Print

[gcskate27]

[67thRaptorBull]

basically, if you dont like what moore does, shut the hell up

moore will affect 2 people, the retards that take what he says and belives it as true or people that want to think (on purpose) what hes saying is true

and if ur not either one of those, stop bitching

christ the republicans are complaining because of the manner the commercials for the movie is shown in, thinking it will hurt bush in the election
thats just ignorant


either way, i dont care how much moore lied in the movie, as long as it helps remove bush (who also lies to us, go figure, republicans focus more on moores lieing then the president of the US fucking a's lies)

[Ween311]

QUOTE

moore will affect 2 people, the retards that take what he says and belives it as true or people that want to think (on purpose) what hes saying is true

 

Which are you?   Don't get all mad, it was a joke.

I could care less about the commercials for Moore's movie.  Let him run them all he wants.  I am glad he made this movie.  It affirms his right to free speech and that he lives in country where he can do this freely.  It just kind of irks me everytime someone tries to use something from one of his movies to try to say something intelligent about why they don't like Bush.  If you don't like Bush, that's cool.  Again we live in a country where you can publicly state your opinion.  But to back up your opinion with half-truths is absurd.  That is why I don't agree with Michael Moore.  I hear people all the time, "I hate GW for this.  Did you see what he did in F911?"  Geez, get a clue.  If you don't like the president or his politics, fine, just quit quoting this movie.  

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (Ween311 @ Jul 8 2004, 04:30 PM)

Which are you?   Don't get all mad, it was a joke. I could care less about the commercials for Moore's movie.  Let him run them all he wants.  I am glad he made this movie.  It affirms his right to free speech and that he lives in country where he can do this freely.  It just kind of irks me everytime someone tries to use something from one of his movies to try to say something intelligent about why they don't like Bush.  If you don't like Bush, that's cool.  Again we live in a country where you can publicly state your opinion.  But to back up your opinion with half-truths is absurd.  That is why I don't agree with Michael Moore.  I hear people all the time, "I hate GW for this.  Did you see what he did in F911?"  Geez, get a clue.  If you don't like the president or his politics, fine, just quit quoting this movie.

yes, i see what you mean, but granted, alot in that movie is what you said, at least half truth or more

sure, the thing with the suadis wasnt Bush's direct order (to get them out) but when someone lower then the president makes that kind of decision (its called interrogation) then something is wrong with the chain of command

alot in that movie is a big step towards the truth, its just he plays on the emotions that the only way to find the whole truth is to look it up, and most americans wont, and he knows that

again, u cant use some of the stuff in the movie for argument, but alot you can, even though its biased, so is every other news source in the US

[afon]

QUOTE

again, u cant use some of the stuff in the movie for argument, but alot you can, even though its biased, so is every other news source in the US

Fox and CNN are nowhere approaching the amount of deception and just plain lying that infiltrates Michael Moore's flicks.

BTW, someone asked for one of the 17 sanctions which were violated that would justify war:
The interim report presented to Congress unambiguously confirms that Saddam Hussein's regime maintained a weapons program in material breach of 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions passed over 12 years. This includes Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one last chance to comply with the resolutions.
God knows how many other important ones he violated, I've only read about that one. Although i assumed since they are laws/guidelines, they are important.
Source: http://www.detnews.c.../a09-301658.htm

And the rest of the world *under the U.N* wouldnt take action against Saddam?
This was one last chance, so obviously they were getting desprate. Remember, this was passed by the U.N itself. Maybe the U.N should change its name to I.N, which would represent how IN-effective it really is. Now do I agree with Bush about everything? No. I hate far-right loons more than I hate fake liberals. I also dont agree with how the Iraq case was presented. It shouldnt have been: WE KNOW HE HAS WEAPONS, WE JUST GOTSA FIND EM.
It should have been: The UN is simply becoming corrupt and in-effective, this guy (Saddam) isnt complying 100%. He needs to be. He should even be 120%. We KNOW THIS GUY HAD THEM. Now what did he do with them?
As it has been proven, IRAQ HAD HARMFUL CHEMICALS IT SHOULDNT OF HAD. Then they majically disappeard. Can one of you fake liberals confirm Iraq has not one WMD? No, you cant. Now inserting that with the fact that Iraq legally had to be taken out, I say we were mislead by assumptions. The same tactics all you fake ass liberals are using. That to me: Is sad and hypocritical. Now shut up and wait for elections. Then you can utilize your fake democracy you are so *ENRAGED* about being highjacked by far right loons. Sheesh

[self]

QUOTE (afon @ Jul 9 2004, 04:00 AM)

BTW, someone asked for one of the 17 sanctions which were violated that would justify war: The interim report presented to Congress unambiguously confirms that Saddam Hussein's regime maintained a weapons program in material breach of 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions passed over 12 years. This includes Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one last chance to comply with the resolutions. God knows how many other important ones he violated, I've only read about that one. Although i assumed since they are laws/guidelines, they are important. Source: http://www.detnews.c.../a09-301658.htm

Just read that article and the finds it talks about are no-where near justifying an invasion. Just imagine what would have been found had they invaded any other country in the middle east. Like Arvarden says, Israel is the real problem in the middle east, and that country is supported by the US.

Also Id like to see which resolutions have been violated. And what kind of argument is that anyway, the USA has violated UN resolutions and international agreements forever. The very invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law. Guantanamo bay is one huge human rights catastrophe. And you definitely have way more WMD than any other country in the world.

