10-07-2003, 01:27 PM | #1 (permalink) | |
Please touch this.
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
|
Answers Please, Mr Bush
I am NOT a fan of Michael Moore. I don't know if his stuff is bullshit or not, but I do NOT like him. Now, given that, my boss sent me this link...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-11.htm Quote:
__________________
You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals] |
|
10-07-2003, 02:12 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Banned
|
1 Nothing wrong with doing buisness with the Bin Ladens. Or do you also condem Mussolini's relatives for Mussolini's actions?
2 The Saudi Royal Family has had a special relationship with every American president since WW2. 3 19 people attacked the US on 9 11, they were picked by Bin Laden as Saudi Arabians didnt have trouble getting into the UNIted States. Had we been better allies with Pakistan, the most of the hijackers might have been Pakistani. Bin Laden knew who to choose, and why. 4 Not true, Not in the slightest. Moore is lying again. Notice he has no back up other than his less then reputable word. And Moore knows that this one isnt true, but he is out to harm Bush so he wont get relected. Moore doesnt care if he tricks people into accepting lies as long as it works. 5 This one is just so silly. Why would NON citizens be buying legal guns in America? Who would or could legally sell them a gun? I never heard of this anywhere else but just now, but looking for illegal or recent immigrants who bought legal guns that could be tossed out do to "immigration problems" seems silly and A waste of time. And if anything, The NRA would be the first group of people to make sure that non citizens and illegal immigrants DO NOT Have access to legal guns. Again, Moore knows this, but he is casting aspersions and trying to create false messages. 6 Yes the Taliban contacted many american buisness and wanted to do buisness with lots of them. To Bush's credit, not one of them accepted their offer. But again, Moore knows this and is trying to creat a false image of alliance with the Taliban. So I guess if NAMBLA calls Michael Moore, that mean he is a child rapist? 7 Um, shock, suprise? Anger? Just like the rest of America? This question is just stupid, even for Moore. Why call Bin Laden a multi Millionare? That is not his crime. His crime is being a terrorist. Micheal Moore is also a multi millionare. Why not call him one instead of a filmmaker? If the patriot act is so bad, why did many democrats including those Moore endorses support and vote on it. I do have problems with the patriot act, but to blame BUsh when congress passed it is just Moore again casting blame where it doesnt belong. This article shows why I cant stand Moore. He uses half truths, out right lies, and some irrelevant points to paint a picture. He is a despicable man. He is pathological and I believe dangerous in his mania. At one point Saddam was our ally. We also have ( gasp) picturs of FDR and Stalin. O NO Why couldnt FDR predict the future and know that Stalin would kill 40 million people. Why is Moore not talking about the photos of his hand picked democratic canditade Gen Clark smiling with serbian war criminals WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM? That Moore doesnt talk about, but Rumsfeild shaking hands with an ally 20 years ago Moore brings up every time he opens his yap? Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-07-2003 at 02:18 PM.. |
10-07-2003, 02:17 PM | #4 (permalink) |
‘Crotch Level’ Intellectual
Location: Southwest, USA
|
I'm sorry that you don't like Mike, but as for me, I think he is right on target with these questions. To me, the man is a genuine American hero!
__________________
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence |
10-07-2003, 02:36 PM | #7 (permalink) |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
Not slamming anyone in particular because $$$ seems to be the most influential substance reguardless of which politician ones speaking about; I ask this question: whats worse; those that abuse their political office, or the masses that let them get away with it?
MOOOOO
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
10-07-2003, 02:45 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
#3. He makes many good points about the Saudi involvement. You need to take the blinders off and realize just how much anti-US sentiment there is in SA, and how much they cooperate with Bin Ladin out of fear of him turning the populace against them.
The answers, they are in the 9/11 report that Bush decided to censor from us. Those who wrote it have told us more or less that there is incriminating information against the Saudis in those censored pages. Read the 9/11 report, all 800+ pages of it. It's interesting. #4. FEL, you're wrong http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/po...3f9a90&ei=5070 Quote:
Finally, we have a history of making alliances with brutal dictators, and history has taught us nothing. We are now in a similar situation in Uzbekistan. Bush learns nothing. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25785 |
|
10-07-2003, 03:07 PM | #9 (permalink) |
Winner
|
I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan and I think he's off-base here as well. I realize its just an extract, but I'm not too fond of all these Saudi conspiracy theories. I've yet to see any real proof.
There are plenty of more important questions for Mr.Bush to answer. |
10-07-2003, 04:30 PM | #10 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Well there are other important questions to answer, like Dean's 16 questions for Bush
But these are also equally valid. Bush did a tremendous job of making our national security weaker before 9/11. |
10-07-2003, 05:17 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2003, 05:18 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Soviet Canukistan
|
As much as I dislike Bush and his cadre of psychos (or morons...depends what you think) that surround him, I think Michael Moore is the epitomy of cretinous, arrogant, manipulative left-wing grandstanding. His work is designed to sell to those who drench themselves in their left wingedness and take on a kind of drooling idiocy with regard to it.
