Print

[Mick Garvey]

And thomes you picture discribes things that should be like a gun in every home and outlawing liberas. LOL j/k everyone has a right to there opinion. And for some reason i think you are very liberal hmm i wonder why, oh yeah your not christian you dont like guns and think bush sucks. And probably more things too like legalizin gay marrage but not once you have given reasons or proof of what you think and why, you just comment on how dumb republicans are and make disses that are way to long require way to much thought and sound like they come out of a 7 yr olds mouth.

[gcskate27]

[Mick Garvey]

gcskate your are definantly very very moronic, all you liberals do in these forums is post about how bad rebublicans are but i havent seen anyfacts yet seriously. No one has given facts just sillycomments. I thought this was politicle not read facts then say how dumb someone is really that amazing how people take it that way. I havent heard any compelling arguments about this topic from you yet. Why dont you try and start now rather that consitantly bad mouthing people.

[Mick Garvey]

Whats the point liberals never ever understand knowmader what they read or see. Its almost pointless to show them facts because most of them just push the facts aside and come up with other things, they teand also to shy away from answering questions and try acting like they are superior to everyone.

[Mick Garvey]

Heres a good site
Micheal Savage
Read the forums in this one lol
Michealsavagesucks.com

[feflicker]

On the interview, Bill failed horribly. He never answered any of Michael's questions...

The answer is NO! I would not send my kid    Was that hard?  

[thomes08]

skate, thanks for you post.  mick obviously hasn't read a whol lot of this forum and doesn't realize most of our arguments weren't arguments for long cause the repubs didn't have anything to say to em.  Also online biased articles have zero cred.  I can google any POV and find a shit load of articles supporting it, that shows nothing.  Like i said before i have many republican friends and respect a lot of their arguments but you just don't make sense.  How old are you, seriously.  Can you vote is what i'm asking...... or are you at least inhigh school?

thomes08

[nemt]

QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Jul 30 2004, 03:40 PM)

hey here we go, one grammatical mistake by nemt... all of his posts can now be 'officially' ignored as he is clearly a moron who doesnt run spellcheck over his posts...

While the wording of that sentence was clearly a setup for a joke, I guess assuming the people here would actually catch a reference to a man they most likely idol is really asking too much.

"...the fictition of duct tape..."
-Michael Moore

[thomes08]

ok dems have said some stupid shit as have all people...... but bush is by far the worste.  there are websites just of bush quotes.  google it

thomes08

[The unProfessional]

Just a quick note...

Someone said O'Reilly was avoiding the question "would you sacrifice you kid for iraq".  That question is irrelevant and represents exactly how Moore argues his points (he usually does it in movies so his points can't be debated until afterward).  OReilly did answer... he said "I can't speak for my children... I would sacrifice myself."  That's a damn valid answer.  the US military is 100% voluntary.  Nobody joins the military without understanding that they may just be 1st in line to the next war-torn shithole.  If Bush came to my house, grabbed my son, and said he's going to Iraq, then moore's question would hold more water.  Fact of the matter is, nobody sacrifices their own kids for war... at least not without a draft.  Every individual chooses on their own accord, and must be 18 to serve anyway.  Moore kept asking oreilly over and over again... enough Red Herring to feed me for a year.

The interview was pretty classic Moore, though.  O'reilly asked how bush lied when he acted on false info.  Moore said he didn't tell the truth, so he lied.  False deduction.  Moore then said he wouldn't be lying if he said there was nothing going on on stage.  O'reilly pointed out that he would be lying because he knows it to be true, and thus would be lying to say it weren't happening.  Moore responded by saying "I have to turn around to see".  Talk about a distortion of the argument.

I'm not an o'reilly fan either, but I felt Moore's arrogance smack me in the face a few too many times.

[Didn't tell the truth -> Lied] is a completely invalid deduction.  It has nothing to do with the political argument at hand... it's simply a loose/false argument on which Moore based his entire debate.  It's exactly Moore's flavor... makes his loose deduction early, then builds his entire argument, shrouding the original fallacy.  O'reilly, as much as he annoys me, was doing nothing but trying to get Moore to admit that this hasty conclusion is a false one.


Btw, I'm arguing against Moore not for the war or bush so please don't rape me with a new topic.

[Mick Garvey]

Yes i aree stongly moore keept pushing his one point that was false anyway that bush just took kids from parents and sent them to war.

[gcskate27]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Aug 1 2004, 07:54 PM)

Someone said O'Reilly was avoiding the question "would you sacrifice you kid for iraq".  That question is irrelevant and represents exactly how Moore argues his points (he usually does it in movies so his points can't be debated until afterward).  OReilly did answer... he said "I can't speak for my children... I would sacrifice myself."  That's a damn valid answer.

the underlying question is, at least as i take it to be, 'would you vote for the war knowing what you know now?'... thus, as bill and the people who actually did vote for war are not in the category of people who would be sent, would they send their children, as they have sent other parents'?

the thing is (and im not arguing against you unprof, just putting out a point), even though the info was bad on two accounts and they rested on a 3rd "greater good" reason, why did it happen in the first place? nobody is saying that saddam is the best person ever or anything like that, they are questioning the validity of removing one 'bad guy' and not removing others... "well we went in under bullshit premises and all but... er... uh... he was bad anyway right?"

this war was clearly a diversion/distraction from the failing/inconsequential "war on terror"...

see, in other places, people are paying for this mistake... blair decided to back bush... and he is now paying for it... regardless of whether or not saddam is bad, it wasnt thier place to take him out...

*i await mick to call me a "tree-hugging liberal pussy" or some such nonsense...

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

'would you vote for the war knowing what you know now?'

But unfortunately we don't have the luxury of answering that question.  We have to make decisions based on what we know at the time.  It's much easier now for us all to say the war was a mistake.

But anyway, the purpose of my post was to point out Moore's lousy debate techniques.  If the underlying question was independent of category, then Moore would've been satisfied with O'Reilly saying he would be willing sacrifice himself.  He was making the point that we're each our own man or woman, and that he felt the war was justified.  Moore had nothing clever to say, so he just kept asking.

[nemt]

QUOTE (thomes08 @ Aug 1 2004, 09:37 PM)

ok dems have said some stupid shit as have all people...... but bush is by far the worste.

[mike96sc2]

QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Aug 1 2004, 11:27 PM)

the underlying question is, at least as i take it to be, 'would you vote for the war knowing what you know now?'

My problem is Bush answered this question with a resounding yes. My question is who's next? Cuba? they're probably the next most inpovershed nation with a ruler we don't like. Sure we could do China but we like their business, or North Korea but they have nuclear weapons we know about, so there's no speculation to play with

My Prediction for 2005 is Bush is re-elected is a full Cuban invasion. He want's Elian back.