QUOTE

And the rest of the world *under the U.N* wouldnt take action against Saddam? This was one last chance, so obviously they were getting desprate. Remember, this was passed by the U.N itself. Maybe the U.N should change its name to I.N, which would represent how IN-effective it really is. Now do I agree with Bush about everything? No. I hate far-right loons more than I hate fake liberals. I also dont agree with how the Iraq case was presented. It shouldnt have been: WE KNOW HE HAS WEAPONS, WE JUST GOTSA FIND EM. It should have been: The UN is simply becoming corrupt and in-effective, this guy (Saddam) isnt complying 100%. He needs to be. He should even be 120%. We KNOW THIS GUY HAD THEM. Now what did he do with them? As it has been proven, IRAQ HAD HARMFUL CHEMICALS IT SHOULDNT OF HAD. Then they majically disappeard. Can one of you fake liberals confirm Iraq has not one WMD? No, you cant. Now inserting that with the fact that Iraq legally had to be taken out, I say we were mislead by assumptions. The same tactics all you fake ass liberals are using. That to me: Is sad and hypocritical. Now shut up and wait for elections. Then you can utilize your fake democracy you are so *ENRAGED* about being highjacked by far right loons. Sheesh

Just because the international majority was against the invasion, that makes the UN ineffective? It's pretty obvious (in my opinion) that this war shouldn't have happened. Iraq had harmful chemicals it shouldnt of had? Yes, but so does a hell lot of other countries world-wide, and that argument doesn't come close to justify an invasion. Its just ridiculous to hear these claims that Iraq was a military threat. Colin Powell has said himself that he probably wouldn't have recommended an invasion if he knew what he knows today. Why is this even a discussion anymore?

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (afon @ Jul 8 2004, 11:00 PM)

Fox and CNN are nowhere approaching the amount of deception and just plain lying that infiltrates Michael Moore's flicks. BTW, someone asked for one of the 17 sanctions which were violated that would justify war: The interim report presented to Congress unambiguously confirms that Saddam Hussein's regime maintained a weapons program in material breach of 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions passed over 12 years. This includes Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one last chance to comply with the resolutions. God knows how many other important ones he violated, I've only read about that one. Although i assumed since they are laws/guidelines, they are important. Source: http://www.detnews.c.../a09-301658.htm And the rest of the world *under the U.N* wouldnt take action against Saddam? This was one last chance, so obviously they were getting desprate. Remember, this was passed by the U.N itself. Maybe the U.N should change its name to I.N, which would represent how IN-effective it really is. Now do I agree with Bush about everything? No. I hate far-right loons more than I hate fake liberals. I also dont agree with how the Iraq case was presented. It shouldnt have been: WE KNOW HE HAS WEAPONS, WE JUST GOTSA FIND EM. It should have been: The UN is simply becoming corrupt and in-effective, this guy (Saddam) isnt complying 100%. He needs to be. He should even be 120%. We KNOW THIS GUY HAD THEM. Now what did he do with them? As it has been proven, IRAQ HAD HARMFUL CHEMICALS IT SHOULDNT OF HAD. Then they majically disappeard. Can one of you fake liberals confirm Iraq has not one WMD? No, you cant. Now inserting that with the fact that Iraq legally had to be taken out, I say we were mislead by assumptions. The same tactics all you fake ass liberals are using. That to me: Is sad and hypocritical. Now shut up and wait for elections. Then you can utilize your fake democracy you are so *ENRAGED* about being highjacked by far right loons. Sheesh

i dont see any proof he had WMD's

does anyone else?

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (afon @ Jul 8 2004, 11:00 PM)

WE KNOW HE HAS WEAPONS, WE JUST GOTSA FIND EM. Can one of you fake liberals confirm Iraq has not one WMD?

hahahaha, wow, i like how the other side, the side that says he did have WMD's attack liberals by making them show proof he didnt have them

if you want proof he didnt have WMD's just read the fucking news, we havnt found ne thing yet, so.........yea, theres your proof

and its not hard to miss WMD's, they give off potentially lethal chemical discharges and odors, but you know, those nukes must be a bitch to find, espacially since those "aluminum tubes" he had sheild the radiation from gigher counters    

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (self @ Jul 9 2004, 10:37 AM)

I dont remember the weapons inspectors complaining about anything, and so far they've been just as effective as the over 150 000 troops that are down there. They haven't found anything either. And no, I'm not using "Michael Moore's facts" for debate. These are my own arguments, and the facts I bring up are real. I haven't seen F9/11 yet, but I agree with most of the opinions he has in both Bowling for Columbine, and the book Stupid White Men. What ruins it for me is that, while most of the facts he presents are true, they sometimes aren't and more often they're just partial truths or parts of the truth. He looses a lot credibility that way, and it means that everytime he presents something you haven't heard about before, you cant be sure what to think of it. Whats scary is that George W Bush comes with way more lies per second in the interview I've linked to, than Moore does in any of his movies.

im surprised bush was even smart enough to come up with lies, i just picture him sitting there and staring into space

[Dark_Link2135]

QUOTE (therebelious1 @ Jul 7 2004, 10:34 AM)

he didnt win the last election, but he still became president, what makes you think the voters have anything to do with it?

heh...i think it was the democrats that were trying to steal the election.   gore wanted all the military votes thrown out which were almost all pro-bush.  also in wisconsin, i think that was the state, two counties turned in more votes than there were registered voters.  all the votes were for gore.

hmm, kind of suspicous, dont you think?

michael moore is one of the most biased democratic liberal sources you can possibly find to quote.  if you are trying to convince someone, do not use him.  you totally lose your credibility.

just like you dont quote Rush Limbaugh on the other end of the scale.

and because we havn't found WOMD, doesnt mean they do not exist.  just because you have no knowledge of something, does not mean it does not exist.  talk about ignorant.

i personally think he did not have any, but the capability to make them he did.  he was a minor threat, however, and there was no need to deal with him.  we did need to take him out on humanitarion grounds, though.