MEPHISTOPHOLES MOORE'S MOCKU-MISSIVE

Ask a Bullsh*t Question

Get a Diva Answer

 

MIKE'S MESSAGE

Why Don't We All Just Cut the Crap Right Now?

May 1, 2001

From MICHAEL MOORE

 

Dear friends,

 

Don't call me that, you arrogant sh*t.

 

Well, 101 days into the Junta and the fear mongers are having a heyday, aren't they?Even good liberals and Democrats have joined in the mantra.

 

You have your own mantra:"The real enemy is Democrats!Whatever you do, don't vote for one!"

 

To listen to them, you'd think George W. Bush had opened the gates of hell and unleashed the legions of Satan upon the American people.

 

Bush didn't have to, Mike.You and Ralph already took care of that.Congrats.

 

These good people actually believe Junior has put the arsenic back in the water, given the go-ahead to spew massive CO2 emissions into the air, torn up our national forests, and raped the Alaskan wilderness.

 

You have no idea what GOOD people believe, only what YOU believe.

 

I am a good liberal, Democrat, and person, so I'll tell you what I actually believe.

 

I actually believe that on March 20 Bush's EPA Head Christie Whitman announced that the Bush administration would withdraw the revised arsenic standard for drinking water issued by the outgoing Clinton administration in January.

 

I actually believe that one week later, on March 27, the Chief of the Forest Service, Michael P. Dombeck, resigned his post, because his defense of the policy not to build roads through 60 million acres of federally owned land (a policy which would effectively bar most off-road vehicles, and new oil, gas and mining operations on those lands) and other Clinton administration initiatives, like the protection of old-growth forests, was at odds with mining and timber interests, and with the Bush administration, which had put all those Clinton initiatives under review, and was considering taking the side of the State of Idaho and Boise Cascade in a lawsuit to overturn protection for 20 million acres of federal lands.

 

I actually believe that the next day, March 28, Bush announced that his administration would not abide by the U.N. accord reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, because adhering to its mandatory pollution reductions would hurt the American economy. The Kyoto Protocol calls for countries to agree to legally binding targets for curbing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, often in power plants that produce electricity.

 

(But maybe those weren't the forests you were thinking of.In that case, I actually believe that on April 10, Bush released his budget, abandoning his pledge to invest $100 million a year in a program for rain forest conservation.Could you have meant THOSE forests?)

 

I actually believe that, as recently as April 23, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The president's position on opening up a small portion of ANWR for oil development is unchanged,'' and that on April 22, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said on both CNN's "Late Edition'' and ABC's "This Week,'' that drilling the Arctic refuge remains an administration priority.


DO YOU HAVE SOME DIFFERENT INFORMATION, MIKE? SET ME STRAIGHT, THEN.WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE?

 

With all the fury that has been whipped up, I'm sure any minute we'll also hear that Baby Face Bush recently held up a 7-11 in Denver, and now plans to release bubonic plague into the atmosphere over Ohio.

 

You're sure?You would be -- probably because you haven't pulled your head out of your sphincter long enough to take note of the fact that Mr. Bush's rap sheet has been declared "off-limits" by the press, which, like you, would rather bash Clinton and Gore.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. There's no doubt that this illegal squatter in the Oval Office is not to be trusted farther than you can throw Katherine Harris.

 

Who writes your jokes, Mike?Don "The Crypt-Keeper" Imus?Get a new schtick, Dickless.

 

But, please, let's cut the crap and tell the truth:

 

You mean like you and Ralph did during the campaign?You mean like sending out those emails begging people to sign the debate petition, and PROMISING not to campaign in swing states?Not to run as a "spoiler"?

 

You're coming to this "truth" business a little late in the game, Mike.

 

Give it up.We now know you for the liar that you are.

 

George W. Bush has done little more than CONTINUE the policies of the last eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration.

 

You canít read any better than Bush, can you?Get someone to help you, then.

 

As hard as that is for many to swallow, that is the truth -- and the sooner you stop the scare campaign, the sooner we'll be able to fight Bush in a way that will stop him for good.

 

We?We'll?WE'LL BE ABLE TO?!

 

Excuse me, but I have seen ZERO evidence that you have any interest in doing ANYTHING other than keeping your sorry ass in the limelight.Stop Bush?When did you ever give a rat's ass about doing that?

