Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This is a pretty tangential post, but I wanted to mention the local theatre in my hometown. They're part of a small midwestern chain, whose president refuses to allow Fahrenheit 9/11 to be shown in his theatres because he calls it a "propaganda film". Whatever the merits of that position, I found the (really poorly written) press release on their web site kind of funny and I hope you will, too. After re-stating his position on the film (i.e. I refuse to allow franchise owners to show this film in their theatres), he closes the release by saying:



Just not in his theatres.

_________________

By the way, there are tons of letters to the editor concerning the Fridley Theatres debacle at the Decorah Newspapers web site. It's interesting to get the small-town perspective, although Decorah's not exactly an ordinary small town.

Update: Okay, so apparently they don't keep the letters online for very long, because the current page only has letters from the past week or two. But the last time I was home (two weeks ago), the most recent issue of the paper had 5 letters blasting Fridley, one supporting him, and one really bizarre one about how we shouldn't fly the Norwegian flag (Decorah has a huge Norwegian-American population) next to ours because we were never conquered by the Norse.


P.S. Can anybody point me to a web site where I can get voting histories (e.g. what percent voted for whom in year X) for U.S. cities? I was at such a site last week but now I can't find it.

_________________

That's hilarious, dude.

Uh, isn't that your job? How are we going to see it and decide for ourselves if you don't let us see it?

I've heard Lush Limpbugg talk about the 'propaganda' of Michael Moore. That's pretty funny too, considering the source. I think the movie has Ol' Lush scared out of his wits. That's why he has to mention it so much.

And discredit it for nonsensical, mostly untrue reasons.

You can say what you want about the guy, but I think he takes free speech to a brave level. Which is what America needs.

Poor Linda Ronstadt. I think I'll write her a letter.

Heh. Let us know if you get a response.

_________________

Okay, this is in reply to a few posts and to the topic in general.

Here's some websites:

The National Archives and Records Administration's Electoral College site: this site assembles a variety of information and statistics on presidential elections, past and present includes an excellent FAQ and a Procedural Guide to the Electoral College.

Federal Election Commision: Includes election results, 2000 Presidential primary election results by state, voter registration and turnout statistics, historical demographic statistics, questions and answers about state voting procedures, absentee voting (including state-by-state cutoff dates, notarization and witnessing, when absentee ballots are counted and by whom), registering to vote, and more.

CNN.com - Election 2000 - Results: Breakdown of the entire election. Including: President, House, Senate, Governor, Ballot Measures, and electoral votes. They even break it down by county.

(Jones, I think this next one is one you asked for)
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: Detailed information on national results for the major and minor candidates for U.S. President in the presidential elections from 1789 through 2000. Individual year pages include candidates, parties, popular and electoral vote totals, maps, charts, and voter turnout (1932-2000). Also, there are state results pages for the elections from 1896 through 2000 with county level maps and data for the elections from 1960 through 2000.

Voting And Registration Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of the Census: Voting and registration by various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, historical trends, projections of the voting-age population by age, race, Hispanic origin, and gender.


And this my friends, is why I love the Internet. This took me maybe less than half an hour to assemble. Why should there be a computer or twenty in every classroom? Yeah, right here.

Tom, you freakin' rock, man.

Good links are so hard to find these days.

Came across a good article about the disparity between the Iraq that we see on teevee and what it's actually like to live in Iraq right now.
It's not very long, and I encourage you to read it.

_________________

Good article, Jones.

Here's some CNN stats from 2003.

But I think just looking at the pictures gives you a pretty good insight.

Here's an article called They Knew... It starts out like this:


The article makes the following points (and cites sources galore):

• They knew Iraq posed no nuclear threat
• They knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons
• They knew the Iraq-uranium claims were not supported
• They knew there was no hard evidence of chemical or biological weapons
• They knew Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating
• They knew there was no Prague meeting

Yes, that's right, they had intelligence before the war that told them there probably weren't WMDs in Iraq. So much for the last of their excuses. It's a good thing they managed to "free the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator" while they were there, huh?

Blah.

_________________

It's a very good thing they freed Iraq from a terrible dictator. Now if they can only free Iraq from militant car bombers, disgruntled Shiites, etc...

_________________

An E-6 from my office just came back from Baghdad Int'l a few weeks ago.
He showed me the video they took after one of their sleeping quarters got hit by a Brazilian rocket...It was way scary...luckily no one died, but lots of people were shaken up.

Scary thing is, this stuff is common over there. The "bad" Iraqi's just hire people to stand in fields and fire rockets toward US encampments. The people there are so poor that the crap pay they get for this is better than regular work. Kids, old people, women, doesn't matter. They just need the money.

