Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: [OT] Ah, come qua da noi ...

Il New York Times ha scritto un editoriale triplo per spiegare perché 
bisogna eleggere Kerry presidente e perché il giornale lo appoggia: be', 
ci sono solo motivazioni contro Bush, zero a favore di Kerry. E, 
incredibilmente, non c'è traccia di minaccia terroristica, undici 
settembre, democrazia in Medio Oriente, Iraq e quant'altro. In pratica, 
fuori dall'Upper West Side, chi legge questo editoriale si convince a 
votare Bush.
http://www.ilfoglio.it/camillo/
FOUR MORE YEARS !!! 

 ha scritto nel
messaggio news:41740728$1...@x-privat.org...

Ringraziamo Mongo per il suo come sempre originale ed interessante
contributo.
Moritz Benedikt
'Falschheit gewinnt nicht' - Sascha S.

votare Bush.
avrai letto la versione doppiata in italiano

contributo.
Voi chi?
Ciao
Nicola
--
"Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence."

 Voi chi?
mi aggiungo al "ringraziamo" di Moritz...
ti basta?!
DD

 Ringraziamo Mongo
Ah il vecchio Mongo Park.
Ma non era scopraso nel Mali all'inizio dell'ottocento? Cazzo ne č tornato
piuttosto malconcio.

 bisogna eleggere Kerry presidente e perché il giornale lo appoggia
Grande informazione ci dai....
Approposito degli endosement, eccone un po', ma non sono certo tutti.
"G" and "B" refer to whether the paper endorsed Gore or Bush in 2000: 
JOHN KERRY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (G): 418,323
The Philadelphia Inquirer (G): 387.692
Detroit Free Press (G): 354,581
The Oregonian (Portland) (B): 342,040
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (G): 281,198
The Seattle Times (B): 237,303
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (G): 150,901
The Philadelphia Daily News: 139,983
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) (G): 109,592
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.) (G): 89,384
Portland Press Herald (Maine) (G): 73,211
The Day (New London, Conn.) (B): 39,553
The Albuquerque Tribune (B): 13,536
Total Pro-Kerry Daily Circ: 2,637,297
piu' di questi non so la tiratura....
New York Times
Boston Globe. 
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
Daily News  (seattle)
Star Tribune di Minneapolis 
Dayton Daily News (Ohio)
GEORGE W. BUSH
Las Vegas Review-Journal (B): 170,061
Tulsa World (Okla.) (B): 139,383
Mobile (Ala.) Register (B): 100,244
The Oakland Press (Pontiac, Mich.): 65,484
The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain: 52,208
The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.) (B): 51,498
Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News (B): 51,105
The Sun (Lowell, Mass.) (B): 50,369
The Courier (Findlay, Ohio) (B): 22,319
The Leaf-Chronicle (Clarksville, Tenn.): 22,057
Total Pro-Bush Daily Circ: 724,728
piu' questi di cui non so la tiratura.
Chicago Tribune
Wall Street Journal
Qualche quote interessante, secondo me.
"Experts say the 2004 election is fast becoming, in its final weeks, the
most litigious, lawyer-fraught vote in history," the New York Times
reports.
"The two sides have been mobilizing for months, but in recent days the
battle has been joined on a number of fronts... The clashes have followed a
familiar script. Republicans, long suspicious of urban political machines
and worried about record levels of new registrations in many swing states,
say Democrats have abetted fraud. Democrats, who cite a bitter history of
efforts to deny minority and low-income voters the ballot, contend that
Republicans are trying to suppress the vote."
To aide in these legal efforts, the Los Angeles Times notes "thousands of
observers will be on hand to detail incidents that could affect votes...
The largest effort is being mounted by a coalition of 60 liberal and
independent organizations that includes churches, civic groups, unions and
minority rights groups; it has created a massive computerized tracking
system to follow possible election day breakdowns."
The Denver Post notes "armies of lawyers" will be on hand to spot
irregularities.
P.
-- 
I'm so cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month! I'm so hip I
have trouble seeing over my pelvis!

 contributo.
La so!
Continuavano a chiamarlo Trinita', vero?
-- 
Lanciamo la triplice parola d’ordine “consolidare la pace”, “lottare per la
democrazia” e “resistere al Giappone”

 
http://www.ilfoglio.it/camillo/
LOL, no, e' questa velina, paro paro...
L'artcolo e' qui
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html&OQ=hpQ3DQ26orefQ3DloginQ26pagewantedQ3DprintQ26positionQ3D
Chiede registrazione.


 ti basta?!
mi aggiungo anch'io! ;)
-- 
Holden
hol...@iaciners.org
"lo Stanley Kubrick dei tacchinatori" (copyright GAbriele)
"non c'e' che dire, la svizzera si conferma un posto pimpante!"
(a meta' de "le conseguenze dell'amore)
"è una storia di corna, giusto?" (durante il trailer di king arthur)
(succi)

mi aggiungo anch'io! ;)
Ah, voialtri! ;-)


piuttosto malconcio.
Vorrei provare a scoprasire anch'io, sembra una cosa affascinante.



lette 30 righe e ho già mal di pancia...
cosa non si fa per servire il padrone... bleah!
DD