If his questions have any merit, its simply good luck on his part rather than a measure of his intellect. That being said, I do want to question why these are questions he asked? There are more important questions - such as with how the current administration has co-opted the tradgedy to achieve unrelated policy objectives - than the ones he asks which are designed as personal attacks on Bush. Such tactics, and the obvious tone he uses, makes his arguements look even less legitimate than they already are. |
10-07-2003, 05:42 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Moore is so full of shit his eyes are brown.
I don't even bother reading it anymore. You can only lie to me so many times before I never trust a word you say again.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
10-07-2003, 05:51 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Why anyone trusts this man, especially after he said on Austrialian tv that in American he is the victum of a "media blackout" and has only been on tv TWICE since 9 11. O I wish that were true. He also says that the boos he recieved during the OScars were doctored. But then how can he make the claim as he did the NEXT day, that the boos were really booing the booers? Which one is it Mike? Moore also claimed on the Today Show that the war on Terror is a hoax " as there were no terrorists acts after 9 11" I can name many Morrocons, Australians, And Saudi Arabians that would disagree with him. Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-07-2003 at 06:09 PM.. |
|
10-07-2003, 06:16 PM | #15 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
He says that MOST of them were deported; this in itself does not justify a failure to look at background check files that would undoubtedly not only tell you who passed a check but also who FAILED one.
In addition, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to assume that US citizens are incapable of committing acts of terrorism against the US. |
10-07-2003, 09:06 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
Quote:
__________________
it's quiet in here |
|
10-07-2003, 09:11 PM | #17 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
When Bush starts to blatantly lie, like Mr. Moore.
Wait...wait...I hear it....something about WMD's. Well if Bush lied on WMD's, then so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, etc. Its AMAZING how they changed their minds once Clinton was no longer president
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
10-07-2003, 09:21 PM | #18 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
The lie wasn't about the existence of WMD's (that was a mistake) the lie was that they had evidence in hand to prove/justify the attack.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 |
10-07-2003, 11:33 PM | #19 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: norway
|
this is pathetic, republicans responding well documented critizims with lies, accusation and other signs of fear. You are making fools of yourselves. The panic in the "Moore is lying and fat and he only speaks bs"-comments are quite obvious. Maybe a more flexible political view would help you guys to avoid looking like idiots every time your favourite gets some critizism.
|
10-08-2003, 12:33 AM | #20 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.
|
I remember reading a thread on this very website where a poster was criticized for asking heavily loaded questions. That is very bad debating etiquette because it doesn't allow for any arguments against those questions. While I normally respect Moore's work, these questions are too loaded to be taken seriously. Moore doesn't want Bush to answer those questions, he answered them himself.
__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you. |
10-08-2003, 03:38 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Halx, what do you think of the article?
Pesonally, I think it's a load of crap. OOOH big surprise one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East had dealings with a family that had ties to the oil industry!!!! I suppose if they didn't have business dealings the question would be "Mr. Bush despite the fact that they are one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East your oil company brethren never dealt with them a single time? What is the meaning of this? A hidden agenda? A hatred of the Bin Laden clan? What?" And to ask what was that look on his face? Get a friggin clue. Yeah it was those few minutes when he decided he was going to take over the world (cue Pinky and the Brain music). It's ALL a big conspiracy. It's all about oil. Blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and it was the Saudis. We couldn't get world approval to go into Iraq yet we're gonna get world approval to go into Saudi Arabia. Bullshit.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant. |
10-08-2003, 04:20 AM | #23 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Oz
|
Quote:
Bush has had a free ride with the media. In fact, the media is far to soft on most politicians. Didnt Clinton say that the hardest questions he was ever posed were by students. |
|
10-08-2003, 04:33 AM | #24 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Moores strengths is that he is an activist and he motivates others to be the same. He is, unfortunately, several shades above Coulter. It is unfortunate that he is sloppy with the facts, the increase in respect would make him powerful indeed.
But at least he isn't a raging partisan, like some of his colleagues. He has been very critical of Clinton as well for military actions and other such issues. He sticks to his beliefs and issues very well. Overall I think he is a benefit to society rather than a negative. He gets people involved and he has accomplished some good things, like getting the bullets out of K-Mart. |
10-08-2003, 05:19 AM | #25 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Midwest
|
"Danger - multi-millionaires at large
I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not? Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!" I found this passage interesting. We often label rich people with a screw loose as "ecentric." Sure, poor people can have a screw loose too, but they are too busy scraping a living together. It's those that are worth the kind of money that have isolated themselves from others - these are the people that have an agenda and the money to carry it out. I think the parallels Moore draws here are interesting - special interest groups are killing the representation of the common man. Bush is a millionaire - he tried to maker a buck - but failed miserably every step of the way - only to be bailed out by millionnaires. How could he not listen to their agendas? I agree with Moore - the super rich that have alot of time on their hands are dangerous when they have agendas - they can do something about it. That's not democracy at best and seeds for terror at worst. |
10-08-2003, 07:20 AM | #27 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
That was a reaction to what Killconey said.
