Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?
522
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 1:31pm

Did you see "Fahrenheit 911" ?



  • No
  • No, but I plan to
  • Yes


You will be able to change your vote.


 

The last time anyone listened to a Bush, they were lost for 40 years!   Looks like we're doomed to "wander" ano

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-25-2004 - 12:01pm
-- Clinton did send cruise missiles into Afghanistan terrorist cells going after Bin Laden

Yes, and he hit an empty tent, and a pharmaceutical plant.

Yet, when he had real time video linkage to Osama bin Laden via an unmanned predator drone, Clinton failed to act on it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-25-2004 - 12:59pm
I am waiting until it is free, on cable.

I will do the same for the Fahrenhype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Mon, 10-25-2004 - 5:48pm


It was my understanding that by the time Bin Laden's target location was confirmed and all the necessary groundwork done for Clinton to ok the strike, Bin Laden had moved out of range. A similar thing happened a number of times when Bush was trying to get Saddam Hussein with cruise missles.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 1:02pm
Not true.

The CIA immediately contacted Clinton saying they had a predator drone feeding them live footage. Clinton did not act because Sandy Berger said there was a possibility that a "friendly" was in the camp with bin Laden at the time. The "friendly" in question was supposedly a relation to the Saudi royal family.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 1:04pm
Slow to react?

The only person that would be slow to react would be Kerry as he would not know what position to take until all of the opinion polls came in. In an election year? forget it....Kerry would not want to alienate his base, or upset anyone that could potentially vote for him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 1:12pm
The electoral college system is a necessary system as it is more fair than just a popular vote.

If the election were decided just on a popular level, first, Democrats would have a distinct advantage as the major cities are predominantly Democratic, and all a candidate would have to do is win a majority in the following cities:

Boston

New York

Chicago

Detroit

Philadelphia

Miami

Los Angeles

San Francisco

San Diego

Washington DC

Phoenix

Dallas

(I think you get the point.)

Without the electoral college system, the people who dont live in these areas basically would not matter as much on a political level to the candidates, as the candidates would be pandering to the larger cities, which would have the greatest control in any given election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 1:43am
I get the point, ... that you are completely wrong on this.



NOTHING, NOTHING, is more fair than a popular vote.

What does it matter if there are large cities with more Democrats? There are suburbs with more REPUBLICANS. As an example, the Chicago metroplitan area has nearly nine million people in it, but only a little more than three million people live in Chicago itself. And what about those states with predominantly rural populations? Do you think their votes won't count? A system where each persons vote counts the same as each other person, no matter what state you live in, or big city, or small city, or rural area, is the only way you or anybody else could be assured that wherever you choose to live in this country that your vote would count just the same after you moved as before.

Do you think Candidates go out and talk in some empty farm field now? They go to where the people are, both of them, it only makes sense. That doesn't diminish the vote of someone who can't be there to see them, or make their concerns any less important than someone elses. (This is one reason for c-span and the cable news channels) we can all see them on tv and go see them in person (if we choose to) whenever they get somewhere relatively close.



Your way of looking at this "panders" to a rural minority who want power above and beyond other citizens who happen to live in large population states.

I have noticed a tendency on the part of yourself and others who favor Bush to be very defensive of the electoral college and the idea of dominance by small population states. What you are really showing by this is that you value property (land) more than people, because it might swing an election your way. How sad. If Kerry wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote, I wonder what you'll be saying then.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 2:06am
If you are right, then in hindsight, sending in the missles sounds like a good idea. However, in a pre- 9/11 world I can see where they might have not wanted to provoke a then thought of 'ally' by killing someone in the leaderships family. Perhaps they thought there would be other opportunities that might come up with less collateral damage.

This adds credence though, to my feeling that Saudi Arabia is an enemy, more than Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, and they have not been held accountable for the fact that most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. (I wonder what that so called 'friendly' was talking about with Bin Laden?)


Edited 10/27/2004 2:19 am ET ET by splum2004
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 11:47am
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

That is the sound you hear on Family Feud when you give a wrong answer, and boy, you just did.

If Kerry wins the EC and loses the popular I will think exactly what I thought in 2000.......Hmmm what a strange phenomenon, and LIVE WITH IT.

I am not like the typical liberal who is still crying about 2000 and how Gore could have made it all irrelevant if he had won his own home state of Tennessee. Makes you kind of wonder when the people from your own home state won't support you. Seems like John Edwards has the same problem.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 1:04pm


There wasn't anything wrong in my answer, that's the way republicans come across about this issue here. 2000 is not a particular issue for me because the EC has always been unfair, and I've thought so for at least 25 years. So you're not bringing all this EC stuff up because you want Bush to win? That's pretty hard to believe.

Pages