Moore and O'Reilly

[Cleetus]

Fun interview (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html)

[JaxSon]

I thought it was pretty ironic that the democrats had Moore sitting up there in a prominent position with Jimmy Carter. A really Un-American American sitting next to a really bad president.

[edball]

I thought it was pretty ironic that the democrats had Moore sitting up there in a prominent position with Jimmy Carter. A really Un-American American sitting next to a really bad president.
I think Moore is Pro-American and Carter was a great president.

[Cleetus]

I thought it was pretty ironic that the democrats had Moore sitting up there in a prominent position with Jimmy Carter. A really Un-American American sitting next to a really bad president.
Just why is questioning those in charge un-American?

[Escape_Driver]

I think Moore is Pro-American and Carter was a great president.
I agree on Moore I'm to young to remeber Carter.... If you say anything is wrong you are anti-american....

[techs]

The partial interview s*cked.
Lets not forget the facts:
9-11 commission said no evidence Saddam involved in 9-11 and no evidence he had recent contacts with al-qaeda.
9-11 commission said no wmd's were found.
9-11 commission said the war against islamic fundamentalism is ideological not military and we are losing.
9-11 committee said our intelligence service structure is a mess almost three years after 9-11.
9-11 commission said the intelligence services failed us on 9-11.
The 9-11 commission specifically said they avoided the Bushes role in starting the war.

Bush led us to believe Saddam was involved in 9-11.
Bush said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. So he obviously never looked at the evidence. Just took Tenets word for it.
Bush said for months after the war we would find wmd so he still didn't look at the evidence.
Bush praised Tenet to the hilt when he left despite Tenets failures before and after 9-11.
Bush needed the 9-11 commission to tell him the intelligence services were a mess. He was the last person in the country to find this out. Well, maybe Cheney was the last.
Bush has held no one accountable for 9-11 failure or Iraqi intelligence failure.

Bush has been a terrible admistrator. The 9-11 commission, which he appointed, came out and said his handling of terrorism is completely wrong. That he doesn't understand the nature of the war.

And the hearings that absolutely should have been held into the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war will not happen til after the election.

Bush=Failure.

[Escape_Driver]

Careful tech they'll call you anti-american if you keep that up.


P.S I agree with you

[techs]

Careful tech they'll call you anti-american if you keep that up.


P.S I agree with you

Patriotism is the last refuge of the incompetent.

[jitBob]

Patriotism is the last refuge of the incompetent.
And the first refuge would be?

[techs]

And the first refuge would be?
Well, for Bush it seems to be smear tactics.

[jitBob]

Just why is questioning those in charge un-American?
The second rule of freedom: Question authority.

[techs]

And the first refuge would be?
I apologize. I re-read the thread and it was JaxSon calling Moore un-american.
So I will re-phrase.
The first refuge for supporters of an incompetent President is patriotism.

[Major Kong]

I actually saw the interview on Fox and to be completely honest Moore came off as a buffoon. That being said O'Reilly didn't come off as a grand man of the 5th Estate either. In all I would score it 15-14 with a close decision going to O'Reilly. I will say that it was enjoyable watching them jab, parry and bob at each other with both of them trying to deliver the ultimate knockout haymaker and neither coming close. What was supposed to be a heavyweight battle of the ages was more like a girlie man slap fest. :D

[techs]

I actually saw the interview on Fox and to be completely honest Moore came off as a buffoon. That being said O'Reilly didn't come off as a grand man of the 5th Estate either. In all I would score it 15-14 with a close decision going to O'Reilly. I will say that it was enjoyable watching them jab, parry and bob at each other with both of them trying to deliver the ultimate knockout haymaker and neither coming close. What was supposed to be a heavyweight battle of the ages was more like a girlie man slap fest. :D

girlie man slap fest?
Nice phrase.

[nunob]

Moore's points sucked in that interview! All he came up with was would you send a child to get killed? The U.S. has a volunteer military which means that those who join do so of their own free will and if they later say yeah but I didn't want to go to war I only joined for the GI bill then I say tough @*&! you knew the conditions before you volunteered. The war was to remove someone from power who killed his own people, was trying to help Al-Queda, and was trying to obtain wmd all things that the rest of the world has said is unexceptable under Saddam's leadership. Moore tried to turn it in to a moral issue yet when Bill C. got caught lying his shorts off over sexual infedility it was a personal issue between Bill and Hillary. What a two faced flip flop!

