Why is Micheal Moore such an idiot?

[BionicPatriot]

Why in the hell does this fat **** spew off bull sh*t all the time? First he says we go to war for oil, which is bull. I was watching HBO...And there was this show called real talk with some guy (forgot his name) and Micheal Moore was on it. He tells a guy Bush "forced" Americans into war. Though he has handled it rough..Show me a President that was mistake free in war.

The guy than says (which I would say) As Americans, we should defend our country. Micheal Moore says, "look me in the eye and tell me you would send your kid to war" Now this is bullshit. I am sure noone would want to send their kid to war. But they would know it would be their job as americans. Sure our country is rough...But we have a responsibility to defend it!

Why does he make it out like Bush is some devil who sent us into war when we have no business whatsoever there? I know this will probably turn into a bashing fest for a republican guy like me, but I just needed to vent.

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by BionicPatriot
Micheal Moore says, "look me in the eye and tell me you would send your kid to war"

The correct response to this is "I would hope that I have rasied my child with enough Morals, Good American Values and the Intestinal Fortitude to make that decision on his/her own. All I can do as a parent, is support them in their decision when the time comes." o:-)

[bideau]

This has already been hashed out in a different thread. Believe what you want guys.

BP, if you want to like Bush, that's your right. I happen to hate the guy. I'm not Moore's biggest fan, but he has a right to state his opinions as much as you do. If you want to believe the lies this administration has fed us, go right ahead. I don't buy it.

Being against this war doesn't make me or anyone else un-American. Those of us who feel that Bush lied his way into this war have a right and obligation to state our opinion. There is nothing more precious in this country than the right to dissent.

Being against the war doesn't mean I don't support the soldiers.

I'm tired of these political threads being put up here. There's enough bashing going on for everyone. I'm trying to avoid them, but I'll respond when I think a rant needs to be balanced. Very few minds are going to be changed by all of this.

This country has not been this divided in my lifetime and I blame this administration, which has become the masters of divide and conquer.

[nepatsfan93]

BP are you even old enough to vote?

[townes]

I'm really going to try and keep politics out of my posts here because there is no separate forum for it, which leaves football posters with no choice but to read garbage like the opening post in this thread.

All i will say is that Bionic Patriot should march right down to his local recruiting office and sign right up if he believes so strongly in the neo-con agenda and pre-emptive war, they will be more than happy to see him. Otherwise it's just more chickenhawk babble, like that which has killed thousands and thousands and thousands of people, including US Soldiers.


Micheal Moore has been standing up for average hard working americans for years, and he has repeatedly stood up to the rich, powerful, and major corporate interests. When BP grows that much spine I'll be impressed, until then..........


I'll be more than happy to take this further if anyone wants to discuss it in the General Talk Forum at Patsfans, where political discussion is separated from football discussion, other than that i'm not going to respond beyond this for fear of creating a major disruption oin this board.

[Undertaker #59]

Not sure how much different perceptions are when you seperate political talk, but it is a very much polarizing thing.

Even Chiefsplanet (the extremely busy board that we are based on) seperated political talk from all the football talk and all of the other non-football talk.

Being this is an election year and certain to raise a lot of partisan bickering, we could very easily create a seperate daughter forum for just political talk.

Thoughts?

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Not sure how much different perceptions are when you seperate political talk, but it is a very much polarizing thing.

Even Chiefsplanet (the extremely busy board that we are based on) seperated political talk from all the football talk and all of the other non-football talk.

Being this is an election year and certain to raise a lot of partisan bickering, we could very easily create a seperate daughter forum for just political talk.

Thoughts? It's football season now. That's what I think.
________
buy easy vape (http://vaporizers.net/easy-vape)

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by dchester
It's football season now. That's what I think.

That's a damn good point.

I've never been one to care and can seperate football and politics very easily and am not easily offended, so it doesn't bother me a bit. It might not be a bad idea to have a seperate forum for non-sports considering this is an election year, but we haven't done that in the past because we just weren't big enough to warrant it (ex: the draft forum had little traffic).

As for Bionic's 'rant' - I can understand it. I was the same way when I was 18 - very opinionated and had only my own experiences to draw on when it came to politics. I was passionate for my 'side' and did not care to listen to opposing viewpoints. As I've gotten older my center has shifted quite a bit because of life experience, but my passion for politics hasn't changed much. I laugh at myself when I look back at how I was - but it's all good.

I'm just glad people Bionic's age care enough to speak their minds and hope they stay as involved in the process for the rest of their lives instead of losing interest. The key is to take some of that passion to learn as much about the opposing sides as possible, then make informed decisions instead of attacking. I know too many people who don't give a sh!t who's president or elected to any office.

Anyhow - rant over. What does everyone else think about a seperate forum for this stuff?

[townes]

Undertaker and Annihilus, the reason i make the distinction is because i have seen the effect that such discussions have on the relationships Patriot fans have on the site. If a person chooses to go a political forum then all bets are off, but I have offended more than one Patriot fan in the past by injecting my political views in the football forum, and i felt like that was unfair to those people when they were simply looking to discuss football.

I agree with the sentiment that it's good for everyone to be invested in what's going on in this country and the world, and everyone clearly has the right to their own views, Bionic patriot is obviously no exception. I also think, however, that vocal supporters of a pre-emptive foreign policy shouldn't be willing only to sacrifice the lives of others, but their own as well. I watched Bill O'Reilly tell Micheal Moore just the other night that he is willing to serve in Iraq, yet, for some unknown reason, he won't go and sign up at his local Guard Office. The Army may say he's too old, but i sure as hell doubt that the Guard would-people over 60 are serving, and he's not that old. O'Reilly is a loudmouthed POS who absolutely lacks the courage of his convictions, and Moore was right to hold his feet to the fire on this issue, in fact, he should have pressed him even farther than he did.


Just so you know, i'm not just mouthing the words myself, i feel strongly that this country doesn't do nearly enough for kids, especially those in trouble, so i closed up a lucrative contracting business and went to work at a non-profit social work agency for the next ten years, the money sucked, but the job was extremely rewarding, and i contributed in an area I have a great deal of concern about.


i'm all for people speaking their minds, but they should also back it up if the opportunity to do so is there for the taking, and right now the opportunity for all those who support the neo-con agenda of remaking the world in america's image---by force----is there for the taking, and all they have to do is sign on the dotted line. Those who don't speak loudly by their inaction.((CHICKENHAWKS)


As i said before, i appreciate the opportunity to talk football here, and i don't wish to alienate those who simply wish to talk football by proselytyizing, so I will keep my comments limited to football as much as i possibly can, and i will try to resist bait threads like this in the future.l


Thanks again,

Time to go see if I can catch a few waves,

later,


townes

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by bideau
This has already been hashed out in a different thread. Believe what you want guys.

BP, if you want to like Bush, that's your right. I happen to hate the guy. I'm not Moore's biggest fan, but he has a right to state his opinions as much as you do. If you want to believe the lies this administration has fed us, go right ahead. I don't buy it.

Being against this war doesn't make me or anyone else un-American. Those of us who feel that Bush lied his way into this war have a right and obligation to state our opinion. There is nothing more precious in this country than the right to dissent.

Being against the war doesn't mean I don't support the soldiers.

I'm tired of these political threads being put up here. There's enough bashing going on for everyone. I'm trying to avoid them, but I'll respond when I think a rant needs to be balanced. Very few minds are going to be changed by all of this.

This country has not been this divided in my lifetime and I blame this administration, which has become the masters of divide and conquer.

Alright...Not so bad so far. Kudos to the people who actually have a brain instead of just seeing my age and crying over it. But anyway Bid, how exactly do you feel this country has lied? Just curious.

[nepatsfan93]

Originally posted by BionicPatriot

Why does he make it out like Bush is some devil who sent us into war when we have no business whatsoever there?


Because he is!

We have no real reason for being over there.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Annihilus
What does everyone else think about a seperate forum for this stuff?

