EnderAndrew Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 If you read the two links I sent your way and don't see how Moore lies then I throw my hands in the air. And to hear you talk about responsible journalism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Uhm.. then throw your hands in the air, because you and your right wing extremist friend David T. Hardy (who wrote both your links) are not likely to convince me that Moore is a liar. Well, since your version of "responsible journalism" is one right wing extremist guy writing articles from his basement, then no, you probably shouldn't listen to my version of responsible journalism. I mean, what is Noam Chomsky compared to David T. Hardy? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 See here is the problem. You discount verifiable facts if you don't like the source. I don't like Moore, but if raises a good point, I acknowledge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Clarke is the worst. Why do you say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Clarke was very vocal for years about how Iraq and Al Quaeda were linked. He supported Clinton's bombings and said there was tons of evidence that Al Quaeda and Iraq were making WMD together. A few years later he is now accusing Bush of making all that stuff up, despite the fact he was singing the same tune before. Clarke is grilling Bush like this is some Salem Witch Hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Clarke was very vocal for years about how Iraq and Al Quaeda were linked. He supported Clinton's bombings and said there was tons of evidence that Al Quaeda and Iraq were making WMD together. A few years later he is now accusing Bush of making all that stuff up, despite the fact he was singing the same tune before. Clarke is grilling Bush like this is some Salem Witch Hunt. I thought you typoed, and meant Clark as in Wesley. Now I know you mean Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vault-Tech Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I just recently saw farenheit 9/11 and was that an awsome documentry it made bush look like a total ass. witch is a break because everyone i know and have meet seams to praise the man. he is a murdering basterd to both iraqi citizens and to us soldiers the real enamy was in sadia araibia and afganistan iraq had nothing to do with it he just attacked them so he could cover his own ass being on vacation 50% of the time and not paying attention to his secruity files about osama being in the us. so therefor he pined it on sadam. like chris rock said and i quote "America is a great place but if your black you have to look at it a bit differantly a black C student doesnt get crap while a white C student president of the united states of America" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Bush is a Yale grad, holding a Master's degree and Moore's documentary is propoganda and lies. I wouldn't really want to call it a documentary. Now if you want to call Bush stupid because he supports CAFTA, or wants to integrate religious views into the Constitution, that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDoe Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Out of curiosity, what degree does Bush hold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Its another Hades Hate list! I hate Michael Moore. I hate George W. Bush. I hate Clarke. I hate Politics. I hate Saddam Hussein. I hate Osama B. ladin. I hate Iraq. I hate Korea. I hate China. I hate Al Qaeda. I hate the 9/11 Commission. I hate Bill Clinton. I hate Kenneth Star. I hate Conan O'Brien. I hate Tony Blair. Grr... Argh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDoe Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 And once again, no-one cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 There is someone who cares... ME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vault-Tech Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Bush is a murdering basterd and BUSH USES PROPAGANDA TO ALOT MORE THEN MICEAL MOORE DOES AND HE BENDS THE RULES ALOT SO I WOULNT BE TALKING.if you havent seen the film and YES IT IS A DOCUMENTRY then you did some reseach then YES 99% OF WHATS IN THE MOVIE IS TRUE :angry: ALSO I MAY ADD HE IS A C STUDENT and he was a coke head as well and THAT HE HAS A YALE DEGREE THAT ONE MADE ME CRACK UP THAT WAS A GOOD ONE YEA RIGHT A YALE DEGREE IN WHAT POT SMOKING I REMEMBER HE WAS DISSCARGED FOR THAT SAME REASON TO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leferd Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Bush is certainly unique. It is true that Bush is the only US President with a Master's degree. An MBA. Most Presidents were Lawyers or Generals in background. hmmm....war....profit....mba.... "Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin."P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I will see the movie. And I'm familiar with everything Moore said about Bush leading up to the movie. It was a bunch of lies before. During Moore's acceptance speech he said Bush made up these lies about WMD to invade a country and steal oil. Hrmm. Bush made up the WMD? Yeah. The same WMD that the Democrats were harping about during Clinton's reign. Bush retroactively made them up. And we're not stealing oil, nor is this war about economics. It's a very expensive war, where we're dumping US dollars into Iraq. And now Moore has pulled a 180 on certain stances. Where has Bush used propoganda and lies? Please demonstate. I can point out time and time again when Moore has. And I'm not Republican. I just check facts. Responsible Democrats blast Bush for different reasons. They don't stand behind Moore's ridiculous claims. It's sensationalism, and I'm sorry that you fell for it. If you really love this country, then you owe it to yourself to do some serious fact-checking and try to be objective. This isn't about you and me, or any such debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Haven't seen it myself but doesn't sound like Moore is saying anything new. Of course they lied about WMDs in Iraq about the WAR. There wasn't any definitive proof of that before the war began and there still isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vault-Tech Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 YOU ARE FULL OF LIES YOURSELF BUSH IS A DUMBASS AND YOU ARE CERTANLY ACTING REPUBLICAN CUZ YOU DEFEAND BUSH ALL THE TIME OK NOW TRY TO SAY THIS ISNT PROPIGANDA WHEN HE SAID THAT SADAM HAD WEPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND GUESS WHAT LAST TIME I CHEAKED THERE WERENT ANY JUST ALOT OF DEAD PEOPLE LOTS AND LOTS OH AND GUESS WHAT PEEBRAIN WE ARE STEALING OIL AND HE IS JACKING UP THE PRICE SO THAT WE BUY IT AND HE GETS $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Bush is a murdering basterd and BUSH USES PROPAGANDA TO ALOT MORE THEN MICEAL MOORE DOES AND HE BENDS THE RULES ALOT SO I WOULNT BE TALKING.if you havent seen the film and YES IT IS A DOCUMENTRY then you did some reseach then YES 99% OF WHATS IN THE MOVIE IS TRUE :angry: ALSO I MAY