DB: Goodbye GM - Michael Moore

[JMS]

First off, you are linking to michaelmoore.com to back up your, or rather his, assertions? That's rather ludicrous, to be honest.

I would agree if Moore didn't cite other mainstream media refferences to support his facts. I think that makes it pefectly reasonable.

Did you even read what you posted? As Kilmer pointed out, it doesn't match what you're saying.

I think the actual piece in the film said Bush Sr and Obama's brother were sitting across from each other at the meeting on the morning of 911 as the quote states...

Now does that mean they are actually sitting 90 decrees oposite of each other, or were they kind of sitting catty corner from each other, I'm not clear. I get your point though the precise pedantic details are all the matter when you are trying to refute the incredible factoid.

So this Fortune article (which I can't find at fortune.com, but will assume exists) says Bush Sr. and Bin Laden's (estranged, half) brother were both at an annual investor conference, but Bush Sr. left before the attacks started. No more detail is offered, and somehow that turns into "Bush's father was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on Sept 11th 2001 watching the planes fly into the buildings". Seriously?

Yeah, I agree Bush leaving before the actual planes crashed into the buildings seconds, minutes, or hours before the 9am plane crashes totally makes meaningless and un-newsworthy the fact that Bin Laudin's brother sat on a board of directors with Pappy Bush in the same room the mornings of the attacks..

That Bin Laudin Family money was used to bankroll G. W Bush in a number of business ventures before his politcal career.

I'm sorry, That's interesting news to me. News I think I would have heard somewhere before MM came out with it four years after 911.

I don't find it that unbelievable at all, to be honest. I imagine the Saudi's though he'd make them some money. They were wrong. Lots of people have been wrong about the guy, including a lot that voted for him thinking he'd be a good president and a lot that want to paint him as an evil overlord who is a genius planner, and/or a bumbling moron.

Except they stuck with him through three business ventures and ended up getting him on a board of directors spot on a company they controled through Carlyle....

I'm sorry I find that interesting. I'd like to hear more about it.

I don't think it proves Moores position, but for a country which is obsessed by J-lo or the octo mom, I think we could find a few lines in the main stream media to discuss this stuff.

That you still have any faith in MM as a person interested in facts is pretty amazing. These "facts" really don't mean anything, and are of dubious origin to boot.

I agree they don't mean anyting. I find it interesting however that they are facts. That Moore constructs logical well supported arguments around facts is what I like about Moore. I also give Moore Credit for drawing out the ira of Main Stream media conglomorates and then stuffs then back into their holes by supporting his facts...

If you claim Moore's conclusions are not proven by his facts... We can agree on that. But I won't agree Moore isn't honest, persuesive, intelligent, topical, inciteful and entertaining.

It reminds me of a great movie: "Man gives birth to baby" - That's a fact.

Once again, I refuse to bankroll this hack. Now that will be 7 dollars for having read my opinion.

[deejaydana]

I've said it before and I'll state it again:

Michael Moore's core audience is the 18 to 22 year old demographic.

[JMS]

It's newsworthy in the sense that it's interesting. However, Michael Moore didn't include facts like that because they are interesting. He included them to try to paint the Bush family as evil and perhaps even involved in 9/11. Many of Michael Moore's films work that way, i.e., they present facts which may be true, but he puts them together in a way that is very intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

Moore doesn't suggest the Bush's were involved in 911. Moore suggests and supplies numerous touchpoints throughout Pappy Bush and GW Bush's careers where they were closely tied to Saudi money in general and Bin Laudin's money specifically.....

His over all assertion is that a family which has billions of dollars of mutual business interest with the Saudi's and Bin Laudin's are not solely makiing decisions on what are the best interest of our country. Moore goes on to bring up controversial decisions made by the Bush administration before and after 911 and tries to show the Saudi influence at play. Like the administration allowing all the Saudi's and Bin Laudins to leave the country shortly after 911 without even being questioned by the FBI.

I agree Moore doesn't prove his points conclusively. However I would argue he does make and support propositions which are worthy of discussion and cite facts which were not brought out by our "main stream media".

He's puts forward controversial opinions and supports them with considerable flair. It's a powerful persuasive use of the movie media.

Frankly, I think Michael Moore is scum. He lambasts the right for being dishonest, when he goes and does the same thing.

