Post by: OrkanMan on July 28, 2004, 07:56:00 PM
1.) How can you not agree with the point Bill O'Reilly said about the Iraq War? President Bush acted upon information he was getting from U.S., British, and Russian intelligence, therefore he didn't lie to anyone because he thought he was doing the right thing. I don't think there's a way you can argue against that.
2.) Michael Moore didn't seem as obnoxious as he appears to be. I think he's created a bad image for himself.
Post by: MHolodak on July 28, 2004, 09:20:00 PM
But say that O'Reilly's bullshit is correct and the US, British, and Russain intellegence showed that Iraq had WMDs... That is extremely scary that the 3 major countries of the world all had bad intel, more than anyone could imagine. But say that Bush did lie about the WMDs... And we know that none were found... Why isn't Bush doing anything about North Korea... The country with the leader who came out and said, Look at me! I have Weapons of Mass Destruction! And we do nothing but want to sit down and talk it over... WHAT THE FUCK? You have Iraq that was ify as to wether or not they had WMDs that was being debated... Then you have North Korea who aknowledges that they have them and they will threaten to use them if we mess with them. What's going on here?
Post by: Mick Garvey on July 29, 2004, 12:34:00 AM
The following links are self-explanatory.
Why the Iraq War Was Legal...
UN resolutions on iraq
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolution
Attorney General Advised Blair war was legal
(Age Australia: Yes, This War Is Legal)
(United Nations Security Council Resolution #678)
(United Nations Security Council Resolution #687)
(United Nations Charter Article 51)
(United Nations Charter Chapter VII)
(WFB's Latest: Should We Have Gone to War?)
On Michael Moore ...
(WSJ: There's more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore)
(LA Times: Public Keeping Its Cool Over Election Effect of 'Fahrenheit')
Moore Myths
(Slate: Unfairenheit 9/11. The lies of Michael Moore - Christopher Hitchens)
(Newsweek: More Distortions From Michael Moore - Michael Isikoff)
(McCaslin: Major's Mom Call Moore "Maggot That Eats The Dead")
(Sydney Morning Herald: Less is Moore)
(Ed Koch: More Would've Opposed WWII Too)
(Washington Post: Baloney, Moore or Less - Richard Cohen)
((The Hill: Clarke claims responsibility)
(NewsMax: Richard Clarke: Big Part of Moore's Movie 'a Mistake')
(NRO: John Podhoretz: Spider-man 2 is the best comic-book movie ever made)
(NRO: Democrats and the Fahrenheit 9/11 Trap)
(Boston Globe: Limbaughing to the left? - Ellen Goodman)
Moore lies about meeting, Hugging Daschle
17-pages of truth about Bowling for Columbine from former Interior Department attorney David Hardy
www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Richard Bushnell has put together a well-documented site that takes you through the inaccuracies in Bowling for Columbine.
Click here to watch Bill O'reilly and Micheal Moore Debate in the "No Spin Zone"
This took an hour of copying and pasteing so liberals enjoy
Post by: Hill_Dill on July 29, 2004, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: MHolodak on July 29, 2004, 12:41:00 PM
Post by: nemt on July 29, 2004, 03:18:00 PM
This was, far and away, the worst big time O'Reilly interview I have ever seen. O'Reilly didn't ask any tough or unpredictable questions, nor did he argue successfully against a relatively weak (as par his usual interview prowess) Moore.
For a real analysis of Moore and his work, check out Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke. It's a great read, regardless of your thoughts on Moore and his work.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on July 29, 2004, 03:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Jul 29 2004, 05:21 PM) |
| The validity and entertainment value of the interview was pure fictition. This was, far and away, the worst big time O'Reilly interview I have ever seen. O'Reilly didn't ask any tough or unpredictable questions, nor did he argue successfully against a relatively weak (as par his usual interview prowess) Moore. For a real analysis of Moore and his work, check out Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke. It's a great read, regardless of your thoughts on Moore and his work. |
yes, and for more truths about moore, check out nemts site (wait, whered it go?) and bowlingfortruth (dumbass hicks)
Post by: thomes08 on July 29, 2004, 03:43:00 PM
If you're a father, and you can't answer that question with a YES, you should not be in the position bill is in.
thomes08
Post by: OrkanMan on July 29, 2004, 04:46:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on July 29, 2004, 05:02:00 PM
Post by: melon on July 30, 2004, 03:39:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| President Bush acted upon information he was getting from U.S., British, and Russian intelligence |
This may be true but Tony Blair faced massive pressure to resign because there was very strong evidence showing the govenment forced MI6 to change reports to make it look worse.
One of our "intelligence" reports was found to be a Canadians post graduates course work. It can be easily found on the internet and even had all the same typos.
if you want proof to back this up
http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/2735031.stm
http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/2736149.stm
As for the interview neither came across very well and i like moore.
You have to admit Bill couldnt give a straight answer.
And he belives Iraq funds terrorism!!!!
Post by: mirx999 on July 30, 2004, 11:27:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Jul 29 2004, 06:21 PM) |
| The validity and entertainment value of the interview was pure fictition. |
Am I the only person who got that?