ADD HE IS A C STUDENT and he was a coke head as well and THAT HE HAS A YALE DEGREE THAT ONE MADE ME CRACK UP THAT WAS A GOOD ONE YEA RIGHT A YALE DEGREE IN WHAT POT SMOKING I REMEMBER HE WAS DISSCARGED FOR THAT SAME REASON TO. On seeing something like this you need to keep in mind that Moore is also pushing his own agenda so not everything he would say is 100% true either. Bush did jump the gun though. It surprises me when some ignorant Americans bring up the World Trade Towers as the reason for the US going into Iraq. What part did Hussein and Iraq have in that? Pretty much none. It was that terrorist in Afghanistan and to an extent the government of Afghanistan who was harboring him who were responsible for that. I recall they did give Afghanistan a chance to hand him over first as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I don't believe Bush lied. Consider this for a moment. The UN Security Council unanimously for 12 years blasts Iraq for violating UN resolutions. We know they had WMD before 1991. We know Saddam admitted to using WMD on his people, and threatening to use WMD on the US. We know he had ties with Al Quaeda to develop further WMD in Sudan. Democrats who hate Bush all admitted that all our intelligence pointed to Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN, and their desire to attack the US. Bush didn't make that up. In fact, Russia's Putin, who is against the war, admitted to having intel that Iraq had the means to, and planned to attack the US. Bush uses diplomacy for two years. In the mean time we see caravans leave Baghdad for Syria. We find empty labs in Iraq. Is it more likely that the WMD left the country, or never existed despite the intelligence communities of several countries all swearing they had them to begin with? Especially when Iraq had storage facilities and training procedures for WMD. I understand that most people only see big headlines. No huge stockpile was found. Do you understand that all it takes is a suitcase worth of biological weapons to level a city, or one suitcase nuke? And while it is highly unlikely (read, near impossible) that Iraq could develop a nuke, they could acquire one. If Bush is saying the same thing the CIA said for 12 years, China said for 12 years, India said for 12 years, England said for 12 years, Canada said for 12 years, etc. then how is that him suddenly making up a lie to suit his whim? It doesn't make any sense at all. It is merely a smoke-screen that anti-Bush people throw up. Like I keep saying, bring up a legitimate anti-Bush comment and I will agree with it. Bring up lies, and I will expose them as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leferd Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 To be fair, I dislike the Bush administration. Especially the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft faction. Really the only saving grace of this administration as far as my opinion goes lies with Colin Powell. Even then, I dislike his son (who heads the FCC). Michael Moore is a good film maker. He's not really a political documentarian. Leave that to guys like Errol Morris. Moore has a tendency to overstate his case. His films are very good at mobilizing the liberal crowd and pissing off conservatives. Such as how President Bush the Second is good at doing the exact opposite. What Moore did in Fahrenheit was present an arguement. He does not try to be balanced with it. What he is trying to do is spark debate and try to remove the Bush administration from office. This film is strictly an opinion piece, and it is up to the viewer to decide whether his arguements are valid or BS. "Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin."P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDoe Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Hrmm. Bush made up the WMD? Yeah. The same WMD that the Democrats were harping about during Clinton's reign. Bush retroactively made them up. Thats not really an argument Ender. Just because democrats or republicans said they existed, doesn't mean they do. Bush pushed the WMD issue forward, and used it to justify a war, all the while having no evidence other than his own statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 But people claim that Bush deliberately lied. That implies that Bush knew there were no WMD. And frankly, we still don't know how many weapons existed. In fact, all evidence suggests that the WMD did exist and have moved. We know Saddam had WMD programs because he used them on his own people. If I find a dead body with a bullet hole, am I to believe that a murder weapon exists even if I don't find it? Well, we found training labs, and containers for WMD. Surely, the WMD never existed. Except we did find some sarin gas. So they did exist. We just didn't find a motherlode. Since we did find proof of WMD, it certainly wasn't a lie. And I saw the speech Bush gave. He said our justification was two-fold. First, the UN already passed a resolution saying Iraq had to comply immediately or else. And the UN did pass a resolution authorizing military action in the past. Military action was ceased on the basis that Iraq complied. Failure to comply negated the ceasement of military action. Secondly, Iraq had 25 million people being held hostage. Liberating 25 million lives has to be worth something, right? God! People act like WWII never happened. America got blasted for turning a blind eye to the world. When we do step in, we get blasted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDoe Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 If I find a dead body with a bullet hole, am I to believe that a murder weapon exists even if I don't find it? Well, we found training labs, and containers for WMD. Surely, the WMD never existed. Stuff was found which could have been used to develop weapons, but also had legitimate applications or non-restricted applications (Warheads were found and people jumped up saying WMD, but they were a short range type that he was allowed to have). A better analogy would be, you find an empty milk bottle and immediately say its evidence that it contained poision. It may have, but it may have contained milk as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vault-Tech Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 exactly and that whole regeam thing yea most of our so called "regeam" is us and remember thats the same guy who is killing millions as we speak and you defeand him wow are you sure you arnt a republican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDoe Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 He said our justification was two-fold. First, the UN already passed a resolution saying Iraq had to comply immediately or else. And the UN did pass a resolution authorizing military action in the past. Military action was ceased on the basis that Iraq complied. Failure to comply negated the ceasement of military action. The UN said don't go in. But Bush defied them, to enforce THEIR resolutions? Wheres the sense in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now