 

For eight long years, Clinton/Gore resisted all efforts and recommendations to reduce the carbon dioxide in the air and the arsenic in the water. Just last October, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and sixteen other Democrats successfully led the way to STOP any reduction of arsenic in the water.

 

Tom Daschle?Tom "I voted for Gale Norton" Daschle?THAT Daschle?Wow!I didn't know he was Bill Clinton...Is this one of those Clark Kent/Superman things?

 

And who'd have guessed there were only 16 Democratic Senators in October 1999?Speaking of 1999, when WAS that NRC study linking arsenic to morbidity and mortality released?Nine years ago, Mike?That's what you're saying, right?Not March of 1999?That Clinton ignored the findings of the National Academy of Science for "eight long years"?

 

And that Clinton, after he had the March 1999 NRC/NAS Report in hand, with all its attendant scientific data and credibility (remember the days when we had a President that didn't respond to scientific reports with a shrug of the shoulders and a "I don't believe in that"?), was the one sucking up to the mining companies most responsible for arsenic in the water supply?

 

That's not the way I heard it, Mike.Here's what I heard:

 

The Dicks (D-WA) amendment of October 4th, 1999, in the House contained specific language prohibiting the dumping of mine wastes on public lands and general language opposing other anti-environmental measures in the Interior appropriations bill. It was only passed by the House because it provided NON-BINDING instructions for members of the House delegation appointed by the Republican leadership to the House-Senate Conference Committee on the Interior Appropriations.Not surprisingly, the House negotiators ignored the non-binding instructions. After two weeks of discussions with the Senate, they agreed to accept most of the Senate's riders, including:

1. Senator Craig's (R-ID) rider to continue dumping toxic mining waste on public lands. The resulting Interior Appropriations House-Senate conference report contained seven other provisions damaging to the environment or rolling back public health and safety laws. The seven additional provisions:

 

2. Allowed new permits for grazing on millions of acres of public rangelands without appropriate environmental reviews;

 

3. Allowed the oil industry to avoid paying $66 to $100 million a year in royalties to the Amercian taxpayer for drilling on public lands (Hutchinson [R-TX] );

 

4. Diverted funds intended for building national forest trails to the promotion of timber sales (Craig [R-ID]);

 

5. Allowed the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to ignore wildlife resource data in managing national forests or Bureau of Land Management lands;

 

6. Blocked the Secretary of the Interior from protecting the Ozark National Scenic Riverways from proposed lead mining (Lott [R-MS]);

 

7. Delayed efforts to reduce noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park; and

 

8. Subsidized increased logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest (Murkowski, [R-AK]). On October 21, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2466 by a vote of 225 ó 200. The NAY vote is the pro-environment vote. After President Clinton threatened to veto the bill, the Republican leadership removed or revised some of the anti-environment riders.The pro-environmentalists finally lost on the Craig (R-ID) rider to continue dumping mining wastes on public lands when the revised rider simply "grandfathered" existing mines under the rider.

 

DO YOU HAVE SOME DIFFERENT INFO, MIKE?HUH?

 

Why?Because Clinton and the Democrats were beholden to the very industries who had financed their campaigns --- and who were responsible for high levels of arsenic in the water.

 

Hmmm...Would that be, in the case of the arsenic-in-drinking-water question, the Energy/Natural Resources Industry?If, so, I think your math is faulty, Mike.That's not the way I heard it.The way I heard it, in every Presidential campaign cycle, from 1992 to 2000, these industries gave OVERWHELMINGLY to Republicans.

 

FROM OPENSECRETS.ORG

Energy/Natural Resources:

Long-Term Contribution Trends

 

Election Cycle

Total Contributions

Contributions from Individuals

Contributions from PACs

Soft Money Contributions

Donations to Democrats

Donations to Republicans

% to Dems

% to Repubs

2000*

$64,632,428

$17,478,114

$17,165,646

$29,988,668

$15,732,743

$48,331,641

24%

75%

1998

$40,617,735

$10,062,531

$14,989,180

$15,566,024

$11,181,177

$29,340,150

28%

72%

1996

$43,869,438

$12,889,138

$13,905,117

$17,075,183

$11,637,912

$31,842,979

27%

73%

1994

$27,790,043

$8,730,268

$12,933,203

$6,126,572

$11,704,158

$16,055,115

42%

58%

1992

$32,505,114

$12,109,499

$13,600,077

$6,795,538

$12,772,748

$19,616,160

39%

60%

1990

$16,413,944

$4,747,572

$11,666,372

$0

$7,285,265

$9,126,779

44%

56%

Total

$225,828,702

$66,017,122

$84,259,595

$75,551,985

$70,314,003

$154,312,824

31%

68%

 