The title of this thread was "Why is Michael Moore an Idiot", so anyone who chooses to enter the thread clearly knows what they're getting into. I don't see why we need a separate forum. The board is more lively if there's threads on different topics and you can choose which ones to enter. I've noticed that some board regulars, like Hawg, have steered clear of the politics I've posted. That option already exists.

I also think that it's a choice whether to have personal animosity when you argue politics. I've had discussions with staunch conservatives who I respected and liked and then others where the person didn't dissect my opinion (they probably weren't capable), but just devalued everything I said by calling me a
"liberal ..........." (insert insult here) and didn't address any of my points. You can slice and dice the arguments without slicing and dicing the person (unless they're a Colts fan).

[bideau]

Originally posted by BionicPatriot
Alright...Not so bad so far. Kudos to the people who actually have a brain instead of just seeing my age and crying over it. But anyway Bid, how exactly do you feel this country has lied? Just curious.

It's actually very plain and obvious. His reason for going into Iraq was the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. All pertinent intelligence indicated that WMD's didn't exist. He convinced the public that they did exist. He's still looking. And he knew he would not find them. There has never been proof that Iraq supported Al Qaida, although we were told otherwise. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is about the oil and who will have access to it. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. He who controls those fields will have enormous power.

BP, you're old enough to vote now and you're entitled to your opinions. I don't dismiss opinions based on age. I dismiss them based on whether you've done your homework on the issues.

Your original point was being upset by Moore's statement about parent's allowing their children to go to war. Let me tell you as a parent of a 19 and 21 year old...For this war, I would do everything in my power to discourage them. I will not sacrifice my children for this. Ultimately, it would be their decision. But they wouldn't go without a fight from me. Enlistments are way down for a reason. And as Townes said, if you feel that strongly, enlist and do what you feel is right. I'd be interested in how your parents would react to that.

You're a passionate young man just as my 21 year old is a passionate liberal. What makes this country great is the right to take a stand on your positions. We just happen to be on opposite sides with this one.

[townes]

Well said Bideau.

BTW-I am not arguing for a separate forum here to discuss politics and other matters, i am simply saying why i will try to refrain from discussing those subjects up here. Realize, however, A post titled as BP's is makes his point without having to open it just as surely as a post titled "George Bush Kills Babies for Political Gain" would, and is just as certain to piss people off and get responses.


I come here to talk Patriots, and not politics, and i'll do my best to stick to that.

[Undertaker #59]

I don't know whether we will do a seperate political forum or not....all I ask from everyone is to try to keep animousity between each other to a minimum and don't led it bleed into other topics.

There is also an option of keeping all political talk in one thread instead of a seperate forum. (we used to do this)

But this year is and is going to continue to be very polarizing. Most of you won't change anyone else's mind :) But there is certainly a place for some healthy debate.

[TrueBeliever]

1) I think the main reason people who like Bush hate Moore is that they just don't want to hear the truth. The truth is that we could have had a lot of help throughout the world to take out terrorists, but instead of chasing the man who was behind 9/11 (i.e. Never Bin Laden - get it?) Bush uses it as an excuse to wage on his daddy's personal agenda and go after Hussein, who never attacked Americans on American soil, or anywhere else for that matter, except for the first Gulf War. (I'm not saying the first Gulf War was wrong, don't put words in my mouth.)

And while it is true that the people of Iraq will be better off in the long run w/o Hussein, why then don't we go after all the evil dictators in the world? Central and South America are full of them

2) One thing that to me says a lot about people who don't like Moore is how the first thing out of their mouths is an insult about his weight. Really classy, fellas. You don't like what the guy says, so right away they get personal. How does his appearance have anything to do with what he says?

Unlike Bill "if you don't like the war just shut up" O'Reilly, some of us believe in free speech.

[Hawg73]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I've noticed that some board regulars, like Hawg, have steered clear of the politics I've posted. That option already exists.



You're right, Mark.

I do steer clear of the politics and not because I am without opinions or shy about stating them, it is because IMO nothing breaks down forum relationships as quickly as politics and that happens between people who may otherwise get along perfectly well. Been there, done that.

Once political lines are drawn in the sand it seems like people have a hard time going back to relating with each other the way they once did and I'm not going to play that anymore. I like too many people here and would like things to remain that way.

Thats not to say I have a problem with you or anyone else here stating their opinion. Hey, have at it.

I DO have a problem with people force feeding their opinions down others throats and I'll do what I have to do should that occur and sometimes thats a fine line to walk.

I'm hoping that people will remain respectful of other's views as they usually are around here, but will admit that the upcoming election does not look too promising for things to stay that way, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Hawg73
You're right, Mark.

I do steer clear of the politics and not because I am without opinions or shy about stating them, it is because IMO nothing breaks down forum relationships as quickly as politics and that happens between people who may otherwise get along perfectly well. Been there, done that.

Once political lines are drawn in the sand it seems like people have a hard time going back to relating with each other the way they once did and I'm not going to play that anymore. I like too many people here and would like things to remain that way.

Thats not to say I have a problem with you or anyone else here stating their opinion. Hey, have at it.

I DO have a problem with people force feeding their opinions down others throats and I'll do what I have to do should that occur and sometimes thats a fine line to walk.

I'm hoping that people will remain respectful of other's views as they usually are around here, but will admit that the upcoming election does not look too promising for things to stay that way, but maybe I'm wrong.

Fascist pig. ;)

[B A Rabbit]

Hey how many more post do I have to go until I loose this "Rookie" tag?

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by Supkem
Hey how many more post do I have to go until I loose this "Rookie" tag?

30 to be a starter, 100 to be a veteran (when you can change it to whatever you want)

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by Hawg73
I'm hoping that people will remain respectful of other's views as they usually are around here, but will admit that the upcoming election does not look too promising for things to stay that way, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm hopeful.

I jump in these threads sometimes, but it's important to remember not to attack when doing so. I think the object of participating in a political thread is to learn something yourself while maybe helping the other person to learn a bit about your side.

It's amazing what a little tolerance can do for yourself if you practice at it a little bit. Once a person resorts to name calling or flaming - it's pretty much all out the window.

Phrases such as 'yeah, but' or 'you fail to realize' or 'you just don't get it do you' generally take an otherwise interesting thread down the wrong path.

Whether or not we have a separate forum for politics, I hope to learn something in there. Just maybe I will.

[Prometheus441]

I am with Hawg on this one :thumb: .Football and politics do not make good bed fellows.But it is interesting to note how people on opposite sides of the political spectrum will argue as passionately as fans of opposing teams.Maybe it a genetic thing ?,lol.

[Oedipus Tex]

Originally posted by nepatsfan93
Because he is!

We have no real reason for being over there.
Hmm.

I don't think we should be there, but this isn't right, either. Our CIA (our meaning the U.S. and U.K.'s) got fed bad information by the Russians. Nearly all of the information that the we (US/UK) based the Iraqi invasion on (all of that which turned out to be false, which was a good percentage) was fed from Moscow.

Some would argue that it was a set up, considering how quickly after the invasion Putin came out and said that he now had authorization from Washington to make a "Preemptive Strike" on Chechnya.

This is an unfortunate side effect of Bush seeing the world in black and white - he got played by someone he saw as a friend and ally, who was quite willing to help us further our goals, and look like idiots in the process, to further his own.

Yes, create a seperate board.

[BobKraftsCoozie]

Could this election year overshadow the Pat's record breaking 04-05 season....seems to be heading down that path on the planet.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Oedipus Tex
Hmm.

I don't think we should be there, but this isn't right, either. Our CIA (our meaning the U.S. and U.K.'s) got fed bad information by the Russians. Nearly all of the information that the we (US/UK) based the Iraqi invasion on (all of that which turned out to be false, which was a good percentage) was fed from Moscow.

Some would argue that it was a set up, considering how quickly after the invasion Putin came out and said that he now had authorization from Washington to make a "Preemptive Strike" on Chechnya.

