Guest guest Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " stuff except if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are now living in a different time and under different conditions. I have received 3 to 4 political messages a week for the last 3 years from every hair brained idiot that came along. Well to all who sent me that stuff, if you want to " spread " the truth, here is a little " real " truth. There is something very rotten going on in our political system and it is time to root it out and I do not care if they are right , left or indifferent. To all you so called political pundits out there, you are part of the reason that we are in this shape now. You are so busy trying to promote your own little personal brand of BS and impose it on others, that things like truth, integrity, and acting in a moral manner have long ago fallen by the way. You have helped bring about part of the greed, divisiveness and hate that now propells our society. With your partisan politics, you have only chosen to see what you want to see. You have all these little political pets that no matter what they do, you make excuses and look the other way. You are the enemy of democracy not it's defenders. You can never promote democracy by accepting and promoting lieing, stealing, and playing dirty tricks on the citizens. You are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution. You whine and cry about the loss of vitamins. You complain that there is hardly any good nutritious foods avalable. You decry the fact that the allopaths are killing us wholesale by their surgury and drugs. You don't like it that real information about health is suppressed while the BIg Buck guys are hawking poisons to all.Etc., Etc., Etc..... Well open your eys. How do you think that all came about and continues unabated? Dirty politics and dirty politicians, misinformation and choosing not to see because you got sidetracked along the way by some more spin that told you to hate everyone who didn't think like you. If you do not like the loss of all those things in your lives stop blaming others and look at yourselves for once and force yourselves to start seeing with your eyes really open. Here is a clue... follow the money! The real enemies that we have are the ones that are taking those things away from us and are pushing all the stuff on us that we do not want in a manner that leaves us little room for choice. If you can't figure that out, then you shouldn't say to much anyway as you are probably either too dumb or too hopelessly misinformed to be expressing opinions anyway.) my 2 cents, Frank http://www.americanprogress.com Center for American Progress Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:17:40 -0700 Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit 9/11 " Center for American Progress " by David Sirota, Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin SIGN UP >> SEND TIP >> PERMALINKS >> MOBILE >> June 25, 2004 MEDIAAnalyzing Fahrenheit 9/11MEDIAFCC Effort RejectedGOVERNMENTCheney Unhinged UNDER THE RADAR MEDIA Analyzing Fahrenheit 9/11 Today is the nationwide premiere of Michael Moore's new movie " Fahrenheit 9/11 " – an analysis of how the president misled the country to war in Iraq and how the Bush-Saudi relationship has compromised America's national security. Even before the movie was public, the White House and its right-wing allies sought to smear both the film and Moore personally. Last month, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the movie " was so outrageously false it's not even worth comment, " even though he had not yet seen the film. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter discovered that " big-time conservative donors " are funding a slew of anti-Moore activities. Following the White House's tactic of attacking critics' patriotism, the right-wing is also apparently bankrolling a movie called " Michael Moore Hates America. " But despite conservatives' best efforts to discredit the film, the NY Times notes, " central assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public record. " When the movie was aired at the Cannes Film Festival, it won top prize from a panel made up of mostly American and British judges. ACCURATE – NEW REPORT SAYS SAUDI FLIGHTS OCCURRED ON 9/13: Critics have accused Moore of wrongly claiming a group of Saudis were allowed to fly out of the United States on September 13, when much of American airspace was still closed. In fact, the movie accurately reports that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave after September 13 – a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Additionally, new reports prove that Saudi flights did occur on 9/13, despite three years of Bush administration denials. As the St. Petersburg Times reports, on September 13, " with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left " for Lexington, KY. The Saudis " then took another flight out of the country. " Because the information is so new, it was not in the 9/11 Commission's preliminary report. Subsequently, however, the commission has asked the Tampa airport " for any information about 'a chartered flight with six people, including a Saudi prince, that flew from Tampa, Florida on or about Sept. 13, 2001.' " ACCURATE – BUSH WAS NOT FOCUSED ON TERRORISM: In the movie, Moore charges that President Bush did not pay enough attention to pre-9/11 warnings that al Qaeda was about to attack. Instead of focusing on terrorism, charges the movie, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation. That figure " came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post. " Read American Progress's report " Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and 9/11 " for a comprehensive history of how the White House underfunded counter-terrorism and downgraded terrorism as a priority before 9/11. See American Progress's new " Complete Saudi Primer " - a guide to everything you always wanted to know about the