Post by: gcskate27 on July 30, 2004, 11:37:00 AM
all of his posts can now be 'officially' ignored as he is clearly a moron who doesnt run spellcheck over his posts...
i know its old, but ive never found maddox to be wrong...
Post by: thomes08 on July 31, 2004, 01:36:00 AM
thomes08
P.S. Opinions on Dean aside. Was it just me or was it extremely childish when Bill said something like "it was a really smart choice the democrats didn't pick howard dean" just because dean refused to speak with him. I mean he's the biggest asshole in TV why would he want to speak with him. Bill is NEVER wrong on his show so it's pointless for dean to go on and argue with him.
Post by: Mick Garvey on July 31, 2004, 11:45:00 PM
Post by: Mick Garvey on July 31, 2004, 11:50:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on August 01, 2004, 12:09:00 AM
Post by: Mick Garvey on August 01, 2004, 12:45:00 AM
Post by: Mick Garvey on August 01, 2004, 12:47:00 AM
Post by: Mick Garvey on August 01, 2004, 01:02:00 AM
Micheal Savage
Read the forums in this one lol
Michealsavagesucks.com
Post by: feflicker on August 01, 2004, 01:25:00 AM
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? 
Post by: thomes08 on August 01, 2004, 09:17:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: nemt on August 01, 2004, 03:42:00 PM
| 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
Post by: thomes08 on August 01, 2004, 05:34:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on August 01, 2004, 07:51:00 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 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.
Post by: Mick Garvey on August 01, 2004, 09:01:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on August 01, 2004, 09:24:00 PM
| 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...
Post by: The unProfessional on August 01, 2004, 09:36:00 PM
| 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.
Post by: nemt on August 02, 2004, 02:30:00 PM
| 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. |
Post by: mike96sc2 on August 02, 2004, 06:42:00 PM
| 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.
Post by: nemt on August 02, 2004, 06:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (mike96sc2 @ Aug 2 2004, 10:45 PM) |
| My Prediction for 2005 is Bush is re-elected is a full Cuban invasion. He want's Elian back. |
Yeah, what a dick move on his part. Who cares if the US has a fundamental enemy a few miles away from the coast?
Post by: thomes08 on August 02, 2004, 11:38:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: melon on August 03, 2004, 04:30:00 AM
Cuba is no threat at all. It is actually your country who is illegally occupying part of theirs. Are there any attacks on your base, no. I spent 3 weeks travelling around and they were very friendly, I even spent a week travelling with an American guy and they were very friendly with him. They even have a better health care system than America or Canada.
Why is this country a threat?
Post by: gcskate27 on August 03, 2004, 12:20:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on August 03, 2004, 03:52:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: thomes08 on August 03, 2004, 04:33:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: freedumb on August 04, 2004, 11:00:00 AM
Thomes I've been reading your arguments and I totally respect you. It's annoying that so many people get caught up in these faulty news sources (which are all skewed one way or another) and then try and make arguments. Bill Oreilly is a complete jackass, and no one should watch his show, unless you're doing it to make fun of him. If you were to take his show and spin it to the left I think everyone would understand that he's totally worthless.
I actually used to like Michael Moore and be in support of him, and although he's a propogator (sp) himself I'm still gonna try and get farenheit played at my university (which is totally republican - Miami of Ohio for anyone who cares.) We need to get Bush out of office quick. I finally realized that he's not even in control of himself. He's a puppet for the mastermind surrounding him. He is their joke, and neither he nor his supporters seem to realize this.
Post by: freedumb on August 04, 2004, 11:02:00 AM
Its kind of annoying.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 04, 2004, 11:55:00 AM
| QUOTE (freedumb @ Aug 4 2004, 01:03 PM) |
| wow, I wrote a pretty long reply in another politically related thread towards mick and maybe you should all read it. Its in the thread about the DNC finally being over. Then again, I'm not sure how I feel about him now that I've learned that he constantly posts these ranting arguments and never seems to respect any one elses opinion. Thomes I've been reading your arguments and I totally respect you. It's annoying that so many people get caught up in these faulty news sources (which are all skewed one way or another) and then try and make arguments. Bill Oreilly is a complete jackass, and no one should watch his show, unless you're doing it to make fun of him. If you were to take his show and spin it to the left I think everyone would understand that he's totally worthless. I actually used to like Michael Moore and be in support of him, and although he's a propogator (sp) himself I'm still gonna try and get farenheit played at my university (which is totally republican - Miami of Ohio for anyone who cares.) We need to get Bush out of office quick. I finally realized that he's not even in control of himself. He's a puppet for the mastermind surrounding him. He is their joke, and neither he nor his supporters seem to realize this. |
yes, i know what you mean about miami
my brother went to kenyon (right around there) and there very right winged also (mainly because there all rich)
Post by: thomes08 on August 04, 2004, 05:07:00 PM
but anyways freedumb i responded to you DNC post but i guess you already saw that mick is a hipocrite so you can disregard that part i guess.
have a good day guys
thomes08