We have a long way to go, but these people need our help. We may have not gone in for the correct reasons, but we need to be there.

Here's a good website that provides an up-to-date look at the US military fatalities in Iraq: U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq

I know there's a bunch websites that list the numbers or the names out there, but I find the graph on this one really puts things in perspective.

This might be a little better if the creator of it wouldn't have used such loaded language. I mean, I get the point, "almost all of the soldiers that have died, died after Mission Accomplished". Still, I just think this was created by someone with a lot of ideas, but no knowledge. We DO have evidence that there WERE wmd's there. Still, it's possible said intel could be wrong. I support president Bush, and probably will vote for him. Still, I wish we had more int'l support on this one. Initially, I wasn't all for the war. I mean, yeah, saddam was a jerk, but I didn't believe the Al Qaeda claims. I was almost on WMD's though, cus I felt the intel was solid. I think the clincher on the WMD claims was the hard time they were giving the UN inspectors. I mean, maybe they had nothing to hide, and if that's the case, then we were probably wrong to invade. But, if they didn't have anything to hide, they sure made themselves look suspicious by not allowing UN inspectors into suspected sites.
It was said eariler by Sethroo that even though we may not have gone in for the correct reasons, but we need to be there. Talking to my friends that have come back from there, it would seem that the iraqi people are a lot happier now.
I don't know that the US is a safer place without Saddam, but I think the World may be.

<afterthought by strong rad>I just realized I said "Still" a lot in that post.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Actually, no, there's absolutely no evidence of that and there never was. Maybe you should scroll up a bit.

I know it's hard to hear, but you were lied to all along.

_________________

No doubt.

yeah.. I know we were lied to. That's a fact. The real question is the origin of said lies. I mean, I do think the president has some responsibility if the intel he cited was false, I don't think the blame is all his, but he did need to be a little more skeptical of intel. I reiterate, though, that we do have proof that, at some time, Iraq had WMD capability. If you don't believe that, you should ask the Kurds Saddam gassed. I know that was years ago, but why would we assume they decided, like all civilized nations (including the US) should, that WMD's have no place on the planet, and disband their program? What about the UN inspectors that weren't allowed to do their job, as Iraq was obligated under the UN? If there was nothing to hide, why were they so sneaky about everything? It just looked wrong. Besides, didn't Reagan arm the iraqis with a lot more chem weapons than were used or destroyed after desert storm? Seems like we should be able to see how much we gave them, subtract what they used on the Kurds and the Iranians, and what they used, and see if there is a surplus.

I read the article, and it was rather slanted in it's presentation of "facts". Heresay, which, to be fair, both sides are using in the WMD debate, is not fact... We may never know the truth.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Did you even read the above article? He knew that there probably weren't any WMDs in Iraq. The intelligence told him that there probably weren't any WMDs in Iraq. The President was not misinformed, and his lies were deliberate, not accidental.



I reiterate, no they didn't. Not within the this President's term.



Heresay? The article cites dozens of sources which are a matter of public record. If that's heresay, then so must be the Holocaust and the moon landing.

_________________

we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

The article did say that the president knew, however, he is a little slow, so maybe he didn't know. Unless he wrote this article himself, we can't say what he did or didn't know. We do know that he was told by many that WMD's didn't exist, but he was also told my many that they do.

I do see that there is a lot on public record that says "there are no WMD's in Iraq", and I don't dispute that. Not all the government knows is "public record" however. Perhaps, if there is some secret stuff we don't know about that says, definitively either way, about WMD's, we should know about it. We may never know the full truth.

I know I've pressed this issue to the point that I'm beating a dead horse, but you can't tell me it didn't look a little bit suspicious when the UN inspectors were denied access to places they were legally allowed to inspect. And when they were allowed in, the places were freshly cleaned and painted. I see this as one of two ways, either, they were hiding something, or Iraqi tradition forbids allowing visitors to see a dirty building. I don't know, but it looks suspicious.

There is also the matter of the Russian intel that said there were WMD's. I won't go into the British intel, as I don't really buy it. Tony Blair was likely to do whatever Bush told him to do.

As for the thing about WMD's during this president's term, you're right. The intelligence was old, but that's because nobody was allowed to inspect Iraq. If they would have let UN inspectors in, like they were obligated to do after Desert Storm, then we wouldn't be in this mess. We would either have heard a resounding YES or NO, based on what they saw. Granted the inspectors found nothing but that's only because they went where the iraqis let them go.