I would disagree with you. Moore comes to the discussion with a strong opinion and constructs a film editorial which strongly supports his position. It's intelligent and thought provoking and is not any more dishonest than Pat Buchannon, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, or William Rasberry weekly editorials.

I just wouldn't rely in editorials to be your ownly source of information on a subject is all.

[Switchgear]

Moore is a smart guy and knows his stuff. That actually makes the dishonest aspects of his movies less forgivable. When you force your audience to pick over your claims to figure out what's real and what isn't, your credibility is already crushed.

Assuming he's a smart guy that understands the movie business, the only conclusion that makes sense as to why he would intentionally introduce the misleading elements into his films is for their emotional impact. So that rather than thinking about the subject matter, people get angry, energized and active. The unfortunate side effect is that it's half-truths that are at the root, but hey, it gets people talking.

The second link that Kilmer put up is pretty good reading, I'll get those who are too lazy to click started:

Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.

Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)

The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

[Commander PK]

My intense hatred of this fat slob will not allow me to take anything he takes seriously. The guy needs to go away.

[JMS]

I've said it before and I'll state it again:

Michael Moore's core audience is the 18 to 22 year old demographic.

You are another smart person who s opinion of Moore is totally based upon third party sources. How do I know this. If you had actually bothered to sit through Sicko, or F-911; you woudn't make the previous assetion.

Moores films are intelligent, informative, and thought provoking. I wouldn't change any core beliefs over them, but I like pictures that challenge me and I like editorialists who can support their arguments....

Moore's facts are pretty mind blowing.

[LaxBuddy21]

His movies remind me of Mr. Deeds where the news station pieces that video of Adam Sandler saving the woman from the burning building. Yea all of that happened but when you cut and paste facts and do not present the whole story, that can hardly be called fact any more.

[JMS]

I will say we didn't have nearly as many entitlement programs around then as we do today that have zapped the middle and upper classes.

I would argue we were a much more corrupt society at the dawn of the industrial revolution than post WWII. I would also argue the improvements to infrastructure is what has allowed our economy to blosum and creates a significantly larger more efficient market to bare the costs of such upgrades.

We were able to do some of these things before the days of social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc.

SS came about wich FDR prior to most of these innovations like air traffic control grid, power grid, and highways.

I would argue the folks who lead us in public works today like the Europeans and Asians are fundimentally more socialist and entitlement driven than we are; which I also think weakens your fundimental assertian.

[JMS]

His movies remind me of Mr. Deeds where the news station pieces that video of Adam Sandler saving the woman from the burning building. Yea all of that happened but when you cut and paste facts and do not present the whole story, that can hardly be called fact any more.

Again spoken as someone who hasn't seen one recently.... I wouldn't describe F-9/11 or Sicko as you did. I don't know of anybody who would...

Kilmer is a pretty partisan guy. He enjoyed F-9/11 found it interesting maybe even informative and entertaining.

I don't think it persuaded or changed his mind, but I read plenty of editorials which don't accomplish nearly as much as MM accomplishes in his flicks.

[Dan T.]

I've seen "Roger and Me" and "Sicko." Moore is an adept filmmaker, and a smart guy. I know going in that he's going to try to manipulate the hell out of me. That doesn't mean his films aren't entertaining.

[Kilmer17]

Links said he was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on the morning of 911..... Four years after 9/11 I never heard that before till Michael Moore's movie came out.

I don't know what it proves, but it's interesting.

Why is that interesting?

How many siblings and half siblings did Bin Laden have at that time?

25 BROTHERS, the number of SISTERS is unknown of course, because their religion doesnt consider them people.

Mohammed bin Laden (1908-1967)

His sons were:

Salem bin Laden (1946-1988) married Caroline Carey

Ali bin Laden

Thabout Bin Laden

Mahrous Bin Laden

Hassan bin Laden

Omar bin Laden

Bakr bin Laden

Khalid bin Laden

Yeslam bin Ladin (b. 1950) married Carmen bin Ladin (b. 1954)

Wafah Dufour (b. 1975)

Najia Dufour (b. 1978)

Noor Dufour (b. 1987)

Ghalib bin Laden

khalifa bin Laden

Abdul Aziz bin Laden

Issa bin Laden

Tarek bin Laden

Ahmed bin Laden

Ibrahim bin Laden

Shafiq bin Laden

Osama bin Laden (b. 1957) married Najwa Ghanem (b. 1957)

Abdallah Osama bin Laden (b. 1976)

Saad bin Laden (b. 1979)

Omar Osama bin Laden (b. 1981) married to Zaina Alsabah bin Laden

Muhammad bin Laden (b. 1983)

Khalil bin Ladin

Saleh bin Ladin

Haider bin Laden

Saad bin Laden

Abdullah bin Laden

Yasser bin Laden

Mohammad bin Laden (b. 1967)

And the ones in question vehemently opposed their half brother and denounced him over and over to the point that they too became targets for him.