THE RATIOS:

Amount Given to Republicans : Amount Given to Democrats

1992:>3:2

1996:<3:1

2000:>3:1

 

So, by your own logic (you gotta dance with them that brung ya), Bush and the Republicans should be more than three times more beholden to these industries, and more than three times worse for the environment, and want more than three times the arsenic in our drinking water, than Al Gore and the Democrats would, were they running the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government, right?

 

Well, since Gore never got inaugurated, let's look at what we DO know:

 

(D)Clinton's Executive Order:10 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water.

(R)Bush's Reversal of Clinton's Order:50 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water.

 

(That's more than three-to-one, isn't it?)

 

And another question:Why, Mike, if Clinton was SO GOOD for these industries, did he suffer the campaign finance slam he did, between his first campaign for the presidency in 1992, and his second in 1996?And why, if Al Gore was such a "good friend" of these industries, was the finance gap in 2000 slightly WORSE than it was in 1996?

 

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, PLEASE?HUH? MIKE?WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

 

On top of that, Clinton/Gore became the first administration in twenty years NOT to demand higher fuel efficiency standards from Detroit. Millions of barrels of oil that did not need to be refined and spewed out into our air were guzzled unnecessarily. It wasn't that way under Reagan. His administration ordered that cars had to get more miles per gallon. Under Bush I, the standards were made even stricter. Under Clinton -- zip. Nothing. How many more people will die from cancer, how much faster will global warming be sped up thanks to Bill and Al being in cahoots with one of their chief patrons, the top lobbyist for the Big 3 auto companies -- Mr. Andrew Card, currently the chief of staff for the man occupying the federal land at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?Am I the only one who remembers one of the most lavish inaugural parties thrown for Clinton after his election? The host: General Motors and its man-about-town in DC, Andrew Card.

 

See, here's where your spin really starts to piss me off, Mike.Are you saying that Reagan and Bush, working with Democratic Congresses, should get gobs of credit for increasing fuel-economy standards from abysmal to decent, but Clinton (working with a Republican Congress) should get gobs of disdain for NOT being able to increase fuel-economy standards from decent to better?

 

And if the Clinton administration was unable to increase fuel-economy standards from decent to better, Bill and Al are to blame, huh?It's their fault?It wasn't that Congressional Republicans pushed through a fuel-economy freeze that blocked the administration from raising fuel efficiency standards and banned the administration from even conducting studies on the standards?

 

(Is that what you're saying, Mike?That the Republicans did NOTHING WRONG by instituting these freezes and bans, year after year?They appreciate you support, I am sure, Mike. )

 

That's not the way I heard it.Here's what I heard:

 

FROM THE DETROIT NEWS

Auto Fuel Efficiency Fight Is On


The administration has consistently opposed the fuel-economy freeze since Congress first enacted it in 1995 for the 1998 model year. The freeze, which is to run to model year 2002, effectively bars the administration from increasing the fuel-economy standards by blocking funds to do so.


In order to raise the standards, the administration has to conduct a costly study to demonstrate if a change is technologically feasible, cost-effective, consistent with other laws, and necessary to meet U.S. oil conservation needs.


Even the environmentalists concede the House is unlikely to strip the freeze from the transportation bill. But they hope to gain enough support within the House -- 145 votes -- to sustain a veto by Clinton.
.

 

Yes, there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats say one thing ("Save the planet!"), and then do another, quietly and behind the scenes with all the bastards who make this world a dirtier place. The Republicans just come right out and give the bastards a corner office in the West Wing. In some ways, maybe it's better we see the evil out in the open rather than covered up in a liberal sheep's clothing that seems to fool a lot of people.

 

Yes, Mike, you just keep telling yourself that.Being delusional must be a great comfort to you, in this, the hour of your complete and utter disgrace.So, when those voices in your head tell you...