This is an unfortunate side effect of Bush seeing the world in black and white - he got played by someone he saw as a friend and ally, who was quite willing to help us further our goals, and look like idiots in the process, to further his own.

Yes, create a seperate board.

A lot of people are eager to portray Bush as the victim here -- bad intelligence, the Russians, etc. Richard Clarke, Paul ONeill & other life long Republicans who were in on high level meetings have testified that on Sept. 12th, Bush ASKED FOR intelligence that would implicate Iraq. When he was presented with intelligence that Iraq wasn't involved, he wouldn't accept it and told the CIA to look harder.

In this environment, people will eventually write the report that the boss wants.

When asked if George Bush, Sr., former head of the CIA, Ambassador to the UN, and President during the 1st Gulf War, supported the invasion of Iraq, Dubya answered that he "had to answer to a higher father". If they had Bush, Sr.'s endorsement, that would lend a lot of credibility -- they'd be damn eager to promote it.

It is a valid question to ask whether we want US policy set through George W. Bush's personal hotline to God.

[spiderman]

If someone can show me some PROOF that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Bush knew Iraq had no ties to terrorism, yet still decided to invade..."Heck, just because he's some crazy religious guy from Texas, YEE-HAH." Then I'll be the first guy yelling for impeachment.

But instead (as any impartial and objective American knows) you had an entire WORLD scared of what Hussein held, and what he planned on doing with it, (including Clinton, Kerry, etc.), and you an America still reeling from 9/11, looking to the President for safety and security.

Now if you feel that we could have gone about things differently then fine. But if you are going to sit here and try to argue that somehow Bush fabricated this whole situation (which I can see with my own 2 eyes that he did not), then I say, shame on you.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Oedipus Tex
I don't think we should be there, but this isn't right, either. Our CIA (our meaning the U.S. and U.K.'s) got fed bad information by the Russians. Nearly all of the information that the we (US/UK) based the Iraqi invasion on (all of that which turned out to be false, which was a good percentage) was fed from Moscow.


I don't know where you heard that from, and I don't remember where I heard this from, but I am under the impression that a lot of false intelligence was fed to us through Ahmad Chalabi, who was working for the Iranians, even while he was sitting next to Laura Bush at the State of the Union just last January.

It's kind of weird to me that this story has not been getting more coverage, that our most trusted expert on Iraq was an Iranian spy.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Now if you feel that we could have gone about things differently then fine. But if you are going to sit here and try to argue that somehow Bush fabricated this whole situation (which I can see with my own 2 eyes that he did not), then I say, shame on you.

are you responding to anyone in particular? I haven't read every message in this thread but I'm not aware of anyone who thinks Bush just made stuff up, flat-out lied, in order to justify invading Iraq. I don't believe Michael Moore has said that.

I think most people think he's too dumb to hatch a plot like that.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
are you responding to anyone in particular? I haven't read every message in this thread but I'm not aware of anyone who thinks Bush just made stuff up, flat-out lied, in order to justify invading Iraq. I don't believe Michael Moore has said that.

I think most people think he's too dumb to hatch a plot like that.

No one in particular, I'm just making my thought known. I disagree strongly with the "conspicacy theorists", and feel that Bush acted in a time of great concern for his country and its future, etc. etc. etc.

Doesn't Moore argue that Bush falsified and created evidence to support the Iraq war? You'll have to pardon me I haven't seen the movie.

Although one separate point I would like to make, is that you guys (Bush haters) have a ton of bad things to say about Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, but almost nothing bad to say about Powell, who I view as a terrible Secretary of State. Why is that? Why does he someone avoid all the finger pointing and blame?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman

Doesn't Moore argue that Bush falsified and created evidence to support the Iraq war? You'll have to pardon me I haven't seen the movie.



I have seen the movie but have not memorized it. :-)

Moore basically points out a lot of incredible coincidences and let's the viewer draw their own conclusion (anyway, that's how I would summarize the movie).

Things like the fact that Bush and Cheney are oil men, and Bush decided to invade the country with the 2nd-largest oil reserves in the world, and coincidences like Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton and Halliburton gets these incredible no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. Or all the amazing coincidences with the Bush family and the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens.

From what I have read, as I recall, the whole argument about WMDs was put forth primarily because it was the one thing everyone in the administration agreed would be a reason to invade Iraq. The criticism of the Bush administration from most people (I think) is that they had wanted to invade Iraq probably even before 9/11, and were just looking for an excuse to do it - that's the whole neo-con thing about finishing the job Bush Sr. hadn't finished, liberating a greatful people and paying for the whole thing with oil.

I don't believe anyone has said that Bush was actually lieing about WMDs, and in fact I believe Bush has admitted that there was no Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection (just that Saddam had some connections with some terrorists groups, but not with Al-Qaeda necessarily).

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
I have seen the movie but have not memorized it. :-)

Moore basically points out a lot of incredible coincidences and let's the viewer draw their own conclusion (anyway, that's how I would summarize the movie).

Things like the fact that Bush and Cheney are oil men, and Bush decided to invade the country with the 2nd-largest oil reserves in the world, and coincidences like Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton and Halliburton gets these incredible no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. Or all the amazing coincidences with the Bush family and the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens.

From what I have read, as I recall, the whole argument about WMDs was put forth primarily because it was the one thing everyone in the administration agreed would be a reason to invade Iraq. The criticism of the Bush administration from most people (I think) is that they had wanted to invade Iraq probably even before 9/11, and were just looking for an excuse to do it - that's the whole neo-con thing about finishing the job Bush Sr. hadn't finished, liberating a greatful people and paying for the whole thing with oil.

I don't believe anyone has said that Bush was actually lieing about WMDs, and in fact I believe Bush has admitted that there was no Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection (just that Saddam had some connections with some terrorists groups, but not with Al-Qaeda necessarily).

I guess I just don't see things the same way. For example, the Halliburton thing. Without getting into specifics I work in the construction business. Sometimes you don't bid against anyone to get work, because a.) No one else is available or b.) You're really the only one qualified to do the job. What I'm saying is that companies like Halliburton and Bechtel don't often bid against anyone because there isn't anyone else large enough to handle a project of such magnitude (i.e. the re-construction of Iraq). Instead you sit down and negotiate a fair price with the customer.

But instead of looking at an explanation like this, Moore seems to dance in the obscure and intangible. I just don't think it's constructive for him to pose things without any real solid evidence. So if Halliburtion and Cheney have some grand conspiracy going on, then lets have some proof. All this hearsay is just making my head spin.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman

But instead of looking at an explanation like this, Moore seems to dance in the obscure and intangible. I just don't think it's constructive for him to pose things without any real solid evidence. So if Halliburtion and Cheney have some grand conspiracy going on, then lets have some proof. All this hearsay is just making my head spin.

I think maybe you should wait until you have seen the movie to comment on it. :-)

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by spiderman
If someone can show me some PROOF that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Bush knew Iraq had no ties to terrorism, yet still decided to invade..."Heck, just because he's some crazy religious guy from Texas, YEE-HAH." Then I'll be the first guy yelling for impeachment.

But instead (as any impartial and objective American knows) you had an entire WORLD scared of what Hussein held, and what he planned on doing with it, (including Clinton, Kerry, etc.), and you an America still reeling from 9/11, looking to the President for safety and security.

Now if you feel that we could have gone about things differently then fine. But if you are going to sit here and try to argue that somehow Bush fabricated this whole situation (which I can see with my own 2 eyes that he did not), then I say, shame on you.

This is why I made this thread...Because Micheal Moore has no proof either..So how can he bash Bush? How could we have avoided war? well geesh guy, we just got planes rammed into our buildings...But uhh...World peace. We DID contact the UN, they blew us off telling us we aint going to war. we defended our country and did what was right. We brought Bin Laden down. Now Saddam? That is a whole issue that IMO atleast, is killing Bush. I am glad he did bring Saddam down and all (the guy was a mad man and we have known this for years) but what stirs me wrong here, is that he should just get out of there.