So again, why is that interesting? Why crazy conspiracy are you trying to sneak into the debate?

[Kilmer17]

"Like the administration allowing all the Saudi's and Bin Laudins to leave the country shortly after 911 without even being questioned by the FBI. "

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

[JMS]

Why is that interesting?

? That Pappy Bush, and GW bush had significant business ties to the Bin Laudin family prior to 911 extending right up to the mornings of the attacks?

Come on Kilmer even you have to admit that's an interesting tidbit of news.

How many siblings and half siblings did Bin Laden have at that time?

And yet I've never sat in the same conference room with either Pappy Bush or a Bin Ladin.

And the ones in question vehemently opposed their half brother and denounced him over and over to the point that they too became targets for him.

Right but that's a different argument....

Today know know that some of those brothers and sisters attended Bin Laudin's sons wedding in Afghanistan also attended by Osama, prior to 911. Guess they aren't as astranged as we thought hmmm?

So again, why is that interesting? Why crazy conspiracy are you trying to sneak into the debate?

A crazy conspiracy theory would be claiming Osama's brother and the Presidents father were in the same room shortly before 911 discussing business deals. Once you prove it actually occurred I think it ceases to be crazy and becomes a fact.

Hanging arguments around facts are not necessarily proof of the argument. But they are a reasonable basis for a discussion.

[Kilmer17]

? That Pappy Bush, and GW bush had significant business ties to the Bin Laudin family prior to 911 extending right up to the mornings of the attacks?

Come on Kilmer even you have to admit that's an interesting tidbit of news.

And yet I've never sat in the same conference room with either Pappy Bush or a Bin Ladin.

Right but that's a different argument....

Today know know that some of those brothers and sisters attended Bin Laudin's sons wedding in Afghanistan also attended by Osama, prior to 911. Guess they aren't as astranged as we thought hmmm?

A crazy conspiracy theory would be claiming Osama's brother and the Presidents father were in the same room shortly before 911 discussing business deals. Once you prove it actually occurred I think it ceases to be crazy and becomes a fact.

Hanging arguments around facts are not necessarily proof of the argument. But they are a reasonable basis for a discussion.

The conspiracy is that Moore (and in this case you) state a common known fact, or in this case, an uniteresting fact and present it in a context to make the viewer think that something other than the obvious is going on.

The Bin Laden at that meeting was part of the Carlisle group right? Bush is part of that right? So why is it interesting that they were together at a Carlisle group meeting? Unless you are trying to make the point that Bush was really there with a Bin Laden who really DID support Osama, thereby making it seem like our Govt was connected to him and thereby complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The reason youve never sat in that meeting is not because you're not in on the conspiracy, its because you arent a member of the Carlisle Group.

[mjah]

Assuming he's a smart guy that understands the movie business, the only conclusion that makes sense as to why he would intentionally introduce the misleading elements into his films is for their emotional impact. So that rather than thinking about the subject matter, people get angry, energized and active. The unfortunate side effect is that it's half-truths that are at the root, but hey, it gets people talking.

No disagreement there.

[Switchgear]

I would agree if Moore didn't cite other mainstream media refferences to support his facts. I think that makes it pefectly reasonable.

There weren't any links, to michaelmoore.com or any other site, with regards to your first claim. Do you have one? You posted a quote but no link.

I think the actual piece in the film said Bush Sr and Obama's brother were sitting across from each other at the meeting on the morning of 911 as the quote states...

Now does that mean they are actually sitting 90 decrees oposite of each other, or were they kind of sitting catty corner from each other, I'm not clear. I get your point though the precise pedantic details are all the matter when you are trying to refute the incredible factoid.

I never brought up anything about seating arrangements, the only one resorting to rhetorical tricks here is you. I only pointed out what the piece you quoted said.

For reference, here it is again:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as they terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11.