As for why we haven't found WMD's yet? Well, there are 3 possibilites, 1: there were no WMDs, 2: the iraqis moved or sold them, 3: we haven't looked everywhere yet (Iraq is a really big country, and we haven't scoured every square inch yet)... THere are those that would say #1 is the only true possibility. They may be right, but, also consider 2 or 3. I'm not saying that they were sold to a terrorist group, maybe to another country, who knows.

I do like that you aren't taking my statements as personal attacks. This is quite a bit more civilized than the debates I'm used to.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

But you're gonna vote for this guy?



Ditto.

_________________

I was more making light of the people who say the president is stupid, then turn around and give him credit for masterminding this whole Iraq "I'm gonna steal an election so I can be president, then have CIA operatives crash planes into the WTC so I can revoke civil rights and go to war with iraq" scheme.

Actually, this election is going to be like the last one for me, voting for the guy I dislike the least. So far, both sides' speeches have all been "Blah! Blah! Blah!, my opponent is scum, Blah! Blah! BLAH!"...

We need a president who votes for things, and doesn't turn around and vote against them, and a president that doesn't decide that, during a highly unpopular war, amidst terror threats, that homosexual marriage is the biggest problem in the country. Neither candidate can say that fit both criteria.

as for the personal attack thing, I was gonna say that I in every debate I'm in, it usually degenerates into name calling, and, since I support Bush, I wind up being a Nazi, while my opponent turns out to be a worthless hippie... Funny cus my hair is really long, while theirs usually is very short, or shaved. LOL

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I don't know anybody (and I know a lot of crazy liberals) who claim that W masterminded 9/11. Anyway, W is surrounded by people like Karl Rove and John Ashcroft and Katherine Harris. With people like that around, one doesn't need a brain in order to run a country into the ground. The Bush campaign did "steal" Florida. I don't even know any republicans who are still arguing against that one (though you're welcome to, you might flip back a few pages first). And his administration is revoking and trying to revoke civil liberties right and left. (Well, right at least.) And the administration was planning for the war in Iraq almost as soon as the second plane hit the south tower (despite the lack of an Iraq/Al Quaeda link, then or ever). Bush may be a supergenius, but if he's not, it's not like he doesn't have people to think for him.



Oh, John Kerry is a "flip-flopper", right? One of the Bush campaign's favorite talking points. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, it must be true because it's said a lot.

I wonder if the Bush campaign will go down in history as the first presidential campaign to coin a confusing term just to attack the other guy. Well, two if you count "hatefest".

_________________

By the way, if "flip-flopping" is your best reason for not voting Kerry, then there's one more reason not to vote for Bush, who wrote the book on "flip-flopping".

Oh, and if you're tempted to remind us how Kerry is an "unaccomplished senator", keep in mind that Dick Cheney, in his tenure in the Senate (over a decade), managed to pass only two bills. Compared to Kerry's 57. (Hah! If he'd taken her name, it would be Heinz' 57! Er.. :goblin:)

_________________

truthfullly, Kerry's senate record is sort of a moot point, as cheney's was rather lackluster, as you pointed out.

And you're right about Bush's flip-flopping as well. The flip-flopping isn't my best reason, but probably the best known reason. I liked the Heinz 57... Funny.

Ok, I've gotten thread off topic long enough. Sorry about that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Imma vote for my dog. The furry candidate.

What's his stance on stem-cell research? I just might be pursaded to vote for em.

_________________

She doesn't care as long as she gets a treat.

What is her stance on terrorism and the economy?

Agent's Dog for Prez!

_________________
its friday night and im home all night (all night)
and saturday night doesnt look much better (oooahhoo)
and nobody likes me coz im a loser (hey! you're a loser)
and everything is going to go my way someday, someday
everything is gonna go my way someday

The thing that still puzzles me is, given that their were no weapons (chem/bio/nuclear) why was Iraq so determined to not let UN (not US) inspectors in?

If he really was as clean as is being portrayed, wouldn't he just let them in and clear things up easily? Maybe I am mistaken, but hasn't he (Saddam) been denying or inhibiting inspections for the last decade?

_________________

I'll admit I don't know much about this. Was Saddam obligated by some treaty to open his doors to inspectors?

_________________

Most definately not. But I would think that he would consider the alternative with the threat of UN sanctioned force if he didn't comply (which was there, just not backed up by anyone but a few countries: us, uk, etc..).

I don't know. There is little doubt in my mind that he was a "bad" person, but there sure are a lot of "bad" people out there. Who gets to pick which ones get removed from power.
ugh

Edit: after rereading your post... I need to clairify. He may have been under orders to allow inspectors in, I am not sure of specifics. But as for privacy and soverignty (sp?) I don't think there is anything saying you have to allow them in. So if there was an order to have inspections, that may have been the unjust thing (even though it may have justified an invasion)

does that make any sense?

_________________