That part, sure, I can understand the beef with Bush. I cannot understand how we could have avoided this war as people say. We either stood up and fought, or lived in fear. Take your pick.

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by thomas144
I think maybe you should wait until you have seen the movie to comment on it. :-)

When I read where we are after them for oil I just kinda realized right than and there.

[joephoto]

Taking this back to sports now. One of the many reasons I hate G.W. is how his little fun endeavor, IMO, is keeping athletes and fans away from the Olympics. Who wants to hear half the world booing our anthem anyways.

[runnerone]

Originally posted by townes


I'll be more than happy to take this further if anyone wants to discuss it in the General Talk Forum at Patsfans, where political discussion is separated from football discussion, other than that i'm not going to respond beyond this for fear of creating a major disruption oin this board.

So by this "promise" are you now a liar because you posted 2 more times in this thread??

Is Bill Belichick any less of a coach because players like Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, and Ty Law say that he mislead, or "lied" to them about their situation with the team?

Are we all to be labled liars because we say one thing, then do another?

Who here hasn't done that? Who here hasn't acted on ill advice and later regretted it?

Is John Kerry a better man to "Trust" not to change his mind thereby "Lying" to the American public?

This is not about being lied to, it's about a bi-partizen system that doesn't work. It's about people doing and saying whatever it takes to get their candidate elected, period!

[TrueBeliever]

Preach on, brother runnerone!

Bring back Ross Perot, I say...

[runnerone]

I thought that was your roll TB!?

[townes]

Originally posted by runnerone
So by this "promise" are you now a liar because you posted 2 more times in this thread??



Yep, and in my second post i clarified my position, and the last one contains NOTHING political-go check it out.

As I said, i'll try to keep my politics out of this forum, but you can keep on namecalling if you want, maybe then i'll simply say f*ck it and let loose.

[townes]

One more thing, if you look you will find that i have avoided every other political thread posted here, and there are quite a few.
Patsfans has a separate forum, so I keep my politics to that forum, KFFL had the non-sports talk forum so I kept my politics there, i'm willing to do the same here, but you are kidding yourself if you think that only one side has a right to speak in political debate.

This is primarily a football forum from what i can see, and it will hopefully remain that way, because things get really nasty when politics and the patriots mix.

[IndyPatriotsfan]

When Micheal Moore was on Bill Mahr's HBO show Friday, they were discussing the 7 mins that Bush spent in the class room looking like a deer caught in the head lights after being told that the country was under attack. The Republican said that he handled the situation perfectly. Moore made a comment saying that if Clinton was told that the country was under attack and did nothing but sit there, they (Republicans) would have been outraged. I happen to agree with that, they would have been immediatly demanding impeachment.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
I think maybe you should wait until you have seen the movie to comment on it. :-)

I'm commenting on things Moore has said, and things that he has written. I'm very aware of Michael Moore's stance with regards to the Bush administration, and the technique's he uses to put forth his agenda, whether or not I have seen this movie.

I've explained before why I won't see this movie, but let me ask you a question.

Why do you value Moore's opinion with regards to economics, foreign policy, and business, so much??? The reason I try to avoid Moore completely is based on the fact that I don't consider him worthy of my time. Listening to him speak, for me, is like listening to a 2nd grader. I laugh (in a patronizing fashion) when he tries to formulate his ridiculous, and poorly informed arguments.

It cracks me up how people can flip out over how ridiculous and stupid Bill O'Reilly is, on the one hand, and then listen to someone like Moore with a straight face. Did you watch their supposed "debate" during the convention? It was idiotic.

Call me arrogant, but there are far more intelligent people to spend your time reading and listening too. That is why, as I've said before, I wouldn't waste my time watching his movie.

[townes]

That makes as much sense as people criticizing what you say in your posts without ever reading them.

[nepatsfan93]

Originally posted by BionicPatriot
How could we have avoided war? well geesh guy, we just got planes rammed into our buildings...But uhh...World peace. We DID contact the UN, they blew us off telling us we aint going to war. we defended our country and did what was right. We brought Bin Laden down.

The "war" in Iraq and 9-11 are 2 different things.

One has nothing to do with the other.


I had no problem with going into Afghanistan and finding the people that did that.

I don't think "we brought Bin laden down" by any means.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
That makes as much sense as people criticizing what you say in your posts without ever reading them.

I take it by your comment that you place value in what Moore says, directs, and writes.

As a result you could have responded to my post by explaining, his qualifications, significant achievements, education, etc. etc. Basically explaining why we should hold his thoughts, opinions, and ideas in high regard.

Instead you copped out, and tried to discredit me.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Trust me, guys, you don't want townes talking politics.

He makes Karl Marx and Peter Singer look like right wingers...and he's a true believer.

What's that saying? A fanatic is someone who can't change their mind, and won't change the subject.

Let it lie, and let townsie talk football (and do some troll-baiting.)

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman

I've explained before why I won't see this movie, but let me ask you a question.

Why do you value Moore's opinion with regards to economics, foreign policy, and business, so much???

I don't actually really understand your question. I guess I don't really understand what it means to "value an opinion". I spent $18 so that my son and I could see Fahrenheit 9/11, which I thought was outrageous. It's true I would not go to see a movie made by Bill O'Reilly. Someone once gave me one of Anne Coulter's books, and I took it to the dump (and not to be sent to Africa).

I don't agree with everything that Michael Moore says but I guess I do value his opinion more than Anne Coulter's. Fahrenheit 9/11 merely reinforces views I have already had. If Michael Moore was a Bush supporter like Dennis Miller, I am sure I would think he was a moron, as I think Dennis Miller is. But if Dennis Miller were a Bush-basher, I am sure I would like him.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Trust me, guys, you don't want townes talking politics.

He makes Karl Marx and Peter Sanger look like right wingers...and he's a true believer.

What's that saying? A fanatic is someone who can't change their mind, and won't change the subject.


Well-said. That is exactly why I am voting for Commander Flip-flopper, and not Bush or Bin-Laden!

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by thomas144
Well-said. That is exactly why I am voting for Commander Flip-flopper, and not Bush or Bin-Laden!
As I say, I don't mind changing your mind for good reason, but I do object to testing the wind before stating a position.

Do you think Bin Laden will make it onto many ballots?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't actually really understand your question. I guess I don't really understand what it means to "value an opinion". I spent $18 so that my son and I could see Fahrenheit 9/11, which I thought was outrageous. It's true I would not go to see a movie made by Bill O'Reilly. Someone once gave me one of Anne Coulter's books, and I took it to the dump (and not to be sent to Africa).

I don't agree with everything that Michael Moore says but I guess I do value his opinion more than Anne Coulter's. Fahrenheit 9/11 merely reinforces views I have already had. If Michael Moore was a Bush supporter like Dennis Miller, I am sure I would think he was a moron, as I think Dennis Miller is. But if Dennis Miller were a Bush-basher, I am sure I would like him.

I can see that we aren't going to get anywhere with this.

All I'm trying to say is that there are other people besides, Michael Moore, Dennis Miller, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, who actually know what they are talking about. In fact, you shouldn't be reading or listening to any of them, unless it is for pure entertainment.

For example, what I will do, is I will read Tommy Franks book about the Iraq war, because he is a retired General with no political aspirations, or special interest groups to protect, and most importantly, he was THERE! Hopefully he doesn't disappoint.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman

For example, what I will do, is I will read Tommy Franks book about the Iraq war, because he is a retired General with no political aspirations, or special interest groups to protect, and most importantly, he was THERE! Hopefully he doesn't disappoint.

I can highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, which could and probably should be used as a high school textbook on U.S. foreign policy with respect to the mideast and terrorism in general.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
I can highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, which could and probably should be used as a high school textbook on U.S. foreign policy with respect to the mideast and terrorism in general.

AHHHH!!!

You're not listening to me...

How can you recommend a book to me that was written by a guy with an agenda!!!

Forget it, just forget...I'm going back to talking about sports.