Bush-Saudi connection but were afraid to ask. DISNEY'S EFFORT TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE: At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign contributor), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division from distributing " Fahrenheit 911. " The company enjoys a cozy relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is " such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides. " RIGHT-WING EFFORTS TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE: The campaign to silence Moore was taken up by the right-wing group with the ironic name Move America Forward. The group is headed by right-winger Howard Kaloogian, who also spearheaded the partisan campaign to quash a miniseries about Ronald Reagan and led the partisan fight to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. Kaloogian also " credits himself with helping elect President Bush because he was No. 4 of 25 elected officials who signed a letter asking him to run in January 1999. " The group, without having seen the film, " launched a preemptive attack against " the movie " by requesting movie theaters across the country not to show the film. " DAVID BOSSIE'S HYPOCRISY: The conservative front group " Citizens United, " which is headed by Clinton attacker David Bossie, is trying to get the Federal Election Commission to intervene and censor advertising for " Fahrenheit 9/11 " . Just two years ago, however, it was Bossie who led the charge against FEC interventions. On 6/12/02, The Hill newspaper reported him saying his group feels " FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent…they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics. " RATED R FOR REALITY: The Motion Picture Association of America saddled the movie with an R rating. Tom Ortenberg, president of the company releasing the film, " argued that 15- and 16-year-olds, who might end up fighting in the war on terrorism, " should be able to see the film, which shows the true cost of war - gravely wounded Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops. Much of that cost has been hidden by the Bush administration, which has banned photos of flag-draped coffins coming home (even though the Bush campaign uses flag draped corpses at Ground Zero in its political commercials). President Bush has also refused to attend funerals of the fallen in Iraq. Moore argues that the movie needs to be seen by the widest possible audience to give the public a glimpse of the reality of war. All told, between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 836 U.S. military. For more on the hidden cost of war, read this summary by the Institute for Policy Studies. MEDIA FCC Effort Rejected A bad week for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its backers in the Bush administration, culminated with a federal appeals court on Thursday ordering the FCC to reconsider the rules it issued last summer, which made it possible for large broadcasters to run roughshod over smaller competitors and dominate markets. Earlier this week, the Senate voted to repeal a separate set of FCC rules, also geared to spur consolidation. The LA Times called the latest ruling - which blocks attempts to legalize ownership of more radio and television stations in the same market - a " major setback to broadcasters and their government regulators. " FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who has previously " blasted his agency for its role in the 'Clear Channelization' of American radio, " acknowledged his commission had " now heard from the American people, Congress, and the courts. The rush to media consolidation approved by the FCC last June was wrong as a matter of law and policy. " COURT SAYS NO LOGIC BEHIND RULES CHANGES: In a rebuke to the logic FCC Chairman Michael Powell has used to legitimize media consolidation, the court ruled the commission fell " short of its obligation to justify its decision to retain, repeal or modify its media ownership regulations with reasoned analysis. " The ruling accused the FCC of employing " several irrational assumptions and inconsistencies " in its formula for ensuring media diversity. One example: in New York City, " the Dutchess County Community College television station was accorded the same market share as the ABC station, " and granted " greater weight than the combined share of The New York Times and a radio station " owned by the Times. THE REAL LOGIC BEHIND RULES CHANGES: Chairman Powell, without any evidence, says that the court's ruling will " make it dramatically more difficult " for the FCC to set limits on media consolidation. In fact, the decision will make things difficult only for the small group of big broadcasters which have ponied up millions to ensure the administration is on their side. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the National Association of Broadcasters has contributed $912,781 in PAC money and $368,552 in soft money. Meanwhile, the Center for Public Integrity found FCC officials had " been showered with nearly $2.8 million in travel and entertainment over the past eight years, " most of it courtesy of the huge conglomerates the commission is supposed to be regulating. And the support hasn't been merely monetary. Last year, Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. COURT RULING VALIDATES PUBLIC'S CONCERNS: Thursday's ruling, " a victory for an unusual alliance of public interest groups…whose supporters flooded the FCC with more than 2 million letters, e-mails and faxes, " was the culmination of what has been an unlikely public campaign against the proposed regulations. When the FCC first announced a review of its media ownership rules in 2002, " nearly everyone thought it was a slam dunk that the commission would relax or eliminate " rules limiting media consolidation. But as Robert McChesney writes in this month's American Prospect, the review " caused a spectacular and wholly unanticipated backlash from the