[Cleetus]

Moore's points sucked in that interview! All he came up with was would you send a child to get killed? The U.S. has a volunteer military which means that those who join do so of their own free will and if they later say yeah but I didn't want to go to war I only joined for the GI bill then I say tough @*&! you knew the conditions before you volunteered. The war was to remove someone from power who killed his own people, was trying to help Al-Queda, and was trying to obtain wmd all things that the rest of the world has said is unexceptable under Saddam's leadership. Moore tried to turn it in to a moral issue yet when Bill C. got caught lying his shorts off over sexual infedility it was a personal issue between Bill and Hillary. What a two faced flip flop!

No one died because of the blowjob

[techs]

You are aware O'Reilly has his staff talking to him in his earpiece helping him out? And that O'Reilly is a professional on air person and Moore is a director?
I would have assumed O'Reilly should win.

[nunob]

No one died because of the blowjob
His vice president was in charge of transportation safety at the time and was told of the possibility of terrorists doing something similar to 9/11 but the two wankers were to busy with bj's to do anything about it.

[jitBob]

Moore's points sucked in that interview! All he came up with was would you send a child to get killed? The U.S. has a volunteer military which means that those who join do so of their own free will and if they later say yeah but I didn't want to go to war I only joined for the GI bill then I say tough @*&! you knew the conditions before you volunteered. The war was to remove someone from power who killed his own people, was trying to help Al-Queda, and was trying to obtain wmd all things that the rest of the world has said is unexceptable under Saddam's leadership. Moore tried to turn it in to a moral issue yet when Bill C. got caught lying his shorts off over sexual infedility it was a personal issue between Bill and Hillary. What a two faced flip flop!

First, wheither the child volunteered or not, it is still a child.

Second, when you say: "The war was to " you should have said: "The war was supposed to be because of"

Third, lying over assault with a friendly weapon is hardly the same as lying about the reasons to go to war and have people die.

Bush lied, people died.

[Escape_Driver]

No one died because of the blowjob

Any man with control of that many nukes I want to be making sure he's getting blown.... ALOT..... I want him to be relaxed

[Escape_Driver]

Clinton got a BJ from a cubby intern...

JFK had a set of twins and was nailing Marilyn Monroe...

LOL I miss the old days

[jitBob]

Clinton got a BJ from a cubby intern...

JFK had a set of twins and was nailing Marilyn Monroe...

LOL I miss the old days
Who says Democrats don't know how to have fun! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gif

[Ya_know]

You are aware O'Reilly has his staff talking to him in his earpiece helping him out? And that O'Reilly is a professional on air person and Moore is a director?
I would have assumed O'Reilly should win.

But Moore has done these interviews many times, over many of the same topics, he’s always prepared. He is a spin doctor, and ran around the answers left and right, he’s good at placating his aggressor because he’s so used to being the antagonist, but that’s about the extent of it. I do agree with the Major, in that O’Rily didn't deliver any knock out blow...never the less, Moore couldn't come up with a thing. He said he still thinks that Bush is a liar over the WMD’s, yet he's been proven wrong.

And the part about sending someone’s own kid to war…when a child becomes 18 and decides he/she’s a man/woman, and wants to defend this country as a member of the armed services, they cease to be a child. They are also not the responsibility of the parent any longer, the US Government will take the responsibility. If a parent doesn’t want their children to join, they have the opportunity to protest with their kids, but ultimately the decision is not the parents, and remember that it is a voluntary hitch. So just where was Moore trying to take that anyway?

[nunob]

First, wheither the child volunteered or not, it is still a child.

Second, when you say: "The war was to " you should have said: "The war was supposed to be because of"

Third, lying over assault with a friendly weapon is hardly the same as lying about the reasons to go to war and have people die.

Bush lied, people died.
18 you become adult right? If not then when do you become old enough to make descions on your own? 20? 30? or maybe when they see things your way eh?

[jitBob]

18 you become adult right? If not then when do you become old enough to make descions on your own? 20? 30? or maybe when they see things your way eh?
At 18 you are numericly an adult. How many are actually capable of making life and death decisions?

Could you easily make the decision to send very young people into harms way. Wouldn't you have some worry/doubt/regret about doing it? Especially if the reason wasn't cut and dried, black and white, beyond the shadow of a doubt, could you?

[Cleetus]

Then why aren't 18 year olds then responsible enough to drink or rent cars?

[Cleetus]

So are you saying once your child is 18 you are no longer going to have any protective feelings or care about them in harms way?