Say what you will I'm all done.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by thomas144
If Michael Moore was a Bush supporter like Dennis Miller, I am sure I would think he was a moron, as I think Dennis Miller is. But if Dennis Miller were a Bush-basher, I am sure I would like him. [/B]

I enjoy watching both Michael Moore and Dennis Miller. Miller's gotten more right wing over the years, but I think he's hilarious. I'd love it if he was still on MNF - I'd stay tuned in to blow out games just to watch Madden react to him.

[Moebius]

I was pretty much turned off of Moore after Roger and Me, and it's gone downhill ever since.

The guy has talent as a film-maker, but sadly wastes it (imo). I'd probably be able to deal with him better if he didn't strike me as someone who's only concern is number 1. He twists and maniuplates facts into sensationalist propaganda, and has the gall to call his work documentary.

For the record, I am not a Bush supporter. I'm unhappy with the job he has done in the last few years. Even as such, I still think Michael Moore is a waste of air, a poster child for retro-active abortion, and a propaganda pimp. He ranks right up there with the Iraqi Information Minister (http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612294225).

[BobKraftsCoozie]

How about something that is undeniable....Michael Moore is fat and disheveled....

His films- Interesting (not necessarily accurate)
His Motives- Clear

I don't see the need for people to be so outraged by his propaganda. I think part of the problem is that so many of our opinions are rarely our own. Moore's motives are obvious here, an ones inability to filter out the fluff is more the problem than anything else.
To refer to the guy as an "idiot" is a little rediculous. He creatively delveloped a way to bring his opinions to mass audiences, in a form that truly denies viewers the ability to change the channel, turn off the radio, or put down the newspaper. I think this is what pisses people of more than anything, and in some ways scares them. If you are a George Bush supporter, one should fear such a focused message. Not because of its incredbily anti-Bush tones, but more for the means in which it was viewed.
What scares me about this is that Michael Moore or other individuals can use these means to promote other issues that are far more reasons for public concern.

[Undertaker #59]

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are putting the "F" back in Freedom.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/team_america/

[townes]

First of all, the moderators here and a number of posters at this site have made me welcome here, and i appreciate that.

Second-Past experience has taught me that mixing in politics and football leads to some really nasty exchanges and grudges over the long haul. It's easier when there are a full mix of NFL fans, because then you aren't just arguing "within the family."

Third-I don't think it's fair to those who come here simply to discuss football to have to put up with politics, and threads titled "Micheal Moore is a Fat Pig" and "Bush is a Drunk and a Liar" essentially inflame people who disagree but don't want to discuss politics.

Fourth-I'm far from a fanatic. I'm as left wing as Micheal Moore, but I believe in a mix of socialism (health care, child care, and higher education available for all) and capitalism ( a free market that doesn't give all the advantages to major corporations and supports smaller and local business interests, and protects worker rights and conditions) I believed attacking Afghanistan was completely justified, and believe in fixing Iraq before leaving it, despite having been opposed to the war to begin with. I believe that corporations should be taxed for outsourcing and trade treaties should be enforced-as well as a guaranteed living wage for working americans. I believe the environment is being trashed and we should enforce laws and encourage treaties to preserve it, as well as a national goal of eliminating dependence on foreign oil in the next ten years. I oppose abortion personally, but don't believe my value system should be imposed upon others. I believe the U.S. is an important part of the world community, and not it's ruler, and it's time to stop pretending we are. People without shelter should have a place to go, people without food should have a place to eat.


If these things make me a "fanatic" then i guess that's what i am.



That's what i believe in, take it whatever way you want, and i'll try to stay out of further political discussion.

[Hawg73]

Look, townes is bending over backwards to stay out of it, so I would appreciate it if people didn't to bait him into the convo.

Nothing good can come out of trying provoke somebody (albeit in an indirect way) to participate.

I think Townes has made his point clear here so please let it lie.

This is like that line from the Godfather:

Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.

Enough already.

[runnerone]

Originally posted by townes
Yep, and in my second post i clarified my position, and the last one contains NOTHING political-go check it out.

As I said, i'll try to keep my politics out of this forum, but you can keep on namecalling if you want, maybe then i'll simply say f*ck it and let loose.

I hope you don't think I was calling you a name. I merely posed a question of interest as it pertains to this discussion.

I personally don't like Michael Moore, but at the same time, I think we all make mistakes. Please don't be offended, as I simply was trying to make a point, not name call.

As for your political views, wouldn't it be nice if there was a candidate who came out with his or her views and actually meant it? Not just the front runner for a party with special interest groups backing them and swaying their every decision for financial reasons? That is why I don't believe the party system works as it is in place now.

By the way Bionic, this was a bit of a firestorm, but a great way to let off some last minute steam before the season starts. Lots of views on this one, good job! :thumb:

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by runnerone


By the way Bionic, this was a bit of a firestorm, but a great way to let off some last minute steam before the season starts. Lots of views on this one, good job! :thumb:

What can I say..I am republican:o

[bideau]

Originally posted by BionicPatriot
What can I say..I am republican:o

And someday you'll look back at this statement and think...

"youthful indiscretion" :D

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
First of all, the moderators here and a number of posters at this site have made me welcome here, and i appreciate that.

Second-Past experience has taught me that mixing in politics and football leads to some really nasty exchanges and grudges over the long haul. It's easier when there are a full mix of NFL fans, because then you aren't just arguing "within the family."

Third-I don't think it's fair to those who come here simply to discuss football to have to put up with politics, and threads titled "Micheal Moore is a Fat Pig" and "Bush is a Drunk and a Liar" essentially inflame people who disagree but don't want to discuss politics.

Fair enough.
Fourth-I'm far from a fanatic.
Fair enough, too. You were playing to the crowd on KFFL a bit, then?
I'm as left wing as Micheal Moore, but I believe in a mix of socialism (health care, child care, and higher education available for all) and capitalism ( a free market that doesn't give all the advantages to major corporations and supports smaller and local business interests, and protects worker rights and conditions) I believed attacking Afghanistan was completely justified, and believe in fixing Iraq before leaving it, despite having been opposed to the war to begin with. I believe that corporations should be taxed for outsourcing and trade treaties should be enforced-as well as a guaranteed living wage for working americans. I believe the environment is being trashed and we should enforce laws and encourage treaties to preserve it, as well as a national goal of eliminating dependence on foreign oil in the next ten years. I oppose abortion personally, but don't believe my value system should be imposed upon others. I believe the U.S. is an important part of the world community, and not it's ruler, and it's time to stop pretending we are. People without shelter should have a place to go, people without food should have a place to eat.


If these things make me a "fanatic" then i guess that's what i am.



That's what i believe in, take it whatever way you want, and i'll try to stay out of further political discussion.

Fair enough, townsie. You painted yourself much farther left on KFFL, and I was silly enough to go with it. Although reading between the lines of this, and thinking of implementation of some of it...you may indeed be pretty well far left.

At any rate, do we all get to give a "this I believe" speech now? Alright!

[jeepndd]

Two things...first, I did go down to the recruiting office and signed up for the US Army Infantry and I was proud to defend my country but I am too old (they say) to help out now which I would do without hesitation. Second please take a look at this well written and researched article on Micheal Moore's Farenheit 9/11. Micheal Moore is an idiot.

Debunking Farenheit 9/11

by Brittany Craigo

For months, many have anticipated the debut of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11. What would he say? What would he uncover? What new theory would he attempt to convince the public of, by cutting and pasting strips of footage, as he did in Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me? I had heard about many of the phony claims and conspiracy theories to occur in Farenheit 9/11. And I knew that sooner or later, I would be forced to debate one of the many automatons who had been indoctrinated by his socialist propaganda. I knew, however, that I couldn’t critique a movie that I had not seen without being disingenuous. So I strapped on my Bush gear and headed toward the theatre to watch the quasi communist in action.

