Good evening Frank! > Good evening Lowell! > > Lowell C. Savage wrote to Dave Liard... > > > Aaahh, yes.... > > That great font of truth, accuracy and fairness, the BBC, has produced a > > documentary which should probably be held in the same regard as any by > that > > other great font of truth, accuracy, and fairness, Michael Moore. > > I'm not particularly a great fan of Michael Moore, as such. > However, his greatest enemies at present appear at least to be > the neo-fascist (or, should I just be politically correct and > politely call 'em "neo-conservatives"?). Don't know if Michael > Moore wants to bring an end to the encroaching police state that > is evolving around us, but if he is, then perhaps BBC and Michael > Moore might possibly at least be allies of Libertarians, no?
Well, one of his greatest critics is David Kopel who considers himself a liberal (perhaps of the old school--before the term "liberal" got hijacked by socialists) who has been one of the stalwarts defending the right to keep and bear arms. I don't know much about "Roger & Me" to know how much Moore exaggerated things there (I seem to remember some exaggeration about how the plant in Flint, MI got closed down--basically I've heard it involved union overreaching.) But since that film, his work has gotten less entertaining, more partisan, and less honest. So, while his "enemies list" may be an indication, the question is still about the truthfulness of the story. Just because he's taking out after the "neo-cons" doesn't mean he's portraying anything accurately. BTW. I've tried to follow Tim Bedding's link but haven't had any luck. I'll try again tomorrow and see what happens. (I also had trouble with links to the UK Telegraph which were working for a while--is there trans-atlantic trouble?) > The greatest 'terror threat' of all, is unrestrained and 'out of > control' government. Most libertarians already know that, and you > should have known that as well, a long time ago, when you joined > this list a long time ago. This is not a neo-fascist or > 'neo-conservative' conference, and the principles here are > limited government and self-governing by individuals themselves. Except for Iraqis? > > Yeah, yeah. The Sovs weren't a threat and the WTC towers are still > > standing, so terrorism isn't a threat. It's all a lie to get you to > support > > your friendly local Daddy Warbucks defense contractor. > > Lowell, probably the Soviets weren't honestly really the 'giant > threat' that we have all been 'spoon fed' to believe either. You > were obviously led to believe that, as was I, and most others. > Are you suggesting that the mainstream news in consort with > politically correct revisionists have not influenced the way you > might view the last 40 or 50 years of US history? The Sovs were an economic basket case. That doesn't mean they weren't a military threat. In fact, their being an economic basket case made them even more dangerous because foreign adventurism becomes more attractive, both as a way of stealing wealth and as a way of distracting the population's attention from their woes. You seem to be very concerned about that with the current administration but surprisingly blasé about the possibility of anyone else engaging in it. (And I'm certain that Bush has economic advisors that have told him that the war will exact a *cost* on the economy--that is, of course, if he really needed anyone to tell him that.) > If you want to know who is paying for a lot of this, tune in on > the CBS Nightly News, or any other network that you choose. > Who's running the advertising in support of that? All of this is > a sick joke. I'm not sure what you mean, here? CBS is the outfit that got caught passing off forged documents in an attempt to discredit the sitting President. Are you saying that this was somehow supported by the President himself? What does the advertising have to do with anything? Are you trying to pass off some conspiracy theory that the advertisers support the President and so ... oh, never mind, it's so convoluted I'm not even going to try. So why don't you tell me what you really mean, here. At this point, I can't believe much of anything I hear or see on those programs (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MS-NBC and to a lesser extend Fox) without independent verification (meaning, verification by a credible source that is not one of the above)!! CBS lied and only got caught because they were passing off such amateurish forgeries. Imagine if they had actually been done by someone with half a brain! CNN admitted that its pre-war Iraq coverage was done to appease the Iraqi regime so that they could keep their Baghdad office open (I have the NY Times op-ed by the VP who was in charge of the CNN region that included Iraq). Tom Brokow and Peter Jennings defended Rather in the forged documents thing and accused the people who exposed the fraud of a "jihad" against him. Never mind truth and accuracy--they were interested in how "mean" the accusers were. > At least on Liberty Northwest, some of us can still > call it as such, without the censors! In that respect, your damn > lucky you are here, because even your erratic 'Libertarian' > credentials, isn't something officially sanctioned, because this > network isn't the property of a political party as such anyway. What censors? Where are they? The only ones I'm aware of operating in the USA are on university (and lower-level school) campuses and are censoring the views of those who disagree with socialism. For example, see http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003574.html#003574 Oh wait, that's not the only kind of censorship! See here: http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/051778.html As for my libertarian credentials, I suppose you are correct. I happen to think that the current foreign policy situation is best fit by this quote from Churchhill. "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precious chance of survival. There may be even a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves." -Winston Churchhill > Further, my opinions only: > > What actually happened and what actually occurred on 9/11 > certainly had a lot to do with the progression of US foreign > policy, and the socially correct planners you see every night > speaking from the government mostly, on what food you ought to > consume, and how you can best take care of yourself. Are you sure these aren't mostly *former* government? Or attorneys trying to set up the "Big Food" lawsuits? > So, I guess I don't have a really huge problem with Michael Moore > very much either. Maybe he's asking some questions and going > places where even 'angels fear to tread' -- who knows exactly? > Somebody's got to do it, don't they? Oh, he's not going anywhere that hasn't already been heavily trod by plenty of the kook fringe. The question is whether he can get his facts straight. >From what I understand, he can't. > The truth is: Politics stinks. Politics is a prostitute business > where men and women sell the souls to the highest bidder. The > power always, every time mostly, lies behind the throne. Another > individual in history wrote, in part, "I don't have to make the > laws... I already have control over who chooses to write the > laws." This is a paraphrase of course, on Warburg's assessment > of political reality -- it fits nicely in European politics today > as well, as it has, and is, currently fitting our own. So who's buying the current bunch? George Soros? Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? What I find most interesting about this President--especially in this context is that he seems generally serious about enacting his campaign pledges. Which is a refreshing change from, well actually, the previous TWO administrations. > Maybe that might be part of the reason why the 'prison industry' > in America today is growing by leaps and bounds! Of maybe it's because the police are catching them and the justice system isn't releasing them. It is a yearly Rush Limbaugh feature to make fun of another NY Times article (they seem to come out every year) headlines "Crime down even though prison population up." Like, you mean you don't think maybe the second helps bring about the first? Like putting criminals in jail doesn't prevent them from committing more crimes? > And, YOU are worried about Michael Moore? I'm worried about untruth. > I wish to God that were our only concern these days. It certainly > isn't mine. Obviously. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
