Da union Goon is wrong again.

I plan on buying the movie tomorrow.

That is your right, and I respect that.

In so doing, I fully expect you to respect my right not to, and to respect my right to choose my own sources. For starters, I’m thrilled to report that I only have three chapters of Ann Coulter’s Treason to go!

I plan on buying the movie tomorrow. It has 80 minutes of additional footage and I can’t wait.

But the reason that I do not have to see (and could give a shit less rather you see it) is because the parts of Moores movie that rub you repubs the wrong way, like Bush’s association with the Saudi’s and a secret flight on Sept. 13 full of Bin Ladens to leave the country while American citizens had to sit in the Airports, is a fact. I did not need Michael Moore to point it out to me. Although, I’m glad he IS pointing it out, and a lot of people are watching.

Are you not at all alarmed that the law firm of long-time Bush friend and confidant, James A Baker III is representing members of the Saudi Royal family who are being sued by victims families of 9/11? Doesn’t that concern you at all? Does it not tread close to a conflict of interest? And what about patriotism? These Saudi’s contributed heavily to organizations known to assist terrorists. That’s why they are being sued ny the families.

But, your open mind is ignoring these “so-called” facts.

I am not superior to anyone here—or anywherelse, for that matter—and I apologize if I have somehow given you that impression.

Apology accepted, though I continue to use my freedom of choice not to read your incessant opinions and supposed facts most likely based on record-published revisionist history courtesy of the liberal media.

Which brings me to a remark you made some time ago regarding the Michael Moore film. You made a point of saying that you did not see the film because you either “didn’t need to” or “didn’t have to.”

What does this implicate to the rest of us?

Simple — that we “have” to see this film, that we have absolutely no choice as Americans where our choices are concerned. Never mind the fact that it is a direct contradiction of the liberal insistence to “question everything” — we’re not supposed to question the “wise words” of Moore, but see it no matter what.

I guess I just haven’t read the new law liberals have written that insist that watching the film Fahrenheit 9-11 is imperative to becoming an official American citizen.

DG, you have offered many ignorably negative so-called “facts” about Bush. You have failed to offer any optimistic promise of the alternative of Bush, ie what we could stand to gain if we do not get Bush. I’ve seen the alternative, and find it to be far more phony, unsettling and, in light of the times we live in, downright frightening. What about those 45 minutes that Kerry “just sat there”? We only have his empty words on “what he would have done,” but his own actions betray him.

The next time you post numerous facts, you should ask yourself whether or not America can seriously afford the alternative. You should also ask yourself whether or not you are respecting the rights of free-thinking Americans, and just how free-thinking you’d like Americans to be. Personally, I think one of the many reasons you post all of this stuff that you post on a regular basis is because you can’t stand the idea of free-thinkers. I think they scare you to death, hence the reason you see the need to “spread conformity” with your numerous messages.

But hey, what do I know? I’m just thinking freely here, outside of your influence.

I am not superior to anyone here — or anywherelse, for that matter — and I apologize if I have somehow given you that impression.

Having said that, let me add that when someone posts a statement that I know to be inaccurate, half the story, or somehow flawed (in my opinion), I point it out in a most concise way.

The responses I get usually do not dispell any of the facts that I have posted as much as they just lambast me or others who point out similar facts.

The willingness of anyone to completely disregard facts (like when Dick Cheney spews the known inaccuracy about Saddam’s nuclear program) is frightening to me living in a so-called democratic-republic like ours.

It is hard for Americans to consider that our government would lie to us in order to wage war –even though most Americans agree that the government lies to us about everything else.

This is the frightening part about history — all nations that have reached a pinnacle of power over the world, have acted on arrogance and with “invincibility” only to end with colossal miscalculations.

World War I is a perfect example of arrogant nations reacting to the others’ imperialism. 3 million French, German and British soldiers were killed in the first 18 months of that war.

Wars like that have never been waged within this country. Adding all American wars from the Revolution to Iraq would never equal the casualties lost by France alone in 1914-1915. Maybe that is why they are a little more reluctant to wage a reckless war without merit.

There has never in history been a war waged that has not begun with a lie. Truth is the first casualty of war.

Just consider it…

Socialism NEVER works. It is a parasitic economic theory. It creates nothing, yet consumes everything.

Da Goon, you never came back with a company still in business that is run by a union and run profitably.

First of all, Bush isn’t a phoney like Secret Agent Orange Kerry and his botox shots and spray on fake tan. Bush speaks from the heart, not from memorized talking points.

Contrary to Kerry, Bush can think and react in an emergency, not sit like stone staring at Nanci Pelosi and Tom Daschle until the Pentagon got bombed to think of something. Oh that something was saving his own skin, not of saving the country.

My guess is, with no understanding of history, no comprehension of the facts and with no meaningful way to respond, you just type words into sentences about people that make points you can’t comprehend.

Am I to understand, then, that you are the only person on this site with any type of comprehension of history whatsoever? Am I to understand that you have completely verified your sources, without grabbing on to the first thing that sounds good to you, like something you personally would relate to, and by that qualification alone, in your own eyes, you’re better than the rest of us?

I’m getting the very distinct impression, DG, that you’re beginning to think you’re almost superior to the administration that runs this site. Which is all well and good, except for one small fact: you do not run this site. If you did, you could pretty much do whatever the heck you wanted, but this is not the case.

And for the record, it’s not my site either. And I do try to acknowledge that as much as possible and make it clear that my POV is my POV alone, rather than lording it over everyone here the way you do. That’s the difference between you and me — I have a better understanding of the authority here than you do.

Why don’t you try to give us some intellingent posts on why you think Bush did such a great job on the debate.

Because, like a lot of us, Bush is not necessarily terribly gifted at thinking on his feet. I can relate only too well to that. He speaks well, but usually with a well-written speech — nothing wrong with that. I’m very much the same way myself when it comes to public performances and speaking, believe it or not…

He also has a tendancy of losing his temper and, when he does so, naturally he looks like an idiot, because he’s too angry to think straight. Again, like a great many of us, the one difference being that every camera in the world is on him in such situations. Heck, even I have been known to do that from time to time on this site!

It doesn’t make him an idiot to me. It makes him a human being, and not nearly as pious and over-confident as Kerry.

Of course, it doesn’t help that goofballs like Jim Lehrer were put in charge of the debate, but that’s an entirely different matter altogether.

PCD

You know, not one of your posts ever contained anything of substance. Just a bunch of anger spewing onto your posts.

My guess is, with no understanding of history, no comprehension of the facts and with no meaningful way to respond, you just type words into sentences about people that make points you can’t comprehend.

Why don’t you try to give us some intellingent posts on why you think Bush did such a great job on the debate.

Probably as effective as reasoning with the UN, but still worth a shot…