The movie opens with the 2000 election. I was baffled to hear Moore claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida.” Which numerous investigations were these? The New York Times1, the Washington Post,2 and USA Today,3 reported the same consensus after both recounts: George W. Bush won. I’m willing to accept the fact that, nationally, Gore won the popular vote. That is accurate. However, we have something called the “electoral college.” But to claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida” is preposterous! This is undoubtedly why Moore didn’t choose to name these “numerous sources.” There were none.

Then, in a pure pathetic act, Moore shows footage of CNN calling Florida for Gore, followed by Fox News calling Florida for Bush, and then CNN retracting their previous claim. The theory here was that Gore had won Florida and numerous stations announced it until, lo and behold, Fox News said Bush won Florida and the rest of the news stations “followed their lead.” First off, the notion that CNN and the rest of the news stations would all of a sudden change the results to fit those of one station- Fox News- is ridiculous. I highly doubt that Tom Brokaw sat; waiting for what Fox said in order to “follow their lead.” If that were the case, I would argue that CNN and all the rest who changed their results, to fit those of Fox News, should be wiped off the face of journalism as we know it. Just imagine it: “Well... Fox News said Bush won... we better say Bush won too!” Give me a break.

Why did Fox News call Florida for Bush? They didn’t. Fox News, along with CNN, ABC, NBC etc. all incorrectly called Florida for Gore more than an hour before polls had closed in several conservative Florida counties.4 After getting wind of the fact that they were all wrong, Fox News and the rest of the stations retracted their statements. But what does Moore do in this movie? The same thing he does in all of his movies. He spliced and diced the footage to make it seem as though Fox News deliberately lied and somehow convinced the rest of the stations to lie too. But there is a much more important fact that Moore unintentionally raises here: By calling Florida for Gore before the polls had closed in these highly Republican counties, residents didn’t bother to vote, since the election had already been called in Gore’s favor. According to Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, Bush lost up to 8,000 votes because of the media’s reporting errors.5 But Moore didn’t mention this. Instead he mentions that George W. Bush’s cousin was working for Fox News that night. What he fails to mention, however, is that, as previously noted, Fox News called Florida for Gore as well and by the time Fox had corrected itself and announced Florida for Bush at 2:16 a.m., all polls were already closed and there was no harm to be done. I wonder how Moore missed all those facts.6

After the Florida debacle, Michael Moore introduces us to the ‘convoluted’ relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. First off, though wouldn’t consider myself “politically correct,” and though I think that the Saudi government is obviously not one of perfection, I found Moore’s depiction of the Saudis to be unfair. The fact that Michael Moore chose to lump all Saudis and members of the Royal Saudi family into the terrorism category is completely hypocritical. Isn’t Michael Moore supposed to be the liberal-minded peace-keeper, looking out for minorities and such? His attempt to convince ignorant viewers that the House of Saud is only akin to George Bush is a pure example of his manipulative nature. Needless to say, I was beyond surprised when those surrounding me in the movie theatre shook their heads at every Saudi that flashed upon the screen. Imagine if someone had depicted all blacks as Black Panthers or all Moslems as part of the Taliban! That isn’t ok. But depicting every Saudi as a terrorist is, simply because they have a relationship with America and, thus, its current president.

Moreover, if Bush “wakes up in the morning, thinking about what’s best for the Saudis, rather than thinking about what’s best for you” (as Moore claims), why did we invade Iraq? By invading Iraq and securing those oil fields, the Saudis probably stood to lose billions of dollars! Aside from that, the Saudi family members are Sunnis; the thought that we would liberate the Shiites of Iraq plagued them with fear. This is precisely why King Fahd exclaimed, before we went to war, that Saudi Arabia “rejects outright any infringement on Iraq’s unity, independence, resources and internal security, as well as a military occupation”7 Michael Moore, however, presumes that maybe Bush “told Prince Bandhar not to worry because he already had a plan” (meaning Iraq). Yes, “don’t worry Prince Bandhar. We’ll soon be taking billions of dollars away from your family and liberating your archenemy!” I’m sure that made the prince feel wonderful. Moore obviously lacks common sense on this issue, or at least hopes his audience does.

In addition, Moore’s overexerted attempt to paint the Bush-Bin Laden connection as anything spectacular is ridiculous. As the movie notes, the Bush family was connected to the Bin Ladens, (who claim to have disowned Osama), through the Carlyle Group. But the Carlyle group is a highly connected D.C. firm that specializes in aerospace and defense investments, so good luck finding any government official who isn’t tied to the Bin Ladens. Even George Soros, who is probably the most anti-Bush figure in America right now, has 100,000,000 dollars invested in the Carlyle Group; Bill Clinton is affiliated with the Carlyle Group, along with his former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright8 and, according to John Hardman, “Jimmy Carter met with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000 on a fund-raising trip for the Carter Center in Atlanta.” If you ask me, George Bush needs a few more Saudi friends in order to keep up with the Democrats!

The Bush-Bin Laden “connection” all comes into play as we “learn” that the White House allowed the Bin Laden family to fly out of America after the attacks. I can’t blame Michael Moore for this mistake because there have been many new revelations since he began making his film. In fact, in an interview with The Hill, Richard Clark, the ex terrorism czar who recently wrote a book denouncing the Bush administration, admitted that it was his own sole decision to allow the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country. He stated that, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”9 While Moore was most likely unaware of this fact at the time he was making his movie, he was dishonest in implying that the Bin Ladens’ departure from the U.S. was on September 11th, while all other planes were grounded. In fact, the Bin Ladens departed in the days following September 11th, when the grounding for commercial flights had already been lifted.

Moore also accuses Bush of “taking too many vacations.” We’ve all heard this before. He cites a Washington Post article, claiming that during the first eight months in office, Bush was on “vacation” 42% of the time. I decided to do a little research on that article and- surprise surprise- found his claims to be a bit, shall we say, “off.” It was actually the first year and eight months in office and included trips to foreign nations to discuss foreign policy. According to that Washington Post article, most of that time was spent in Camp David.10 Perhaps this is why one of the photos we see of Bush “vacationing” at Camp David, is a picture of George W. Bush and none other than Tony Blair- the Prime Minister of England. And while Moore attempts to leave the audience with the impression that Camp David is a place for lounging and drinking beer, Wikipedia Encyclopedia states that it “[is] often used for formal and informal discussion between the United States and world leaders,” and cites many historical negotiations that have taken place there.11

Moore finally takes his biggest cheap shot at President Bush; chastising him for continuing to calmly read to students in Florida (for seven minutes) after just having been informed that the World Trade Center had been attacked. I couldn’t help but giggle at this one. You know that leftists have got their panties in a twist, when they resort to this in order to criticize the president. I suppose Moore expected Bush to live up to his “cowboy status” by pulling a Glock out of a holster and yelling, “BRING ‘EM ON!” On the contrary, Bush acted in a complete professional manner. Anyone could clearly see from the expression on his face, that he was in complete shock and distress, though he remained calm. In fact, the teacher who was in the room, at the time, recently came rushing to Bush’s defense, explaining that his calming effect had, “helped us get through a very difficult day.” She admitted that she had not voted for Bush, but said, “That day I would have voted for him.”12 Ouch.