[nunob]

If I had seen the video of Sadam's military killy 3106 people and shoving their bodies into a whole in the ground and dumping chemicals over the bodies to make the decompose faster and mask the smell then hell yeah I could. Is it ok for him to kill over 3100 people? Or perhaps it only matters when they kick your door down and drag you into the street rape and kill your family in front of you then kill you? I assert that at this point its to late to do something about it.

[nunob]

So are you saying once your child is 18 you are no longer going to have any protective feelings or care about them in harms way?
I would always care but if they join the military of their own free will I also would support their descion and respect them for doing whats right.

[Cleetus]

And not mind them dieing in a preemptive war that was sold to us on false reasoning?

[nunob]

And not mind them dieing in a preemptive war that was sold to us on false reasoning?
It would bother me if my children died for any reason but its alot easier to swallow that they died to provide you the right to express your views on this than if some terrorist flew a plane into a building and killed them.

[Ya_know]

At 18 you are numericly an adult. How many are actually capable of making life and death decisions?

Could you easily make the decision to send very young people into harms way. Wouldn't you have some worry/doubt/regret about doing it? Especially if the reason wasn't cut and dried, black and white, beyond the shadow of a doubt, could you?

I had no qualms about the decision that I had made when I joined the Marines. I did it knowing the ramifications, and there was no doubt in my mind that I could have been signing my own death warrant. I was 18, and sure of what I was doing, and did it.

One of the reasons I left the Marines was simply this, as you start putting on rank, (I made it to Sergeant, E-5) you were responsible for the men and women below you. Sure it wasn’t a command like a company or battalion CO, but it still became a higher part of the chain, where life and death decisions might need to be made with someone else’s life on the line. If I had to do it at the time I would have done my best, and hoped for the best…but when faced with the decision to leave I chose that instead of putting men’s lives in harms way. It just wasn’t anything I personally wanted to be responsible for, thank goodness I never have to do it.

Since so much of these debates are more on the personality of the President being a stupid man, and that he isn’t in charge, and all of that crap…I will give you my personal belief of GWB. I don’t think for one second that he ever wanted to put a soldiers boot on the ground in Iraq until it was absolutely necessary to defend our way of life. He just wouldn’t want that for anyone.

What he did at the time was deemed necessary by intelligence and other fact gathering agencies. Saddam had to go, and we had to send troops in to do it. That was not a decision Bush took lightly, I assure you all that doubt.

[Ya_know]

So are you saying once your child is 18 you are no longer going to have any protective feelings or care about them in harms way?

No one said that, what was said was that as a man, your child should be allowed to make his own decisions. You are there to assist, and perhaps coheres if your needs should supersede, but ultimately, you have to let go. You never have to stop loving the child, just respect them man and his decision. This isn't a parents decision after all...it's the mans.

[Escape_Driver]

There is a very wide distance in maturity between one 18 year old and another..
I've worked with 18 year olds who couldn't tie there own shoes...

[jitBob]

No one said that, what was said was that as a man, your child should be allowed to make his own decisions. You are there to assist, and perhaps coheres if your needs should supersede, but ultimately, you have to let go. You never have to stop loving the child, just respect them man and his decision. This isn't a parents decision after all...it's the mans.
Letting go of your child is not an easy thing to do. They become men and must make their own decisions. I can respect that, as my own son just turned 18. However I love him so dearly that I will react to any decision that may harm or kill him.

What do you mean by "coheres"?

[Escape_Driver]

No one said that, what was said was that as a man, your child should be allowed to make his own decisions. You are there to assist, and perhaps coheres if your needs should supersede, but ultimately, you have to let go. You never have to stop loving the child, just respect them man and his decision. This isn't a parents decision after all...it's the mans.

Some 18 year olds can make that desision.... Some I would trust in a tank or with a gun..... Alot I wouldn't trust with a potato gun....

[nunob]

There is a very wide distance in maturity between one 18 year old and another..
I've worked with 18 year olds who couldn't tie there own shoes...
Some 18 year olds that are morons join the military and have a total makeover they become productive responsible human beings. Then their are the others like my step brother who was thrown out of the airforce because he was incapable of being responsible thats what boot camp is for to weed out those who aren't mature enough to handle it.

[nunob]

What do you mean by "coheres"?


tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

[Escape_Driver]

I think we should draft people who make over 250,000$ per year into the army... Can you imagine the changes that would come about...