Quote:
|
|
10-08-2003, 07:34 AM | #28 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: norway
|
I am slowly losing the interest in this forum as a whole, when a majority of posters can't recognize rethorical questions, it just get silly. It seems most people here is quite incapable of discussing outside their narrow liberal/conservative schemes. Try getting a little more politically independent, and consider creating opinions of your own in a debate in spite of what you vote ppl.
|
10-08-2003, 09:08 AM | #29 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NJ
|
Quote:
|
|
10-08-2003, 09:39 AM | #30 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I personally don't see the problem with Bush ahving ties to the Bin Laden clan. If I remember correctly from a biography of OBL I read, there are more then 50 Bin Laden children and Osama was the black sheep and exiled from the family for being such a religious nut job.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
10-08-2003, 10:54 AM | #35 (permalink) |
Please touch this.
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
|
eple, how about you end your agenda against this forum. You can either lead by example or you can criticize. GUESS which one you're doing. It's not helping.
__________________
You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals] |
10-08-2003, 01:00 PM | #37 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
DISCLAIMER: This is not flame bait. I am not going to argue your opinions. I honestly just want to know what you think.
Now that that is done with, I want to know if the republican and Bush-leaning posters out there honestly believe he had absolutely no ulterior motives, outside of humanitarian concern, for the invasion in Iraq.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 |
10-08-2003, 03:31 PM | #38 (permalink) |
Banned
|
I think that the fact that Saddam provided no proof that he got rid of the weapons that he admitted to having was reason enough. I am also extremly happy that a minimum of Iraqis were killed. Did he have ulterior motives? I dont know what was in his head, mabye he was honestly pissed that Saddam tried to kill his father. I am just happy that my president did the right thing that needed to be done.
|
10-08-2003, 04:03 PM | #39 (permalink) |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
FEL, how can that be reason enough?
This whole situation is surreal. We are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia. We are allies with Eurasia, we have always been allies with Eurasia. Seriously, it's like George Bush is channeling George Orwell. The war started and it was all about imminent danger, Saddam has WMD. No WMD found, they changed the story to Humanitarian and Saddam had WMD programs. No WMD programs plus many reports to the contrary and now it is we went to war to free the Iraqi peoples and Saddam had ideas in his head about some day down the line thinking about maybe starting up a weapons program after we all fell asleep sound in our beds. Ooh plus Saddam IS the WMD, That is SPIN They have completely changed the story and are saying that is the reason we went in in the first place. But it's not. The is no more than a sentence in the SOTU about humanitarian concerns, the rest is doom and gloon Saddam has WMD and is going to kill us all with his balsa wood drones. The testimony Kay has given about his report is that there were no programs, and no plans to start up any programs, and certainly not any wmd except for a vial of botox that is in any number of american pantries, back yards, and refrigerators today. Further Kay postulates, as I have believed for a while now, that Saddam provided no proof of his lack of arms because of fear that he would appear weak to Iran and be attacked. And who would really step up to protect them? It is not sufficient to wage war because Saddam lied to us, choosing to conceal the proof that he no longer had WMD capabilities. To assert something like that is just ludicrous. |
10-08-2003, 04:22 PM | #40 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
Superbelt, I see where you are coming from and am inclined to agree with your general assessment (though maybe not to the degree you do). But, I am honestly curious and I don't want my question to turned into another "Bush lied, soldiers died" flame war. There are plenty of threads that have that going on already. I just want to know if the people that support Bush's actions that post on this truly feel he has been forth coming with his reasons. Moore asserts that the real reasons for this war are politically and economically motivated and his rhetorical questions along with Bush history make a case for his claims. I think this is a reasonable assertion, but I know of a lot of folks on this board who would argue that. But, honestly, I am getting kind of tired of arguing about that and I want to know if the supporters out there think that our president had no motives outside of concern for national security and wishes of well-being for the people of Iraq. I think that we could get their true opinions on the matter more readily if those of us whom are known to think otherwise weren't lurking, waiting for them to post just to basically call their opinions' naive and/or stupid. They are neither, just different. I have met very few people on this board who's opinions are truly ignorant and most of them come and go in a week. I hope to get the supporters' unpolarized thoughts and I would hope others would consent to my non-argument disclaimer as well so we could all hear what they think.
If we must we can discuss these thoughts later in a seperate thread, but for now lets just keep it on the general topic of whether or not the assertions made by Moore, without regard to Moore himself, have any merit.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751 Last edited by MuadDib; 10-08-2003 at 04:24 PM.. |
Tags |
answers, bush, please |
|
|