general public, " demonstrating Americans' " explicit dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to make the system better. " The FCC, buffeted by support from the Bush administration, pressed on, but Thursday's court ruling represents the latest in a string of victories for public activists, beginning last September, when the " Republican-controlled Senate defied the White House " by voting to overturn proposed rule changes. MAKE SURE THE FCC FOLLOWS THROUGH: The court's decision is motivating calls for the Bush administration to change its direction on media consolidation. A new web site sponsored by the Consumers Federation of America (CFA) is dedicated to a nationwide campaign " to ensure that the most important sources of news and information cannot be controlled by a handful of giant companies. " You too can become a media activist by clicking here. GOVERNMENT Cheney Unhinged Dick Cheney is not having a good week. From everything from his secret energy task force to his connections with Halliburton, the vice president appears to be getting more and more desperate to defend his credibility on policy areas of serious importance to America. And he has resorted to some highly-questionable tactics, including cursing out senators and granting interviews to discredited right-wing reporters at the Weekly Standard who will promote his dishonest statements as fact. Here's a look at just how desperate Cheney has become. LEGAL – CHENEY'S HUNTING BUDDY SCALIA SIDES WITH CHENEY: Only months after Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia raised conflict-of-interest questions by vacationing together, the Supreme Court handed down a decision keeping records from Cheney's energy task force secret for the time being. However – it was not a full victory – the justices sent the case back to a lower court for further review. Scalia, who refused to recuse himself from the proceedings, tried to have Cheney's case dismissed outright. As a Justice Department official in the 1970s, he worked to limit the Freedom of Information Act. American Progress joined others in filing an amicus brief in this case. You can see the brief, as well as CEO John Podesta's comments on the decision, here. PROFITEERING - CHENEY CURSES OUT HALLIBURTON CRITIC: During a routine Senate photo session yesterday, Cheney cursed out Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) because the Democrat had the nerve to push legislation restricting war profiteering by Halliburton. Despite proof that his office has been involved in Halliburton's federal contract negotiations, Cheney has claimed no connection to the company. Yet, apparently, he took criticism of Halliburton personally, " telling Leahy to 'f--- off' or 'go f--- yourself,' " according to aides who witnessed the exchange. The tactics stand in sharp contrast to Cheney's promises as a candidate in 2000. On 7/25/00, Cheney said he wanted " to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation. " On 8/4/00, he said he was " absolutely determined [to] restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington. " One reason Cheney might have gotten so upset about an attack on Halliburton: Even though it represents a " potential conflict of interest, " Cheney currently receives deferred compensation from the company, and owns more than 400,000 company stock options. Check out the US Government-Halliburton connection for yourself – and for some fun over the weekend, play Contractopoly to discover just how many companies have cozy deals with our government. 9/11 - CHENEY STILL PUSHING DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Facing embarrassing revelations that his repeated claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection were false, Cheney last week resorted to advancing the theory that Iraq was involved in 9/11. In an interview with CNBC, he said, " Was Iraq involved with al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11? We don't know. " Cheney has repeatedly made this kind of statement before, even though the president himself admits there is " no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. " And despite Cheney's comments, White House officials claim there has been " no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11. " IRAQ - CHENEY GIVING INTERVIEWS TO DISCREDITED REPORTERS: Cheney this week granted one of his rare interviews to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes – the conservative journalist the Pentagon discredited after he breathlessly published inaccurate material he claimed proved a Saddam-al Qaeda connection. Cheney and Hayes have quite an illustrious relationship – even after the Pentagon chastised Hayes's shoddy article last fall, Cheney cited the article as the " best source " of information proving a Saddam-al Qaeda link. IRAQ – AMERICANS AGAINST THE WAR: For the first time since the start of the war, a new poll shows a majority of Americans think the United States made a mistake in going to Iraq. The newest CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that " 54 percent of people say the war was a mistake, up from 41 percent who felt that way earlier this month. " The public is starting to absorb recent findings of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a report published by the Army War College and a new book by a CIA terror expert all saying the war in Iraq helped al Qaeda instead of fighting terrorism; " the poll also found that more than half say the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorism. " LEGAL – FEDERAL PROSECUTORS INTERVIEW BUSH: Yesterday, " A team of federal prosecutors interviewed President Bush in the Oval Office for more than an hour...as part of their investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed to a journalist the identity of an undercover C.I.A. " operative. The move was a sign the special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald is " moving into the final stages of the investigation. " Fitzgerald " has already interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney...[and] called several current and former administration officials to testify before a grand jury. " Some lawyers said " the duration of the interview suggested that prosecutors posed serious and substantive questions that could indicate that they planned to indict someone in the White House. " SAUDI – AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS: Saudi Arabia – a country the President refers to as " our friend " – announced a one-month amnesty program for individuals involved in " terrorism operations. " Crown Prince Abdullah announced in a national broadcast that terrorist who turn themselves in next month " would face no state prosecution. " SECRECY – TOP OFFICIAL ADMITS THERE ARE TOO MANY SECRETS: The Bush administration's secrecy czar has let the cat out of the bag. According to J. William Leonard, head of the Information Security Oversight Office, said in speech this month, " some agencies don't know how much information they classify; they don't know whether they're classifying more than they once did or less; they don't know whether they're classifying too much or too little; and they don't know whether they're classifying material for too long a period or too short. " As a result, " agencies classifying too much information and, in some cases, classifying information that by law shouldn't be stamped 'secret' in the first place. " According to Leonard, the dysfunctional classification system has also led to " 'epidemic' of leaks to the press. " MEDIA - DEFENSE COMPANY BUYS THEATERS?: Just days before the release of Michael Moore's film " Farenheit 9/11, " (which analyzes the Bush-Saudi relationship), the Washington Post reports the Bush-Saudi connected Carlyle Group purchased Loews Cineplex Theaters. The $2 billion deal is part of Carlyle's larger efforts to buy up more telecommunications/media companies. While the deal is not expected to affect whether Loews will air Moore's movie, the timing raises questions about why a Saudi-Bush connected company that made its name in the defense industry just happens to be buying up media enterprises at the same time the pubic begins to look more critically at the Bush-Saudi relationship. And Carlyle's ties to the Bush and Saudi royal families are deep: Former President George H.W. Bush has worked for the company after he left office, as has his former Secretary of State James Baker, helping " to secure lucrative contracts, including enormous ones in Saudi Arabia, and then sell them at a high profit. " Don't Miss DAILY TALKING POINTS: Vice President Cheney Unhinged on Senate Floor SUPREME COURT: New York Times editorial opines the Supreme Court's decision not to force Vice President Cheney to reveal documents on his secret energy task force is " a loss for open government. " HEALTH CARE: The New York Review of Books examines the truth behind the powerful pharmaceutical industry. HUMAN RIGHTS: June 26 is the United Nations' International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Contact The Progress Report: pr. Daily Grill " Governor Bush and I are also absolutely determined that [we] will restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington. " - Dick Cheney, 8/4/00 " F*** yourself " - Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) on the Senate Floor, 6/22/04 Daily Outrage Bill O'Reilly told a female co-host on his radio broadcast, " You're here because you're eye candy...for me " Archives Progress Report Columns Cartoons Sign up for e-mail delivery of The Progress Report To from this mailing, please click here To modify your profile and subscription preferences, please click here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 AMEN!!! Thanks Frank. Ilene - " Frank " <califpacific <alternative_medicine_forum > Friday, June 25, 2004 4:16 PM Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit 9/11 ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " stuff except if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are now living in a different time and under different conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 The conservatives on this list will, no doubt, grow angry about the " relevance " of the concern some of us have about a culture dominated by right-wingers, that seek to deny us the right to see this movie. But I can't imagine anything that endangers our " health, " as much as living in an environment of fear and censorship. Wasn't it the " left " that we have been told by the " right, " resembles the politburo in a communist country, with its censorship of any art or cultural experience that takes a stand against the " party line(?) " The right, it would follow, should be welcoming this movie. JP - " I. Crawford " <willow.myst Friday, June 25, 2004 7:57 PM Re: Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit 9/11 > AMEN!!! > > Thanks Frank. > > Ilene > - > " Frank " <califpacific > <alternative_medicine_forum > > Friday, June 25, 2004 4:16 PM > Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit > 9/11 > > > ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " stuff except > if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are now living > in a different time and under different conditions. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 " I can't imagine anything that endangers our " health, " as much as living in an environment of fear and censorship. " First of all, we are not living in an environment if fear and censorship. Approximately one-hundred years ago, Thoreau said, " The media control everything, and the poor President has difficulty just keeping his head above water. That is truer than ever today. Secondly, due to 9/11 we already ARE living in an environment of fear, but with regard to censorship, I surely do not see that happening. Ever hear of John Mapplethorpe? Ever hear of the Internet? Ever hear of the Public Library? I can think of something FAR worse than petty, imagined worries about " living in fear and censorship " ---fighting the war against terrorism on our own soil. , " John Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...