Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lasereth
I can't offer any political knowledge here because it's simply not one of my strong points or hobbies. One of my hobbies <I>is</I> movies, however, hence my Michael Moore comment. Many Republicans may blindly follow Bush even though he's been fed false information and is taking it as true, but Democrats aren't out of the water...many of them blindly follow Michael Moore's movies that bash the POTUS without even checking to see if HIS information is true. It's not. He's a liar, just as many say Bush is a liar. His movies are not made to give insight to the American public on the POTUS, but rather turn them against him <B>at all costs</B>, even if it means lying and using persuasion/exaggerating techniques to do it.
-Lasereth
|
Lasereth, I don't understand why you keep bringing Michale Moore up except as a tactic to completely avoid the thread's point. No liberal or democrat has brought him up here, nothing he has produced is even remotely relevant to what Host posted about, and about the only way you can tie it in is that host's allegations that the president lied about no one conceiving of this sort of thing happening before it did mirrors his earlier assertions that no one had an inkling that something like the WTC disaster could ever occur. And Michael Moore made a movie about how he felt about the president's presentation of the motives behind the war.
That's one of the most bizarre linkage I have yet to see.
Host didn't even call into question anything related to the war...first of all.
He's only alleging that the president keeps telling the public that these disasters could never have been imagined...and then evidence surfaces that, yes, many people did
in fact imagine and write about precisely this occuring. So unless President Bush wasn't aware of any of these predictions he flat out lied to the public.
Then host makes the claim that unless the president really didn't have knowledge that his cabinet and intelligence community were aware that OBL was determined to attack the US and that he might even use planes to do it, he lied that no one in the US was remotely aware of that possibility.
Doesn't it seem more logical to argue that the president wasn't aware of that evidence than to reply that Michael Moore makes shit up!?
These kinds of responses are the basis for much frustration from a lot of people, much less liberals.
"Hey, what the hell, the civil engineers have been warning for years that the levees were gonna break. How could President Bush just state on national television that no one thought a disaster like this could occur so don't go blaming anyone just yet?"
"Huh, well, Jane Fonda was a traitor and posed with the enemy in Vietnam."
WTF? It's like the equivalent of trying to talk to a two year old in the sandbox when he's plugging his ears and shouting, "nanananana!"