[nunob]

I think we should draft people who make over 250,000$ per year into the army... Can you imagine the changes that would come about...
I would be happy to go today and I've already billed over 300k this year in my biz.

[Cleetus]

It would bother me if my children died for any reason but its alot easier to swallow that they died to provide you the right to express your views on this than if some terrorist flew a plane into a building and killed them.
Hmmm, not once has a terrorist taken away my freedom to express my views, my government has tried in vain attempts to stop the terrorist, but the terrorists themselves never.

[Cleetus]

I
Since so much of these debates are more on the personality of the President being a stupid man, and that he isn’t in charge, and all of that crap…I will give you my personal belief of GWB. I don’t think for one second that he ever wanted to put a soldiers boot on the ground in Iraq until it was absolutely necessary to defend our way of life. He just wouldn’t want that for anyone.

What he did at the time was deemed necessary by intelligence and other fact gathering agencies. Saddam had to go, and we had to send troops in to do it. That was not a decision Bush took lightly, I assure you all that doubt.
Defend my way of life? From a two-bit dictator in a third world country that actually had no WMD's all the while the real terrorists were still out there?

[Ya_know]

What do you mean by "coheres"?

I meant “coerce”, I guess spell check was working against me in my time of need… :p

[nunob]

Hmmm, not once has a terrorist taken away my freedom to express my views, my government has tried in vain attempts to stop the terrorist, but the terrorists themselves never.
If Hitler had been let go you wouldnt be typing your views in here right now at least not in english.

[Cleetus]

Saddam wasn't Hitler, two major different players in major different ways, you are really reaching on that one

[nunob]

Saddam wasn't Hitler, two major different players in major different ways, you are really reaching on that one
No Hitler started out by killing the people who threatened his ideas and beliefs. Sadam killed people who opposed him. Where is the difference there? Hitler was let go longer than Sadam is the only difference I see.

[Ya_know]

Defend my way of life? From a two-bit dictator in a third world country that actually had no WMD's all the while the real terrorists were still out there?

Would this be that same two bit dictator that had made an attempt on a US President's life?

[Cleetus]

Jeebus, nice spin job guys, took me a bit. You still are going all around the simple fact that we were brought to this war with Iraq because of WMD's. Other then what, one war head, there has been absolutly no evidence of WMD's, most of the ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 have been found false. All you are doing is spinning the story to dilude yourself from the fact that we went to this war on false pretenses and that the Bush presidency duped us, the UN, themselves, and everyone else into believing this.

So now you tell me these stories of evil, bad dictators. Fine and dandy, I hate these guys too. But if you are going to use that excuse, you better come up with a good answer for N Korea, China, all over Africa, and everywhere else where people are under brutal dictators. You better then be prepared for a changing world, if it is now our responsibility to tell the world and every country how it should be run and who brutal you can be.

For me this is scarier then hell itself, as it will only drive more people to become terrorists, which is the exact opposite of what this supposed war is all about.

Also, just to go back...Do you really think Iraq is anywhere equal in power, strength, national pride, resources as Germany was/is? Saddam could never get the national pride out of his people that Hitler was able to pull out of the proud German people. Nope, sorry, Saddam is a two bit guy, Hitler was the real deal, as far as truely evil bastards go.

[techs]

Jeebus, nice spin job guys, took me a bit. You still are going all around the simple fact that we were brought to this war with Iraq because of WMD's. Other then what, one war head, there has been absolutly no evidence of WMD's, most of the ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 have been found false. All you are doing is spinning the story to dilude yourself from the fact that we went to this war on false pretenses and that the Bush presidency duped us, the UN, themselves, and everyone else into believing this.

So now you tell me these stories of evil, bad dictators. Fine and dandy, I hate these guys too. But if you are going to use that excuse, you better come up with a good answer for N Korea, China, all over Africa, and everywhere else where people are under brutal dictators. You better then be prepared for a changing world, if it is now our responsibility to tell the world and every country how it should be run and who brutal you can be.

For me this is scarier then hell itself, as it will only drive more people to become terrorists, which is the exact opposite of what this supposed war is all about.

Also, just to go back...Do you really think Iraq is anywhere equal in power, strength, national pride, resources as Germany was/is? Saddam could never get the national pride out of his people that Hitler was able to pull out of the proud German people. Nope, sorry, Saddam is a two bit guy, Hitler was the real deal, as far as truely evil bastards go.

Darn it Cleetus. Stop being so right. You're stealing my thunder.