Continued

[jeepndd]

Moore then begins to talk about the infamous memo that the White House received before September 11th, entitled, “Bin Laden Wants to Attack America.” Aside from the fact that we’ve known Bin Laden wanted to attack America since 1993, Moore forgets that the memo shed no light as to when or where the attack would take place. After all, fourteen out of the seventeen sentences in that PDB were historical in nature. But perhaps Bush purposely ignored the memo, knowing full-well what was about to happen. As Moore wonders, “Maybe the war in Afghanistan was really about something else.” He notes that “In 1997 while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan, bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea.” When I first heard this, I thought I had surely missed something. But then I remembered who had directed the garbage I was watching, and began thinking logically once again. What did Governor Bush have to do with the discussion to build a pipeline in Afghanistan? That pipeline was sought out under the Clinton Administration. Yes, Bush happened to be governor of Texas at the time, but that’s completely irrelevant to the meetings which occurred between Unocal and the Taliban at Bill Clinton’s concession!13 But Moore plays with words; purposely including irrelevant information regarding Bush, to connect him with the topic at hand. Moreover, when the pipeline deal was actually implemented in 2002, Unocal released a press release, stating that, “Unocal has no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan.”14

If I were to present an award to the slimiest element in Farenheit, it would have to go to Moore’s depiction of Saddam Hussein and his regime before the invasion of Iraq. Oh it was a wonderful place. We see children flying kites, a woman getting married and Saddam holding a child. I can’t even express the outrage that causes me, having known someone whose family was slaughtered by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen during the invasion of Kuwait. This crossed the boundary between an anti-Bush documentary and a new form of Leni Riefenstahl-like propaganda. The way Moore portrayed Saddam Hussein was exactly the way that she portrayed Adolf Hitler, in order to gain support for the Nazi agenda. By claiming that Saddam Hussein “never took the life of any American or threatened any American,” Moore fails to acknowledge the 148 American soldiers killed (in combat) by Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Gulf War,16 his attacks on American planes patrolling no-fly zones for a consecutive ten years after the Gulf War15 and his attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush; but I guess military personnel and Republican presidents don’t count. And of course, it wouldn’t be a Michael Moore film without the footage of those evil, brutal American soldiers of ours. Not one of them is cast in a good light. Instead, we are shown only what Michael Moore wants us to see- insensitive hicks, just looking for a thrill and a few soldiers who are vehemently opposed to the war. There are no heroes; few patriots- only Moore’s presentation of how he views Americans. He also fails to mention that the structure we see being so ferociously destroyed by American explosives was Saddam’s Iraqi Ministry of Defense.17 Needless to say, he furthers the idea that the U.S. military is reckless, heartless, and brainless.

Then, of course, we’re subjected to the baseless rhetoric about the PATRIOT Act. I found it interesting that while Michael Moore decides to “read” the Act to the senators from his ice cream truck (in order to point out its many over-looked “flaws”), the audience never hears it. We don’t even hear a snippet of the PATRIOT Act’s abuse of civil liberties. Why? Because Michael Moore knows quite well that if we were to hear or read the PATRIOT Act for ourselves, we would realize how necessary and, in fact, over-due it was. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the PATRIOT Act, it represented a huge breakthrough in the way our intelligence shares information. Sec. 203 finally allowed law enforcement to share information with intelligence agencies. This is crucial to our national defense and, indeed, imperative, if we wish to prevent another 9/11. Despite the fact that there have been no documented Civil Rights abuses under the PATRIOT Act, Moore rounds up a few paranoid cooks that insist they were targeted by the FBI, for being against the war. In reality, the PATRIOT Act allows the same search and seizure methods that are already allotted for local crime. Search warrants and “reasonable cause” are still mandatory under the PATRIOT Act.18

Moore then pulls a stunt which had the audience in tears. He spoke with Representative Porter Goss, who was defending the PATRIOT ACT. Gross informs Moore that problems with the PATRIOT Act can be reported by calling a toll-free “800 number.” We then see words flashed across the screen, informing the audience that there is no “800 number,” but that Goss does have a private telephone line, as he flashes their (202) office number across the screen. Once again, while Moore won a few laughs, he was lying through his teeth. The U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (where problems with the PATRIOT act can be reported) does have a toll-free number, though its prefix is (877). The number is 1-877-858-9040.19 Somebody ought to tell Moore, so he doesn’t have to go through the trouble of yelling it over a loud-speaker in an ice cream truck again.

Of course it wouldn’t be a Michael Moore film without him doing what he’s famous for- heckling unsuspecting people and making them look crazy for not taking him seriously. He approaches some Congressmen, in order to get them to “sign their kids up for the army.” It was just asinine. How does a parent sign their child up for the army? His rationale for doing so is that “only one congressman has a son or daughter enlisted in the armed forces.” FLAT-OUT-LIE. According to Kelly Beaucar, who wrote a Fox News article, entitled, Handful of Congressman Send Their Kids to War, “There are at least seven members of Congress with children in the Armed Forces.” In fact, there are eight: Tim Johnson(D), Marilyn Musgrave(R), Ed Schrock(R), Joe Wilson(R), John Kline(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Todd Akin(R)20, and Joe Biden(D)21 are all Congressmen who have children currently serving in the military, not to mention the 36 veterans in congress22. And Moore would probably disheartened to know that his favorite punching bag, John Ashcroft, also had a son serving in the military.23

Moore seems to have a knack for ignoring relevant information. Upon discussing the Coalition of the Willing, he only mentions the small countries that don’t possess troops, while leaving out the countries which do, such as Poland, England and Australia.24 And of course we’re supposed to be disgusted that our armed forces possess large quantities of low-income earners and minorities, and that recruiters often go to the more unfortunate towns, looking for people to enlist. Think about that argument. Leftists like Moore are upset when a company doesn’t hire enough minorities and upset when the military hires too many! Only someone as ungrateful as Michael Moore, could be appalled at the fact that low-income earners from places like Flint, MI are “targeted” by the military and granted the greatest opportunities that America has to offer- education, money, benefits, housing, training, food and heroism. But, of course, Moore sees none of these things. He is still too blinded by his hatred for the United States and his belief that the U.S. military is the embodiment of shame.

Michael Moore ends Farenheit 9/11 with a quote from George Orwell. I, myself, have a quote from George Orwell that Moore just may have overlooked.
“If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me.”25 I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Some links below may require registering to online newspaper.

1: http://www.nytimes.com
2 :http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com
3: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm
4: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp
5: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp
6: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml
7: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/5421527.htm
8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group
9: http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
10: http://www.washingtonpost.com
11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David
12: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/24/102357.shtml
13: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2016340.stm
14: http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm
15: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties
16: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/18/sdi.06.html
17: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/and http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
18: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
19: http://intelligence.house.gov/
20: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82469,00.html
21: http://www.washingtontimes.com
22: http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm
23: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions
24: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003
25: http://www.george-orwell.org/l_quotes.html


Contact Brittany Craigo
E-mail: colapsingtrust@yahoo.com

[jeepndd]

I would like to also add that despite being a conservative, political not moral conservative, I have never been a fan of President G.W. Bush. I can find plenty of reason's to criticize him but I can honestly say that he has been a remarkble Commander in Chief while addressing terrorism and he has been the first President to hand the middle class a tax cut. Despite that if there was a realistic opponent to the President I could easily be swung over but John Kerry? Are you mad?

Let's see...
John Kerry is a career politician.
John Kerry misses most votes on the Senate floor.
John Kerry misses votes on veteran issues and funding of benefits promised to veterans.
John Kerry is a rich fat cat who works to help large corporate interests.
John Kerry is anti-second amendment.
John Kerry is pro-war with Iraq as is President Bush so rational thinking people can not use this as a reason to vote against either of them. ;)
John Kerry wants to take away the tax cuts.
Massachusetts, I believe we can all agree, is no Utopia...

It's too bad that the Dem's refuse to give us a moderate candidate, they would easily win but the far left apparently rules the party.

[bideau]

And its too bad the far religious right has gained control of the republican party.

I'd vote for ANYONE over Bush.

[townes]

Actually I portrayed myself as the world's biggest homer, an immigrant rightwing nutbag, and the left winger I really am at KFFL. However, as far as the policies i actually believe in, they are left wing, but then again so is every good policy this country has adopted in the past 100 years (I had to cut it at 100 years, or freeing the slaves would have interfered with my point.) Iactually believe that many of the things i listed would make this a better country. The reason i listed them was to make my position clear, as i wasn't really expecting a political forum here, and I didn't want to be misunderstood on where i stand-and I wasn't going to continue talking politics here.

As for hyperbole---GUILTY .

I have always been guilty of responding in kind, and that doesn't always work out well, and it often leads to misplacing your own point. I'm still guilty of it , in fact, but i am trying to exercise more self control.