 

Ashcroft is no worse than Reno...

 

Norton is no worse than Babbit...

 

Jettisoning the ABM Treaty for Star Wars is inconsequential...

More Scalias and Thomases nominated to the bench are no worse than more Ginsburgs and Breyers...

 

Draining the lifeblood away from our public schools to fund only those parents who can afford to pony up the difference to send their kids to parochial (yes, church) schools is no worse than maintaining the separation of church and public education...

 

Putting Whitman at the helm of the EPA and gutting its funding is no big deal...

 

...You just keep nodding, and telling yourself what a good person you are, and how "maybe it's better" this way.And whatever you do, DON'T go and read the documentation of the Bush administration's actions at We Will Not Forget.The voices in your head wouldn't like it one bit.

 

Bill Clinton waited until the final days of his presidency to suddenly sign a number of presidential decrees and regulations to improve our environment and create safer working conditions. It was the ultimate cynical move. Wait 'til the last 48 hours of your term to finally do the right thing so that your "legacy" will be improved. Every one of these regulations Bush has "overturned" was signed by Clinton in December and January. And that's ALL he did -- sign worthless pieces of paper.

 

They're not called Presidential decrees, Mike.That's in Russia.Here, they are called Executive Orders.According to the National Archives and Records Administration, "Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government." Funny how different your definition is from theirs, huh, Mike?

 

And Clinton signed EO's every year of his presidency, not just the last.Apparently, those "worthless pieces of paper" weren't restricted to the last 48 hours of Clinton's Presidency, nor were they completely "worthless", at least according to CNN:

 

FROM CABLE NEWS NETWORK:

Bush may seek to overturn Clinton executive orders on environment

 

For six years, Republicans have resisted Mr. Clinton's environmental agenda, forcing him to circumvent their power through a series executive orders. Mr. Bush has often stated a preference for congressional consensus, but may employ a similar strategy to employ his own agenda.

 

Apparently, CNN, George W. Bush, and others, are under the impression that these EO's have some teeth.I wonder where they got such a crazy notion?

 

But it doesn't really matter, does it, Mike?No matter WHEN Clinton did the right thing, it would never have been the right time, or right enough, for you; and if he was unable to make the right thing happen, because of the Republican Congress he had to work with, that would be a moral failing, too.Right, Mike?

 

And if he tried to push through unpopular legislation, and set back the environmental movement 30 years, it would have been a "strategic" crime on his part, right, Mike?

 

Seems that, like George W. Bush and the Extreme Court, you are a real "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" kind of guy.You must be so proud!

 

Do you believe Clinton removed the arsenic from the water? Not only did he NOT do that, not only did he make us drink arsenic-laced water for the last 8 years, this order he signed stipulated that the arsenic was not to be removed from the water "until 2004." That's right.

 

I believe Clinton handed down an Executive Order to reduce the levels of arsenic in drinking water in the United States.I believe Clinton would never have had the opportunity to sign into law the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, had it not been an election year, a year in which the 104th Congress needed to appear environmentally responsible to its constituents.I also believe that the pre-Clinton EO standard of 50 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) was set by the EPA in 1975 (not 1942) as an interim standard, and was converted to the MCL (maximum contaminant level) by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (not 1942).

 

Look it up.

 

I tried, Mike, I really did.

 

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo2001c.htmlBut it's not there.

says, "Your query "clinton executive order" matched 0 documents out of 2693"

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's not online, because of Bush's new rule banning publication of federal documents.Send me the URL, Mike.I'm sure your buddy Bush would give it to you.After all, he owes you, right?

 

Clinton's big environmental do-good act in the last minutes of his term guaranteed that we would be drinking the same levels of arsenic we've been drinking since 1942-- the last time a REAL Democrat had the guts to stand up to the mining interests and reduce the levels of this poison. The Canadians and Europeans did it long ago. Clinton made it official that we would all be drinking arsenic during the entire Bush administration. Maybe he was doing us a favor.

 

And how about those COO emission regulations that Bush II overturned? Did I say "overturn?" Overturn what? All Bush did was maintain the Clinton status quo. He said, in essence, that "I'm going to pollute the air at the very same levels Clinton did during his entire eight years, just as you are going to drink the same arsenic in the water under my watch as you did under Clinton's."