All it says is they were both at an investor conference. It doesn't say they were in the same meeting, or any of the other stuff you are reading into it. I'm not saying therefore they weren't ever in the same room, or sitting near each other. It's possible, I'm just saying there is nothing about it in what you posted.

Yeah, I agree Bush leaving before the actual planes crashed into the buildings seconds, minutes, or hours before the 9am plane crashes totally makes meaningless and un-newsworthy the fact that Bin Laudin's brother sat on a board of directors with Pappy Bush in the same room the mornings of the attacks..

I think we can rule out seconds and minutes, given that his plane was over the midwest. I guess I'm just worried about "precise details" (which is apparently a bad thing?) but I'm sure that travel time to the airport and such would make it pretty likely that Bush Sr. left the conference hours before the attacks.

I don't know why it shocks you that two major investors who happen to invest in the same company are at that company's shareholder conference. It's not that surprising.

The point of all of this is not to nitpick every small detail. I'm just pointing out that you started out with

Bush Sr was sitting across the table from Osama Bin Laudin's brother on the morning of 9/11.

which sounds pretty crazy, but that as soon as you look at the details, it falls apart. The best that you can say with confidence (if you're concerned about the truth that is) is they were both in the same building on the morning of 9/11, because they were attending a shareholder conference. SHOCKING!!!!

Mjah asked out about this earlier, I don't think you understood him though:

In another scene, in which he attempts to prove that George Bush ran a racist campaign commercial, he takes a George Bush commercial, removes only the first sentence and the last one (the "I'm George Bush and I approved this message") and places a different commercial in between them. And then edits that commercial to say things that it didn't say.

The fact is John McCain's campaign in the 2001 election was destroyed in South Carolina by smear tactics by Bush's campaign orchestrated by Karl Rove. They spread the bold faced lie that John McCain had an illigitamate black child out of wed lock, and showed pictures of his family including his adoptive daughter as proof. It was particularly slimy politics which became a trademark of Karl Rove's campagnes. John McCain said as much after leading in South Carolina and seeing his lead evaporate.

What Larry was writing about was the Bush Sr "Willie Horton" ad. MM changed it around for Bowling for Columbine. You can read up on it if you like.

[Skin'emAlive]

We could do all those things again if we decided it was in our national interest and we had the will to do it.

Much easier said than done. There are plenty of problems existing in our country that could be fixed if it was in our nations interest. The problem is and has always been the head of our administration. The reason why certain things get pushed is because there is a personal interest ( and subsequent beneficiary) in the administration.

For example: Why arent photovoltaic systems currently being optimized over more buildings? It is free energy that if set correctly pays for itself within a handful of years. After that, the owners have the option of selling back the excess energy to a local power plant.

Why arent there more wind generators and solar cells located along the highways? There is a vast amount of land that is capable of generating energy, and is being completely neglected.

There are numerous examples as to how this country could save money on energy ( wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, low-impact hydroelectricity, and heliostat systems). It is just going to take a while. Asking for a bullet train system to be put into place is wishful thinking compared to the relative ease incorporating these elements into our infrastructure would necessitate. The killing off of GM, and many other options moore suggests would take alot more initiative and effort than anyone in the american economy has patience for.

[Special K]

The conspiracy is that Moore (and in this case you) state a common known fact, or in this case, an uniteresting fact and present it in a context to make the viewer think that something other than the obvious is going on.

The Bin Laden at that meeting was part of the Carlisle group right? Bush is part of that right? So why is it interesting that they were together at a Carlisle group meeting? Unless you are trying to make the point that Bush was really there with a Bin Laden who really DID support Osama, thereby making it seem like our Govt was connected to him and thereby complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The reason youve never sat in that meeting is not because you're not in on the conspiracy, its because you arent a member of the Carlisle Group.

Thank-you.

Evidently this minor fact needs to be explained a bazillion times for people to "get it." And even then, many people still don't get it. :doh:

But whatever, conspiracy theories are more fun!! Yay!

[JMS]

The conspiracy is that Moore (and in this case you) state a common known fact, or in this case, an uniteresting fact and present it in a context to make the viewer think that something other than the obvious is going on.

Kilmer we have a different definition of commonly known, and we also have a different definition of "uninteresting".