OOPS forgot I am probably on your ignore list so you won't see this.

[Ya_know]

Jeebus, nice spin job guys, took me a bit. .

The spin is from the left, you guys just don't want to let go the WMD's. To date, that's the only failure in Iraq. Everything else was for real...you need to understand that this war was never truly about WMD's...it was about a power hungry dictator hell bent on seeing the end of western civilization as we know it. This is also a very strategic positioning in the Middle East, in a very solid effort to rid the world of organized terrorism, by eliminating the national support of these organizations once and for all. Iraq may not have been part of Al Quada this week, but they had ties to plenty of other terrorist organizations…who gives a phuck about WMD’s??? Al Quada doesn’t even have them, and has never used them? Unless you consider the civilian airliners a WMD…

[nunob]

Jeebus, nice spin job guys, took me a bit. You still are going all around the simple fact that we were brought to this war with Iraq because of WMD's. Other then what, one war head, there has been absolutly no evidence of WMD's, most of the ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 have been found false. All you are doing is spinning the story to dilude yourself from the fact that we went to this war on false pretenses and that the Bush presidency duped us, the UN, themselves, and everyone else into believing this.

So now you tell me these stories of evil, bad dictators. Fine and dandy, I hate these guys too. But if you are going to use that excuse, you better come up with a good answer for N Korea, China, all over Africa, and everywhere else where people are under brutal dictators. You better then be prepared for a changing world, if it is now our responsibility to tell the world and every country how it should be run and who brutal you can be.

For me this is scarier then hell itself, as it will only drive more people to become terrorists, which is the exact opposite of what this supposed war is all about.

Also, just to go back...Do you really think Iraq is anywhere equal in power, strength, national pride, resources as Germany was/is? Saddam could never get the national pride out of his people that Hitler was able to pull out of the proud German people. Nope, sorry, Saddam is a two bit guy, Hitler was the real deal, as far as truely evil bastards go.


Oh so he's not as good as Hitler so its ok to kill people and try to obtain wmd(power) I think even Hitler started a little slow then grew as he gained more power and terrorized more who opposed him.

[Cleetus]

Oh so he's not as good as Hitler so its ok to kill people and try to obtain wmd(power) I think even Hitler started a little slow then grew as he gained more power and terrorized more who opposed him.
You mean like someone questionably voted in, whose party has a large amount of control on the media and the spin, has WMD's, detains people without trial for indeterminate time, starts pre-emptive wars, tells anyone who disagrees that they are no longer patriotic or a traitor or gives aid to the enemy????

Thank god we have the ACLU, the Democrats, Micheal Moore, Al Frankin and the freedom to gain enough intelligence to not fall for the lines that are fed to us daily and voice our concerns on what the government is doing to us.

[Cleetus]

The spin is from the left, you guys just don't want to let go the WMD's. To date, that's the only failure in Iraq. Everything else was for real...you need to understand that this war was never truly about WMD's...it was about a power hungry dictator hell bent on seeing the end of western civilization as we know it. This is also a very strategic positioning in the Middle East, in a very solid effort to rid the world of organized terrorism, by eliminating the national support of these organizations once and for all. Iraq may not have been part of Al Quada this week, but they had ties to plenty of other terrorist organizations…who gives a phuck about WMD’s??? Al Quada doesn’t even have them, and has never used them? Unless you consider the civilian airliners a WMD…
Really?!?!?!?

I could have sworn that when Powell went to the UN and to Congress he was arguing action on the "fact" that there were WMD's and therfor Saddam was no longer complying to the UN resolutions which meant we did indeed have a right to go in to check. I must have missed the Powell meetings, and the Bush speeches telling me we were going to war solely to oust a "power hungry dictator". Damn, we really are controlled by a leftist media not giving us the truth :rolleyes:

[Ya_know]

I will not thank anyone for Michael Moore. He's as wortless as a stain on the bed sheets... :butt:

[Cleetus]

I will not thank anyone for Michael Moore. He's as wortless as a stain on the bed sheets... :butt:
I would have thanked the stain on the bed sheets if it meant we didn't have you :thumbs: :flame:

[Ya_know]

I would have thanked the stain on the bed sheets if it meant we didn't have you :thumbs: :flame:

What'eva, Lefty... :butt:

[Cleetus]

What'eva, Lefty... :butt:
Ok there, fascist :bor:

[Wayward Clam]

Ya_Know, it's interesting Ya_Should say this:


...you need to understand that this war was never truly about WMD's...