> wrote: > The conservatives on this list will, no doubt, grow angry about the > " relevance " of the concern some of us have about a culture dominated by > right-wingers, that seek to deny us the right to see this movie. But I > can't imagine anything that endangers our " health, " as much as living in an > environment of fear and censorship. Wasn't it the " left " that we have been > told by the " right, " resembles the politburo in a communist country, with > its censorship of any art or cultural experience that takes a stand against > the " party line(?) " The right, it would follow, should be welcoming this > movie. > JP > > - > " I. Crawford " <willow.myst@v...> > > Friday, June 25, 2004 7:57 PM > Re: Progress Report: Analyzing > Fahrenheit 9/11 > > > > AMEN!!! > > > > Thanks Frank. > > > > Ilene > > - > > " Frank " <califpacific> > > <alternative_medicine_forum > > > Friday, June 25, 2004 4:16 PM > > Progress Report: Analyzing > Fahrenheit > > 9/11 > > > > > > ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " stuff > except > > if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are now living > > in a different time and under different conditions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 - " breathedeepnow " <aug20 ...... due to 9/11 we already ARE living in an environment of > fear, but with regard to censorship, I surely do not see that > happening. Ever hear of John Mapplethorpe? Ever hear of the Internet? > Ever hear of the Public Library? ___________________________ Mapplethorpe and the Public Library, do not begin to insure the absence of censorship, even assuming I was interested in either one of them. I'm talking about political censorship; political censorship of the kind that maintains right wing dominance of media, and specifically tries to force theatres to not show a film that is being strongly anticipated and sought by tens of millions of people. > > I can think of something FAR worse than petty, imagined worries > about " living in fear and censorship " ---fighting the war against > terrorism on our own soil. ___________________________ What does fighting the " war on terrorism, " have to do with attacking Iraq? Why do you assume that you know with certainty, the administration's reasons for attacking Iraq? I consider the Bush administration grossly inadequate in its prosecution of the war on terrorism. > > , " John > Polifronio " <counterpnt@e...> wrote: > > The conservatives on this list will, no doubt, grow angry about the > > " relevance " of the concern some of us have about a culture > dominated by > > right-wingers, that seek to deny us the right to see this movie. > But I > > can't imagine anything that endangers our " health, " as much as > living in an > > environment of fear and censorship. Wasn't it the " left " that we > have been > > told by the " right, " resembles the politburo in a communist > country, with > > its censorship of any art or cultural experience that takes a stand > against > > the " party line(?) " The right, it would follow, should be > welcoming this > > movie. > > JP > > > > - > > " I. Crawford " <willow.myst@v...> > > > > Friday, June 25, 2004 7:57 PM > > Re: Progress Report: Analyzing > > Fahrenheit 9/11 > > > > > > > AMEN!!! > > > > > > Thanks Frank. > > > > > > Ilene > > > - > > > " Frank " <califpacific> > > > <alternative_medicine_forum > > > > Friday, June 25, 2004 4:16 PM > > > Progress Report: Analyzing > > Fahrenheit > > > 9/11 > > > > > > > > > ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " > stuff > > except > > > if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are > now living > > > in a different time and under different conditions. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Guess what, Monsieur Polifronio: If you suppose this world's problems will ever be solved through political means, you are badly mistaken. That will never happen. However, the media are controlled by the liberal left, not by the right. Interesting that we can have completely opposite views about that. Gandhi said " Always the light triumphs over the darkness in the end. " He was correct. We will see, in time, who and what the light was and who the darkness. Best wishes, Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 NO one should be scared to have this movie seen unless they have something to hide, and then I would think they would not throw such a fit about it publically unless they have another agenda. I think even Mr Moore has the right to Freedom of Speech, let his movie play everywhere and let those who see it make up their own minds, if we are still free... John Polifronio <counterpnt wrote:The conservatives on this list will, no doubt, grow angry about the " relevance " of the concern some of us have about a culture dominated by right-wingers, that seek to deny us the right to see this movie. But I can't imagine anything that endangers our " health, " as much as living in an environment of fear and censorship. Wasn't it the " left " that we have been told by the " right, " resembles the politburo in a communist country, with its censorship of any art or cultural experience that takes a stand against the " party line(?) " The right, it would follow, should be welcoming this movie. JP - " I. Crawford " To: Friday, June 25, 2004 7:57 PM Re: Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit 9/11 > AMEN!!! > > Thanks Frank. > > Ilene > - > " Frank " > To: > Friday, June 25, 2004 4:16 PM > Progress Report: Analyzing Fahrenheit > 9/11 > > > ( Until lately, I normally have not posted a lot of " political " stuff except > if it pertained to or affected our health directly. But, we are now living > in a different time and under different conditions. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.