 

And, like the built-in three-year delay in his arsenic reductions, Clinton's orders on the toxic emissions in his last days specified that they were not to be totally reduced '"until 2008, per the Kyoto agreement." So, after violating the Kyoto accords he had signed by doing NOTHING about CO2 in the past few years, he then tries to look good by doing NOTHING about CO2 for another seven years! So the air that was dirty is still dirty and will remain dirty, just as Clinton had ordered.

 

The list goes on and on. For eight years Clinton did NOTHING about carpal tunnel syndrome as it relates to OSHA regulations. Then, in the middle of pardoning some rich guys during his all-night kegger on January 19, he decides to finally do some good for all those women who sit at keyboards all day and who, with their crippled hands, went to the polls TWICE to make him their President.

 

Friends, you are being misled and hoodwinked by a bunch of professional "liberals" who did NOTHING themselves for eight years to clean up these messes -- and now all they can do is attack people like Ralph Nader who has devoted his ENTIRE life to every single one of these issues. What unmitigated gall! They blame Nader for giving us Bush? I blame THEM for being Bush! They suck off the same corporate teat and they support stuff like NAFTA which, according to the Sierra Club, has DOUBLED the pollution along the Mexican border where the American factories have moved. And then they wring their hands over Bush and his "reversals!"Where is Orwell when we need him? How much slicker can the doublespeak get?

 

Had Clinton done the job those of us who voted for him in 1992 expected him to do, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in. Imagine if on his first day in office over eight years ago Clinton had ordered a reduction of the arsenic in the drinking water -- and all of America had been drinking cleaner, safer water for the last eight years. Do you think there is any way in hell this Junior Bush would have been able to say, "OK, America, you've been drinking water without poison in it long enough. Time to go back to the good old days of sucking down that ol' arsenic!"? Hell no! The public -- no one -- would have stood for it. And he'd know that. He wouldn't even have tried it. But because Clinton waited to the last minute and never removed any of this crud from the water or the air, there was no political or popular support base for the decision. So it was easy for Bush to do what he did. He figured, you're not going to miss what you never had removed in the first place.

 

Finally, a word about that order Bush issued to ban money for abortions overseas. Wrong again. Pro-choice Clinton, like the three presidents before him, had already signed an order banning any American funds to pay for abortions in foreign countries. What Bush did was to expand the order to include cutting off any monies to foreign birth control groups that offer abortion as an alternative. Worse, yes -- but he only got away with it because our Democratic president had laid the groundwork in continuing the abortion-funds cut-off, placing his "liberal" approval on a piece of the right-wing agenda. If you give the devil a bone, he doesn't just go away -- he wants the whole damn leg.

 

So spare me all the hand wringing and indignant moralizing. Those who want to turn Bush into some sort of cartoon monster have an agenda -- to keep most of us from seeing the beast that they themselves have become. Of course they hate Ralph Nader. He's an ugly reminder that they sold out a long time ago -- and he didn't. Blame Nader, blame Bush, it's all part of the same distraction, to keep you from focusing on this one, very important fact:Republican arsenic or Democratic arsenic, it really is the same damn crap being forced down your throat.

 

I am committed to changing that, either within or without the Democratic Party.

 

Within the Democratic Party?Please.You aren't interested in working inside of any group that won't let you be the star, you egomaniac.Stay where you are.Be a big fish in your tiny pond.It suits you.

 

Please feel free to pass this letter on to anyone you know who believes that Bush "overturned" what Clinton did. Thanks.

 

Please feel free to pass my reply on to anyone who actually fell for your schtick, Mike.Speaking of which, how many of your flock have left for greener (pardon the pun), more credible pastures since the (s)election?And how does it feel to know that every single one of them knows you for the worthless sack you are?

 

Yours,

 

Jesus!I should hope NOT!

 

Michael Moore

mmflint@aol.com

 

Tammy

"The Diva"

Webmistress of BBBR

http://www.coup2k.com

http://www.gorewon2000.net (and I bet that drives you nuts, doesn't it, Mike?Good.)

 

P.S.Well, a miracle of sorts happened in Texas a few weeks back. Michael Moore, the inmate on death row, got a last-minute reprieve! This never happens in that kill-happy state. Thanks to all of you who wrote a letter to the Texan officials. His fate is now up in the air.