…who gives a phuck about WMD’s???

Apparently, YOU give a phuck about them, or at least you did when you were advocating the Iraq war (boldface done by myself):


You can’t make an argument about this current situation by bring up irrelevant comparisons to past policy of the US. Bottom line—the UN shut down Saddam’s advance into Kuwait. However despite all better judgment stopped and gave Saddam and his war mangled country sovereignty with many conditions. Of those conditions, Iraq was permitted to maintain an army, however certain weapons were banned. UN inspectors were to be permitted into the country to oversee their compliance. For 12 years (really 14) his régime has prevented inspections, consorting with terrorists, devised mass destruction munitions, and stockpiled chemical and biological agents. The UN inspectors now have uncovered this information, and presented it to the council.

Now components of the UN wish not to follow through with their stipulations from the treaties from 12+ years ago, and they are wrong to do so. Iraq has never fully complied with any of the conditions of the treaty. The UN gave Iraq and Saddam a chance 12 years ago.

The US isn’t the bully here, Saddam is. As long as he is permitted to continue to grow his army, in a few years he may try to invade another country. He may try terrorist offensives against innocent people with the chemical agents he has amassed. As a side note, I don’t know if you have ever seen footage of Chemical agent exposure to humans or animals, but I have. It is more inhumane than any bomb you have ever seen. I would rather be blown to pieces then suffer the slow painful death of Human Raid.

[Cleetus]

Ya_Know, it's interesting Ya_Should say this:




Apparently, YOU give a phuck about them, or at least you did when you were advocating the Iraq war (boldface done by myself):
Slam, and dunk

[Ya_know]

Ya_Know, it's interesting Ya_Should say this:




Apparently, YOU give a phuck about them, or at least you did when you were advocating the Iraq war (boldface done by myself):

The fact remains that Saddam failed to comply with inspection mandates constantly, and refused inspections time and time again. In the end, the whole world was surprised that Saddam didn't have WMD's...

To say that Bush was wrong because he should have know...well, let me reemphasize, it wasn't WMD's that put us at war with Iraq. It was an obstinate dictator, one with ties to terrorist groups, known to possess, use, construct, and seek WMD’s that put us on the war path, because when we insisted he comply…he wouldn’t. It's people like you that needed more justification, hence the arguments raged on about their presence, bottom line was, we needed proof he didn’t have them, and the only way we would ever get that proof was to invade, and shut down the régime, because that régime refused to bow down.

(boldface done by myself…)

[Cleetus]

The fact remains that Saddam failed to comply with inspection mandates constantly, and refused inspections time and time again. In the end, the whole world was surprised that Saddam didn't have WMD's...

To say that Bush was wrong because he should have know...well, let me reemphasize, it wasn't WMD's that put us at war with Iraq. It was an obstinate dictator, one with ties to terrorist groups, known to possess, use, construct, and seek WMD’s that put us on the war path, because when we insisted he comply…he wouldn’t. It's people like you that needed more justification, hence the arguments raged on about their presence, bottom line was, we needed proof he didn’t have them, and the only way we would ever get that proof was to invade, and shut down the régime, because that régime refused to bow down.

(boldface done by myself…)
So it didn't then have anything to do with his people or democracy?

[techs]

Al Sharpton of all people:
We thought we would get Weapons of Mass Destruction but instead we got Errors of Mass Deception.

[JaxSon]

Here are a few of the reasons that I said Moore is an Un-American American:

Moore's movie nothing short of terrorism (http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/07/28/opinion/little.html)
"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing. They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told Britain's Mirror newspaper.

"That's why we're smiling all the time. You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive deleted] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

"We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow and they will win.'"

BTW, had anybody heard about this movie: http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

[Cleetus]

God help us when a man actually speaks out against his government or his people

[edball]

Here are a few of the reasons that I said Moore is an Un-American American:

Moore's movie nothing short of terrorism (http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/07/28/opinion/little.html)


BTW, had anybody heard about this movie: http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
You can make anyone sound bad if you take them out of context. http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Wayward Clam]

The fact remains that Saddam failed to comply with inspection mandates constantly, and refused inspections time and time again. In the end, the whole world was surprised that Saddam didn't have WMD's...