Truth is, I love policy discussion, but i hate it when it gets bogged down. I also love the back and forth in general, but i am not real good at allowing people to take shots at me, or my views, without making certain the shot goes right back the other way.

I'm guessing that this new forum will cause some fans to hate each other, but it will also keep those who hate having to deal with politics in a football forum clear of things that bug them.

Being who I am, I think they moderators did the right thing, because the mix gets really nasty when those who want nothing to do with it get dragged in.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by bideau
And its too bad the far religious right has gained control of the republican party.

I'd vote for ANYONE over Bush.

Control of, I believe, is a bit of a stretch, more so than saying that the anti-americans have gained control of the Dem's. ;) Although I will agree, being a political conservative, that there is some slight truth to that. The christian right wing just doesn't seem to grasp that thiers is a liberal agenda. I just can't bring myself to vote for anyone who exemplifies everything that I believe is wrong with politics today. I'm sure that Kerry will however win in the communistwealth. Oops, I probably said too much now. :D

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by bideau
And someday you'll look back at this statement and think...

"youthful indiscretion" :D

This coming from a Democrat?!:eek:

;)

[thomas144]

Originally posted by jeepndd
Control of, I believe, is a bit of a stretch, more so than saying that the anti-americans have gained control of the Dem's. ;)

I don't know why you apparently think that is a humorous remark, to say that Democrats are "anti-american". I think it's a really horrid thing to say.

I don't see any exaggeration in saying that the republican party is controlled by religious zealots. As I am sure everyone has heard many times (by now), church attendance is the most reliable predictor of how somebody will vote. People are voting for Bush because he is a Christian.

[Moebius]

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't know why you apparently think that is a humorous remark, to say that Democrats are "anti-american". I think it's a really horrid thing to say.

I don't see any exaggeration in saying that the republican party is controlled by religious zealots. As I am sure everyone has heard many times (by now), church attendance is the most reliable predictor of how somebody will vote. People are voting for Bush because he is a Christian.

We're not partisan, are we??? :D

How about this? They're all politicians. They're all looking out for number 1. Greed makes no bias on the basis of beliefs, religion, race, or cultural standings.

Yes, in case you didn't guess, I'm disillusioned about anything that has to do with our political system. Right now, I do not belive there is such a thing as an honest politician.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Moebius


How about this? They're all politicians. They're all looking out for number 1. Greed makes no bias on the basis of beliefs, religion, race, or cultural standings.


I don't actually believe this. I have followed politics since I was probably about 11, around the time I started to follow professional sports.

I really do not think that people who are elected to the Senate or the Presidency are in it for the money, or even their personal ego gratification. Frankly, I think there are much easier ways to rip people off. :-)

I don't even think Dick Cheney and George Bush are crooks.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Moebius
We're not partisan, are we??? :D

How about this? They're all politicians. They're all looking out for number 1. Greed makes no bias on the basis of beliefs, religion, race, or cultural standings.

Yes, in case you didn't guess, I'm disillusioned about anything that has to do with our political system. Right now, I do not belive there is such a thing as an honest politician.

I've tried to argue this before. It cracks me up how people can so fiercely argue against one side, while turning a blind eye to the other.

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by thomas144
People are voting for Bush because he is a Christian.

That's a pretty blanket statement there and most definately does not apply to everyone that votes for Bush (though I'm sure it does apply to a fair amount of them).

[bideau]

Originally posted by Annihilus
That's a pretty blanket statement there and most definately does not apply to everyone that votes for Bush (though I'm sure it does apply to a fair amount of them).

I would agree with you. I'd refine the statement to say:

Fundamentalist christians vote for Bush because he incorporates fundamentalist doctrine into his decision making.

But not everyone who votes for Bush is a fundamentalist.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by bideau
I would agree with you. I'd refine the statement to say:

Fundamentalist christians vote for Bush because he incorporates fundamentalist doctrine into his decision making.

But not everyone who votes for Bush is a fundamentalist.

I would further modify that to Fundamentalist christians vote for Bush or any other conservative because they have no other choice.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't know why you apparently think that is a humorous remark, to say that Democrats are "anti-american". I think it's a really horrid thing to say.

I don't see any exaggeration in saying that the republican party is controlled by religious zealots. As I am sure everyone has heard many times (by now), church attendance is the most reliable predictor of how somebody will vote. People are voting for Bush because he is a Christian.

:eek:

So you think ...to say that Democrats are "anti-american". I think it's a really horrid thing to say. but you also think I don't see any exaggeration in saying that the republican party is controlled by religious zealots. and you don't see the contradiction in those beliefs? :confused:

church attendance is the most reliable predictor of how somebody will vote. I know a lot of people who attend church religiously and still vote Democrat straight ticket, I guess you forgot to tell them they are supposed to be voting for Bush? ;)

Psst, Kerry is a Christian... :D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I would further modify that to Fundamentalist christians vote for Bush or any other conservative because they have no other choice.

True, I'm sure most conservatives don't want to be compared to, and associated with fundamentalist christians anymore then liberals want to be compared to and associated with radical communists.

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I would further modify that to Fundamentalist christians vote for Bush or any other conservative because they have no other choice.

And I would have to disagree with you, I know plenty of "religious zealots, fundamentalist christians, or other hate name of the week" who have never voted for a Republican.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by jeepndd
And I would have to disagree with you, I know plenty of "religious zealots, fundamentalist christians, or other hate name of the week" who have never voted for a Republican.

Really?? That surprises me. Did they not vote at all? Surely they didn't vote for the liberal candidate?

[jeepndd]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Really?? That surprises me. Did they not vote at all? Surely they didn't vote for the liberal candidate?

Yes, religiously so. ;) Frankly it baffles me since their party of choice flies in the face of issues they feel so strongly about...

there are many people on both sides of the fence who blindly believe in their party of choice despite the facts. Michael Moore, I believe, is one of these people and that's why he is an idiot. Kerry has openly stated he would have done the same in regard to Iraq if he had been in Bush's place.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by jeepndd
Yes, religiously so. ;) Frankly it baffles me since their party of choice flies in the face of issues they feel so strongly about...


Baffles me too. Well, since I have no personal experience to draw on in this isssue, I stand corrected. :)

[Moebius]

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't actually believe this. I have followed politics since I was probably about 11, around the time I started to follow professional sports.

I really do not think that people who are elected to the Senate or the Presidency are in it for the money, or even their personal ego gratification. Frankly, I think there are much easier ways to rip people off. :-)

I don't even think Dick Cheney and George Bush are crooks.

It's not ripping off, but it's a good gig. Just look at the retirement benefits. My strongest belief is that the best way to fix our Social Security program would be to put Congress on it.

I guess to me, there's just been way too much palm-greasing, covering up, and everything else to have me trust a politician's honesty right now.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Moebius
It's not ripping off, but it's a good gig. Just look at the retirement benefits. My strongest belief is that the best way to fix our Social Security program would be to put Congress on it.

I guess to me, there's just been way too much palm-greasing, covering up, and everything else to have me trust a politician's honesty right now.

For most politicians, the pay is miniscule. Dick Cheney was making something like $12M as CEO of Halliburton. I really don't know why anyone would want to be a politician. I mean, it's not like you are guaranteed to be able to hand out billion dollar no-bid contracts to your friends.

[Moebius]

VP I'll grant is a bit questionable, but think of things like Congress. Their retirement program basically guarantees them the same pay for the rest of their lives. So even if you have millions, you now get an extra Tax Free (I believe) chunk on top of that.

Also, greed encompasses more than money. There's the whole power gig.

[runnerone]

Originally posted by bideau
And its too bad the far religious right has gained control of the republican party.

I'd vote for ANYONE over Bush.

Hmm that practice as a hiring technique is known as throwing $hit against the wall to see what sticks.

I think voting against someone is a far worse philosophy than voting "FOR" someone. A vote for Kerry is just that, a vote against Bush.

This alternative will be disastrous for this country.