) Bush pledges to institute regulations based upon science, not upon what "feels good". Then he completely ignores the scientific community or doctors the information.

Bah, only a few of the points can be argued to be 'correcting mistakes'. Ironically, that is a lot of what goes on when people accuse Kerry of 'flip-flopping'.
 
from Pogrom's flipflopping link:

"BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]"

wow then what the hell is this war on terrorism all about?
 
Rico said:
People who seek to abuse power will use any means necessary to acquire it. Hence the wishy-washy comparison to dictators. I am not saying this trait immediately makes you someone evil, I'm saying I wouldn't trust a person like this to keep their word under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

Then you should be scared to death that Bush is in office, considering many think he STOLE the election (note all the votes that were trashed in florida thanks to the authority of Jeb Bush-Governor) and Al Gore actually won the popular vote, but that didn't matter though, did it?... Any means neccessary?
 
wow then what the hell is this war on terrorism all about?
Click to expand...

world power. Energy, holding country's to ransom,

Benifits for large company's. more resources gained. , I know 'full power' has been returned to Iraqs government now, but the piece keeping force of 10'000 will remain, and perhaps increase. I cant see them handing the oil fields entirely back over to Iraq. that wouldnt be in Enron's, or America's best intrest.

basically I guess you could call it, trying to improve the US economy and stance on world energy... at the cost of war (im sure other country's would consider it, but only Bush and Co had the balls to try and pull it off , because of the benifits in the future, as we become more dependant on energy, as population expands and demand increases constantly). Just so happened they felt their was a bloody good excuse to start a war on terror in the process. which is more morally correct in the public's eye I guess, which is why alot of us are suckered into believeing it. especially the majority younger people.

no one (patriot or not) wants to believe a liar (especially one in their own government). so what do you do.. stay contempt by believing everything he says is true, and talking like its for the benifit of the world.. when its really just a benifit for the more economically developed country's , and more directly a benifit ontop of the power the US energy companies already have. favouring the rich again.
 
I think I'm done posting on political threads... eventually I've just realized that they all boil down to people talking about conspiracy theories and plots by the government.

Have fun discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top