To say that Bush was wrong because he should have know...well, let me reemphasize, it wasn't WMD's that put us at war with Iraq. It was an obstinate dictator, one with ties to terrorist groups, known to possess, use, construct, and seek WMD’s that put us on the war path, because when we insisted he comply…he wouldn’t. It's people like you that needed more justification, hence the arguments raged on about their presence, bottom line was, we needed proof he didn’t have them, and the only way we would ever get that proof was to invade, and shut down the régime, because that régime refused to bow down.

(boldface done by myself…)

So basically what this wordy response boils down to is that yes, the war WAS about WMDs?

[JaxSon]

So basically what this wordy response boils down to is that yes, the war WAS about WMDs?

In a word, yes. Every piece of intelligence that money can buy was saying that he had them...had already used them in the past...and was trying to find ways to deliver them...and had threatened their neighbors and the U.S. We had to find out if this was all true. The U.N. wasn't going to do anything about it. They had already passed numerous sanctions, etc. against Iraq with threats of dire consequences. And saddam just thumbed his nose at everybody.

As a side benefit, the Iraqi people will now be able to decide their own fate.

Yes, many people have died as a result of this war but it is part of the overall war on terror. And, I would be proud to have my son serve over there. Nobody wants their son to die for any reason but this is justifiable. Please don't let anybody tell you differently.

[techs]

Every one knew he had WMD's? Every one except the countries of the United Nations and the actual inspectors and their leader Hans Blix who kept saying we found nothing.
So thats about 5.5 Billion people.

[Wayward Clam]

...you need to understand that this war was never truly about WMD's...

So basically what this wordy response boils down to is that yes, the war WAS about WMDs?

In a word, yes.

Okay, I'm confus-ed now. :D

One thing I do understand... criticizing the state has been equated with terrorism... makes perfect sense to me! :p :butt:

[Cleetus]

Better watch out, if you beat their arguments they will call you un-American all because their talking heads told them to do so with the talking points put out by the so called "liberal" media

[Ya_know]

God help us when a man actually speaks out against his government or his people

So (enter the paradox) god help us if the so called freedom of speech defenders like yourself don't reciprocate the same protection for notions that they defend simply for their own benefit, thus not extending that same protection to their adversaries rights.

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so shut up.

[techs]

So (enter the paradox) god help us if the so called freedom of speech defenders like yourself don't reciprocate the same protection for notions that they defend simply for their own benefit, thus not extending that same protection to their adversaries rights.

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so shut up.

Your cranky today, Ya-Know. I gotta admit defending freedom of speech by saying "Shut up" is an interesting notion.

[Wayward Clam]

I don't understand. You're angry at Americans who are militant patriots purely because it benefits themselves, and don't really care about the US population at large... and you SUPPORT George Bush??? :eek2:

[Ya_know]

Your cranky today, Ya-Know. I gotta admit defending freedom of speech by saying "Shut up" is an interesting notion.

Hence the paradox... :p

[Ya_know]

I don't understand. You're angry at Americans who are militant patriots purely because it benefits themselves, and don't really care about the US population at large... and you SUPPORT George Bush??? :eek2:

What???

[Ya_know]

Your cranky today, Ya-Know. I gotta admit defending freedom of speech by saying "Shut up" is an interesting notion.

Just to clarify, because that thought of mine was rather complex, I wasn't defending freedom of speech at all. I was attacking Cleetus for trying to defend freedom of speech by saying that we shouldn't refute, or try to dispute with anything that that piece of crap non-patriot Moore tries to say. It's just as much my right to say he's a liar as it is for him to say that Bush is. I think that you would have to agree that both are true, even if you initially believe only one to be...the question is, as to what extent either of the two would go to perpetrate their lies...and which one is telling the truth at what time...that is the true quagmire, hence all of the recent discussions… :thumbs:

[Cleetus]

No, I am calling you guys un-American, hypocrits, and just generally rolling my eyes at your ideas that people can't talk out. Please do tell me once where I told you that you coldn't talk about it or refute me.

Hence phase 2 of the right, when the left starts defending freedoms, act like they are trying to squash your freedom to speak as loudly as you can making them look like the hypocrits first.

[jitBob]

So (enter the paradox) god help us if the so called freedom of speech defenders like yourself don't reciprocate the same protection for notions that they defend simply for their own benefit, thus not extending that same protection to their adversaries rights.

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so shut up.
It's a good thing you explained what you were trying to say, because it sure enough wasn't making any sense! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Wayward Clam]

...the question is, as to what extent either of the two would go to perpetrate their lies...

Well this is a pretty easy question to answer, it seems to me.