I remember when Carter was in office the bank which carried the mortgage of his family farm was purchased by Saudi's. That was news in the mid 1970's. But somehow it's uninteresting that Papa Bush and his son have conducted business with the Bin Laudin's extending over decades RIGHT UP UNTIL THE MORNING OF The ATTACK...

Now if you want to claim it's not damaging by itself, I'll agree. Moore puts forwards an entire slew of such interesting nuggets of knowledge. I would also agree with you if you said in their totality they were not damaging. but I don't think you can claim they aren't interesting, thought provoking or True.

The Bin Laden at that meeting was part of the Carlisle group right? Bush is part of that right? So why is it interesting that they were together at a Carlisle group meeting? Unless you are trying to make the point that Bush was really there with a Bin Laden who really DID support Osama, thereby making it seem like our Govt was connected to him and thereby complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Which nobody but you are saying. Rather Moore puts forward the premise that the bush's have billions of dollars of mutual business interests with the Sauds and only recieves about 400k a year from Uncle Sam. That being said Moore questions who exactly is Bush Senior working for when he goes to Saudi and further calls into questions some of Bush's moves in office. He proves nothing, but I think his questions are interesting and his facts as crazy and wild as they seem, have turned out to be accurate.

The reason youve never sat in that meeting is not because you're not in on the conspiracy, its because you arent a member of the Carlisle Group.

Now you are drawing conclusions. Fact is the question is why is Bush Sr in the Carlyle group? Why is Baker? Why was Bush Jr financially supported by the Saudi's and the Carlyle group for literally decades before starting his political career.

[Kilmer17]

Why are they members of an investment group? Probably for the same reason anyone is, to make money.

But Moore (an you) are trying to get people to draw the conclusion that because Bush Sr is a member of an investment group, with Saudis including a half brother (one of 25) of OBL, that his interests are more the interests of the Saudi Govt, then that of the US govt. And as such, HIS SON (The POTUS) must also share that interest. And further, the Saudi interest is actually the same as OBL, even though both sides have vehemently and violently disagreed about damn near everything.

So here would be the logic equation-

Since A does not equal B, it must equal C. And since C is really D, and since B is really E, then logically D must equal E.

whew.

[JMS]

Assuming he's a smart guy that understands the movie business, the only conclusion that makes sense as to why he would intentionally introduce the misleading elements into his films is for their emotional impact. So that rather than thinking about the subject matter, people get angry, energized and active. The unfortunate side effect is that it's half-truths that are at the root, but hey, it gets people talking

Ok so we've graduated from dishonest, from lies, to now you are claiming misleading. Sounds to me like you're going backwards here. How about you guys actually watch F-911 or Sicko and then come back and voice an opinionn.

Fact is it's more dishonest to try to catagorize Moore based on your third or fourth or fifth hand canned perception of his work than what Moore does.

Get yourself informed by actually seeing his picture before you try to label it.

Kilmer said it was entertaining, he enjoyed it... I would bet he learned a few things too in watching F-911. He also said it was persuasive, but that it didn't fundimentally change his opionion...

I think that's a fair and representative statement. As I've said that stateent also describes a pretty sucessful editorial.

[JMS]

Why are they members of an investment group? Probably for the same reason anyone is, to make money.

I like to make money. You like to make money. Think they'd put us on the board? Why not? Hmmmm what does John Major, George Bush Sr, George W. Bush, Fidel Ramos, Oliver Sarkozy (Nic's Brother), Ariand Panyarachun and Thaksin Shinawatra all have in common? What do they have that we don't have?

Why would Saudi Arabia want them to sit on the board of directors of their investment group, and not us?

But Moore (an you) are trying to get people to draw the conclusion that because Bush Sr is a member of an investment group, with Saudis including a half brother (one of 25) of OBL, that his interests are more the interests of the Saudi Govt, then that of the US govt. And as such,

Yes how dare Moore put forth true facts and actually try to get you to draw conclusions based on those facts! Not one fact, Not two facts.. But Moore actually puts forward multi hour multi media presentations presenting true facts to support his assertions.... What is that guy ( an me )... thinking?

HIS SON (The POTUS) must also share that interest. And further, the Saudi interest is actually the same as OBL, even though both sides have vehemently and violently disagreed about damn near everything.

Now who is presenting facts? Fact is GW Bush has also been supported for decades by Saudi's investment dollars and the Carlyle group. That is part of Moores fact blitz.