 

You mean, " This never happened in that kill-happy state when Bush was Governor," right?

 

A bill is also pending in the Texas legislature calling for a moratorium on executions -- and, surprisingly, it is receiving a lot of support. I'll keep you informed of its progress, and in the meantime, please write to the Texas House and Senate and demand its passage.

 

Why "surprisingly"?Bush is gone from Texas.Things are looking up.What is surprising in that?

 

And where is the contact info for us to write in, Mike?And why is this info a P.S., and not a "Mike's Message"?Could it be that you would rather attack Clinton and Gore, and defend your own sorry ass and Nader's, than do anything positive in this world, INCLUDING supporting a moratorium on executions?You make me sick, Dickless.

 

Meanwhile, Oklahoma will execute a woman later today who was convicted, in part, on the testimony of a police forensic expert who has just been found to have falsely supplied evidence in at least a half-dozen death row cases -- including this woman's. Some of those who were the victims of this forensic "expert" have already been put to death. It now appears they may have been innocent. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 Oklahomans. Today, the people of Oklahoma and its governor will murder one more.

 

This story broke on the AP wire 23 minutes ago.Though you chose not to mention it, Mike, this woman confessed to the murder:

 

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS:

Woman Executed for Husband's Death

 

McALESTER, Okla. (AP) -- On a death row gurney, with intravenous tubes fastened to her arm, Marilyn Plantz prayed before receiving a lethal injection. She was the second woman executed in the state's history.

 

Gov. Frank Keating refused to block her execution Tuesday although Plantz had been convicted of murder conspiracy, in part, by the testimony of a police chemist accused by the FBI of wrongly linking defendants to crime scenes.

 

Keating said Plantz had confessed to her role in the 1988 beating death of her husband, and there was ``no question about her guilt or innocence.''

 

``A tragedy took place in my life and I'm not trying to excuse that or justify that in any way,'' Plantz said in the Tulsa World on Monday.

 

The attorney general's office is examining the convictions of 12 other death row inmates in which Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist testified or helped prepare evidence.

 

An FBI report said Gilchrist gave testimony ``that went beyond the acceptable limits of forensic science'' or misidentified hair and fibers in at least six criminal cases.

Prosecutors have said no innocent people have been executed as a result of Gilchrist's work or testimony, and Gilchrist hasn't been charged with a crime.

 

Plantz was the second woman put to death in Oklahoma since it became a state in 1907. The first, Wanda Jean Allen, was executed in January.

 

Following her trial, Plantz admitted orchestrating her husband's murder. Her lover, William Clifford Bryson, and an accomplice, Clinton McKimble, were both convicted of the crime.

 

Bryson was executed in June, and McKimble received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony against the others.

 

Bryson and McKimble ambushed Jim Plantz and beat him with his 6-year-old son's baseball bats when he returned home from work on Aug. 26, 1988. They then took him to a remote area in his pickup truck and set it on fire to make his death look accidental.

 

Authorities said Plantz hoped to collect on her husband's $300,000 life insurance policy.

 

She was the 124th inmate executed in Oklahoma and the 11th this year.

 

Copyright © 2001 Associated Press Information Services, all rights reserved.

 

What I am wondering, Mike, is why, if you believe the death penalty is wrong, you feel the need to "spin" like this.From reading what you wrote above, one could easily conclude that you are implying this woman never killed anybody, was intentionally framed by faulty forensic evidence, and is an innocent victim on par with those adults and children blown up by McVeigh.

 

Is that what you are saying?Or is that just the propaganda you hope the uninformed will believe?

 

You see, Mike, I oppose the death penalty, period; not just because it is unfairly and unequally applied (based on issues of race, class and gender), not just because it has the potential to kill the innocent (as it has done in the past, and probably still does), but because it kills, period; because as a citizen of this country, it makes a murderer out of me.This belief gives me the freedom to speak without spin on this issue.What about you, Mike?If it could be proved to your satisfaction that the death penalty was not only fairly and evenly applied, but never resulted in the execution of an innocent person, would you be pro-death penalty?Where do you stand?And why don't you say?

 

Is there anything you believe in, except for saving your own ass, and extending your 15 minutes?

 

LETTERS:BBBR Resistance Fighters Write Moore

 

 

 

BACK TO THE BUSH BROTHERS BANANA REPUBLIC