Let's look at this economically.

Michael Moore made what, $100 million + from Fahrenheit 911? And I seem to remember hearing somewhere that a lot of that is going to charity, although that could be just rumour, I haven't looked it up anywhere. I will certainly admit $100 million is a lot of money and could theoretically motivate anyone to lie to the public.

Bush gets paid $400 thousand a year, and his family gets $1.46 billion from the Saudi Arabians. Doesn't that give him 14 times as much incentive to lie about it as Moore has? Assuming that Moore keeps every penny?

[Ya_know]

No, I am calling you guys un-American, hypocrits, and just generally rolling my eyes at your ideas that people can't talk out. Please do tell me once where I told you that you coldn't talk about it or refute me.

Hence phase 2 of the right, when the left starts defending freedoms, act like they are trying to squash your freedom to speak as loudly as you can making them look like the hypocrits first.


Well, you are aren't you? We always end up down this path, someone speaks out, others say he's a turd and a liar, then the ones that support him say we are squashing his rights to speak out. You do it every time, it is you that is the hypocrite...trust me! :thumbs: It's my right too to say the things I do, so don't suppress me man! :p

[Ya_know]

It's a good thing you explained what you were trying to say, because it sure enough wasn't making any sense! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

You must be one of them there collage boys...didn’t they teach you how to read in there?

[Ya_know]

Well this is a pretty easy question to answer, it seems to me.

Let's look at this economically.

Michael Moore made what, $100 million + from Fahrenheit 911? And I seem to remember hearing somewhere that a lot of that is going to charity, although that could be just rumour, I haven't looked it up anywhere. I will certainly admit $100 million is a lot of money and could theoretically motivate anyone to lie to the public.

Bush gets paid $400 thousand a year, and his family gets $1.46 billion from the Saudi Arabians. Doesn't that give him 14 times as much incentive to lie about it as Moore has? Assuming that Moore keeps every penny?

As long as you concede that is purely speculation, I will concede that you displayed noticeable motive. Still doesn't prove anything either way, but we can move on from this argument, maybe get on with the boobies...if someone will start the thread.

[jitBob]

You must be one of them there collage boys...didn’t they teach you how to read in there?
Sometimes I wonder if we in the west speak a different english.

[Ya_know]

Sometimes I wonder if we in the west speak a different english.

West of what? Would that be the left wing... :eek2:

[jitBob]

West of what? Would that be the left wing... :eek2:
Some people call it the left coast. Where do you call home?

[Cleetus]

Well, you are aren't you? We always end up down this path, someone speaks out, others say he's a turd and a liar, then the ones that support him say we are squashing his rights to speak out. You do it every time, it is you that is the hypocrite...trust me! :thumbs: It's my right too to say the things I do, so don't suppress me man! :p
See still going on about it cause you have nothing of substance, wow, well that is your right I guess

[Ya_know]

Some people call it the left coast.

Just remember, being from the left coast, you are actually right minded... :grin:

[Ya_know]

See still going on about it cause you have nothing of substance, wow, well that is your right I guess

Keep spinin' there lefty... :p

[Cleetus]

You watch Bill O'reilly and read Ann Coulter while listenng to Rush don't you?

[Wayward Clam]

As long as you concede that is purely speculation, I will concede that you displayed noticeable motive. Still doesn't prove anything either way, but we can move on from this argument, maybe get on with the boobies...if someone will start the thread.

Well you're the one who brought up the subject as to which of them would go farther in terms of lying to the people! I was merely following your lead!

(And I don't generally bother with WD boobies... I do that at another forum where they don't censor them.)

[Ya_know]

(And I don't generally bother with WD boobies... I do that at another forum where they don't censor them.)

That's just like you to infer and imply things without providing links for research. All lies I tell you...unless of course you have proof!... :p

[Wayward Clam]

I'd invite you there, Ya_Know, I'm curious to see what links you'd contribute. But I doubt you'd be welcome, and that's none of my doing.

[Ya_know]

I'd invite you there, Ya_Know, I'm curious to see what links you'd contribute. But I doubt you'd be welcome, and that's none of my doing.

Well I wouldn't go to your dumb site anyway... :sad:

[jitBob]

Just remember, being from the left coast, you are actually right minded... :grin:


Thank you. http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[techs]

I'm so glad this isn't political or else it would have been moved to the Politicos forum.

[techs]

Oops!

[techs]

Nope. Still here in the Tech Lounge.