Chiede registrazione.
October 17, 2004
John Kerry for President
 
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built
more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own
candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as
more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've
seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief
executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent. 
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear
thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in
by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to
re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's
service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried,
his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a
series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a
strong moral core.
• 
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's
disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court
awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular
expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by
sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over
to the radical right. 
Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a
history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He
sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after
another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice
agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on
embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against
efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an
edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the
offspring of alumni. 
When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated
not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war
against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been
used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to
provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had
backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed
higher standards on local school systems without providing enough
money to meet them.
If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans
and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the
environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen
to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan
tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against
the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The
result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across
the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to
wilderness protection. 
• 
The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept.
11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an
unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The
only limit was his imagination.
He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.
The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation
was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his
inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered
circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the
money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug
bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was
needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every
day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.
Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous
international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general
put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the
hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a
Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and
inept management. 
American citizens were detained for long periods without access to
lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to
languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found
were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war
were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement.
The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old
international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of
prisoners taken during wartime.
Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational
arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless
braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who,
while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The
Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism
prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the
American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that
the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came
from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents,
and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in
Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting
the world standard for human rights could behave that way.
• 
Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed
closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American
people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq
had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening
allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear
weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about
attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the
product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of
aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear
centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been
thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international
vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling
went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been
held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people
or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.
The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by
a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab
leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are
tainted by their connection to an administration that is now
radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran
and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection
against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons
themselves. 
• 
We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term,
particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us
plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author
of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture
as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge.
Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas,
has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and
compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.
Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped
Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects
he dislikes, like increased farm aid.
If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will
know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade
imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an
uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest
rates.
The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the
American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals
but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's
handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized
and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its
useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid
according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to
properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the
resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond
to a crisis anywhere else in the world. 
• 
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness
- sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle.
We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he
would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that
he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We
appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of
the people who currently do without. 
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of
ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil
dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the
Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the
United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the
international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering
of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's
appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community
of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination. 
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both
for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually
wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a
heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe
that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his
positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile
Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the
best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope,
examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent
priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds
that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.
An endorsement of Senator Charles Schumer for re-election to the
Senate appears today in the City, Long Island and Westchester weekly
sections.


 settembre, democrazia in Medio Oriente, Iraq e quant'altro.
Minaccia terroristica...
Ancora? E pensi che votando Bush, eventualmente, tale "minaccia" venga
scongiurata?...
 F4Fake
-- 
"La mia vera difficoltà - il mio problema - non era la depressione, il bere,
i fallimenti al lavoro e nemmeno l'indefinita paura di avere qualche
ingranaggio fuori fase.
Il mio problema era la gente.
E ne trovi ovunque."

 Continuavano a chiamarlo Trinita', vero?
Ho il sospetto che sia 'Blazing Saddles'.
'Dolcegramma per mongo'
'Mongo piace dolcegramma!'
-- 
Ch  R

 'Mongo piace dolcegramma!'
Per non parlare di "mongo piccola pedina nel gioco della vita",
stupendamente applicabile al nostro amico FI4MY.
-- 
Abbas

 Ho il sospetto che sia 'Blazing Saddles'.
traduciamo per tutti "mezzogiorno e mezzo di fuoco"?

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3p9dd.59368$b5.29...@news3.tin.it...

ovviamente.
Citazione tra l'altro riportata dal sottoscritto la prima volta che il
Casini ebbe la splendida idea di rinominare l'autore di questo thread...


 Casini ebbe la splendida idea di rinominare l'autore di questo thread...
Chiedo venia a Moritz Benedikt, il vero autore del soprannome e -
naturalmente - al Casini, per averlo tirato in ballo erroneamente.


 traduciamo per tutti "mezzogiorno e mezzo di fuoco"?
Una volta che mi ricordo il titolo originale lasciami fare il figo ;)
-- 
Ch  R

umano.
E che, casualmente, e' su posizioni diverse dalle tue. Hai sempre
reazioni analoghe quando qualcuno di dx posta qualche articolo di
questo genere, Stefano! Ma non e' certo una prerogativa dei
destrorsi...
Io NON ho bisogno di difendere FMI, che non ha fatto altro che postare
un link ad un articolo di giornale (come fa, ad esempio, AP, molto,
molto, molto, molto spesso). Mi piacerebbe di piu' l'idea di leggere
un commento intelligente e approfondito su questo tema, e spesso
questi commenti hanno la tua firma.



AP posta molti link di articoli OT - preferirei di no - ma non è possibile
dire che manchi di personalità o di opinioni sue o che non parli mai di
cinema.
FMI ha giusto postato un altro articolo dallo stesso giornale di partito -
il Foglio, la velina dei Fachidioten, degli idioti laureati: qui dentro è
pura fuffa, per non dire peggio.
Moritz Benedikt
'Falschheit gewinnt nicht' - Sascha S.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

pura fuffa, per non dire peggio.
E non e' (bada bene, e' solo un'ipotesi) che la cosa ti dia
particolarmente fastidio perche' le idee che propone sono esattamente
all'opposto rispetto alle tue?
Ovvero: uno che avesse lo stesso atteggiamento ma fosse nel campo
opposto ti darebbe altrettanto fastidio? O meglio: lo considereresti
uno con un atteggiamento sbagliato?



Sě. Avrai notato che io non lo faccio e se posto un link il 99% delle volte
č d'argomento cinematografico (non voglio dire di non averlo MAI
assolutamente fatto ma quasi) Ma c'č modo e modo: AP ed altri postano
articoli OT ma poi hanno anche qualcosa da dire di loro, sono persone vere -
e di solito postano articoli piů interessanti.


e di solito postano articoli più interessanti.
"Obiettivamente" piu' interessanti? ;-)



Generalmente sì.
Certo se per te l'interesse è direttamente proporzionale al fanatismo di
parte allora i link di Mongo sono sensazionali.