Now would you pleace quote where Brother Bin Laudin ever "violently" or "vehemently" disagreed about anything, much less "damn near everything" with Brother Osama? Also why you are at it, explain why that is even relivent.

So here would be the logic equation-

Since A does not equal B, it must equal C. And since C is really D, and since B is really E, then logically D must equal E.

whew.

Actually here is the logical argument Moore Makes.... Pappy Bush has billions of mutual business interests with the Saudi's and Bin Ladin's Brother. GWBush is also financially supported by the Saudi's including Bin Ladin's brother for decades prior to his political career by Saudi's and Brother bin Laudin. Therefore when G Bush travels on foreign tripps abroad as an Ex President who does he represent. Us who continue to pay his 400k check a year, or the Saudi's who he has those billions in mutual business interests in?

When GW Bush makes decisions in the white house. Does he take into account his decades long financial relationship, and those billions of dollars worth of family business he's got with the Saudi's and Bin Laudin family; or is he thinking of the US citizens.

It's a valid question, and it seems the underlying facts are accurate cause nobody seems to really have questioned them. I agree with you if you want to claim Moore's presentation doesn't proove his assertion. I disagree with you if you want to suggest Moore dishonestly represents the Bush Bin Laudin, Saudi relaship or that Moore doesn't ask thought provoking questions.

[JMS]

Much easier said than done. There are plenty of problems existing in our country that could be fixed if it was in our nations interest. The problem is and has always been the head of our administration. The reason why certain things get pushed is because there is a personal interest ( and subsequent beneficiary) in the administration.

Very cynical for a 23 year old. I'm about twice your age. This might be a generational argument. I remember the 60s and early 70's when we had the best infrastructure in the world. Best healthcare system in the world' date=' Best air traffic control system, best elementary education system.

To me it wasn't that long ago.

To you it's not within your memory so you don't realize it ever was, perhaps.

There are numerous examples as to how this country could save money on energy ( wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, low-impact hydroelectricity, and heliostat systems). It is just going to take a while. Asking for a bullet train system to be put into place is wishful thinking compared to the relative ease incorporating these elements into our infrastructure would necessitate. The killing off of GM, and many other options moore suggests would take alot more initiative and effort than anyone in the american economy has patience for.

It does take more than will. It takes a partnership with government. Frankly innovation and massive improvments in the infrastructure of the country is not something conservatives are good at. It's not something conservatives value. That's not a knock on conservatives, it's just reality.

We have a much better chance of seeing some sort of partnership with government leading to infrastructure improvement coming out of a left leaning government.

[JMS]

which sounds pretty crazy, but that as soon as you look at the details, it falls apart. The best that you can say with confidence (if you're concerned about the truth that is) is they were both in the same building on the morning of 9/11, because they were attending a shareholder conference. SHOCKING!!!!

You have made a number of false assertions here. (1) that Bush Sr is a major stock holder. He's not. He along with a handful of former heads of state sit on the board of directors of the privately held company. They exist to do business with governments so they collect heads of state to open doors and influence peddle. Bush Sr is not a major investor; he's an employee, just like Bush Jr was for decades prior to his political career.

(2) That Bush and Brother Bin Ladin were just "stock holders". again wrong. Bin Ladin is the head of the second largest fortune in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They sit on the board of directors together. A much smaller group than a general stock holders meeting.

Oh and typically boards of directors for major company's who attend meetings together and take the time to congrigate to the same continent, same country, same city, same building at the same time; do sit in the same room.

What Larry was writing about was the Bush Sr "Willie Horton" ad. MM changed it around for Bowling for Columbine. You can read up on it if you like.

I thought he was writing about F-911 add where Bush's campaign attacked McCain for having an illigitamate black child.

I guess you guys don't have a problem then with that fact either.

[Dan T.]

You have made a number of false assertions here. (1) that Bush Sr is a major stock holder. He's not. He along with a handful of former heads of state sit on the board of directors of the privately held company. They exist to do business with governments so they collect heads of state to open doors and influence peddle. Bush Sr is not a major investor; he's an employee, just like Bush Jr was for decades prior to his political career.

(2) That Bush and Brother Bin Ladin were just "stock holders". again wrong. Bin Ladin is the head of the second largest fortune in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They sit on the board of directors together. A much smaller group than a general stock holders meeting.

So you pretty much answered your own questions about why they were together. Nothing nefarious.