OH MAN!!!!!!!! Free popcorn AND a free movie ticket and I’m not going to get any…


When you do make it up this way I would be honored if we can get together again. I really enjoyed the last time…

Oh, here’s a website I found on Michael Moore’s other movie he “tried” to portray as a documentary. The ol’ boy gets confused with definitions I guess…

How stupid is the American public, pretty damn stupid Moore thinks…

 

I would say that they are not to the left either. At least not to the left of you.

 

I apologize, but that one flew right over my head... I don't think the entire free world was in on Bush's propaganda of why we needed to go to war at all. It was the BushAdmin's story... period.. I don't remember anyone else in the free world pitching the same story, or for that matter even really agreeing with it, with the exception of Tony Blair. We were told (repeatedly) that Iraq possessed WMD that threatened us to an extent it was necessary to take a pre-emtive strike for our own nations safety. That did not turn out to be the case.


If you tell a lie often enough and repeat it enough times, people pretty quickly begin to assume it is fact regardless if it has any basis whatsoever. Isn't this exactly what propaganda is? If so, can't you see how this is precisely what the BushAdmin did last year as they beat the war drums straight to Baghdad?

 

those are the few that the article/news segment covered, there are quite a few more from what they said. Anyways in this case, it doesnt matter how small and unimportant the specific is, it still stands to show that the movie uses irrelevant facts without core facts.

had the moive shown everything to the full extent instead of just one sided biased style then i would have bowed out. But litterally it seems more like Moore is out just to shock people and seems to enjoy this. I doubt if he cares about either candinates position.

enjoy this snippet>>

..............
Moore Criticism
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
By David Asman
BACKGROUND ARCHIVE

• Topics and Guests
• Guest Archive
• Asman Observer Archive
• Anchor bios
• E-mail the Show: foxfeedback@foxnews.com

Filmmaker Michael Moore (search) likes to portray himself as a common man, his uncommon riches notwithstanding. But he doesn’t stand up for the collective wisdom of his fellow Americans when speaking in front of foreigners.

Mr. Moore told a Toronto audience last week: "Why would you want to be like us?" The American ethic, he said, is "every man for himself. Me me me me me."

When he was in England recently, Mr. Moore expanded on his unique brand of populism, saying of Americans, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [expletive]. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ''Should such an ignorant people lead the world?"

While Europeans love this stuff, one might think its popular appeal would wane a bit back home. And yet, as David Brooks of The New York Times points out, this is the man for whom a Senate vote was delayed because so many members wanted to see his movie.

And that's The Observer.
.................

now lets get to the discussion. My problem is with moore and his movie, this guy is not doing this to help the democratic party. and he could care less about us in general. right know we're his puppets listenning like fools to his blabbering helping him make a quick buck and put that hardon he gets from contrivorsey and bull****.

now then....

To rebuttal that, simple. Those children do not need to be stressed/worried/frightened. What happened, happened...as ****ed up as that really is. What could president bush have done after seeing that happen being the fact that he was in Florida? dont think AirForceOne can get to NY from Florida in 5mins....to fix things. personally i dont see anything wrong with him doing what he did, probably thinking it would be best to finish up with what he was doing with the kids instead of leaving them worried about what is going on.

Then again this is coming from an 22year old mind, so i cant literally speak on behalf of any of those kids present.

...

for one i am not a BushAdmin supporter, but i rather see Bush in office before Kerry. Simply put it this way. WE as americans have way to many lives oversea atm that DO NOT need kerry running this goverment at these times.....we need someone who will atleast give 3****s about his military. Rather seeing some other candinate but thats out of context since there are only be those 2.

Secondly my ATTACK on these subjects are not directed at liberals or Democrats they are directed at the idoit that is Micheal Moore.

Ok im tired now, need to sleep. but **** micheal moore with a chainsaw. seriously if i ever see that fat greasy bastard im gonna walk straight up to him and give him a pair of black eyes. WE dont need this crap during time of war....we got too many lives oversea that are way more important to be focusing on then on Moore.

/rant off

~Q

 

So because they included the time Bush spent at his vacation home as 'time on vacation', or because Bush's cheif of terrorism (Richard Clarke) should be held accountable instead of Bush for the administration's decision to allow the bin Ladin's and Saudi's to fly out of the country unquestioned on Sep 12th, proves the "movie uses irrelevant facts without core facts?" Your other two points were that the 'chairman of the 911 commission' said that "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom." and that furthermore he said that the Saudi's were properly quesitoned before leaving? (which i'm 99% positive is a misquote.) I don't mean it rudely, but to me this proves absolutely nothing. How did you get to the assumption it does?

For a "misleading movie full of lies and half-truths made by the the biggest scum-of-the-earth-liberal in history" surely there are some specifics that someone in our country is going to point out, right? I'd honestly like to consider the other side of the story. Where are they?

 

"Definition of propaganda:

A way of presenting a belief that seeks to generate acceptance without regard to facts or the right of others to be heard. Propaganda often presents the same argument repeatedly, in the simplest terms and ignores all rebuttal or counter-argument. It is essentially self- interested and often associated with authoritarian regimes. Propaganda is often used to convey official descriptions of reality, when it may be allied with bureaucratic control of media, censorship of opposing opinions and deliberate misinformation.

Propaganda consists of the planned use of any form of public or mass-produced communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose, whether military, economic, or political."

You mean the way Bush constantly used Al-Queda and Saddam in the same sentences but then said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Come on, GW knows damned well that every American associates Al-Queda with 9/11.

 

You on the left can believe in what ever you like. If it is fantasy like Moore does then so be it.

It absolutely amazes me on how many people on the left have completely forgotten about 911 and what REALLY happen. Was Iraq a part of that? As I have maintained it is debatable. I do not think they were directly involved with it from a stand point they helped plan it but just the fact they are associated with terrorism puts them in the pot of those responsible.

Was Al-Queda involved with 911 the answer is a lot more clear on that one which is yes they were indeed involved with 911, they are terrorist with an agenda. Al-Queda, Iraq, Bin Laden there all involved one way or another with 911 just by their prior actions and threats of harm to America.

People need to REALLY look at the big picture and you would see that taken care of Iraq as the ENTIRE FREE world wanted is just what we did. Yes I give you that most the free world did NOT have the ***** to actually do what we did, but neither did they have the capability or power that we do to do what we did.

You on the left can go on pretending that what we did was wrong and that most people did not agree with it but the fact of the matter is they did believe in it and backed it with all the FACTS they had. These FACTS came from the ENTIRE FREE world and the VAST MAJORITY of liberal democrats such as Clinton the MAIN leader with this movement to begin with, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy and the rest.

We HAVE found WMD’S so those FACTS have been proven out. Here is the thing NO ONE that backed this to begin with has ANY creditability if they have backed down from their initial claims and their initial support. Why you might ask? Because if giving the chance they would have done the VERY SAME THING so for Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and the other gutless wonders need to keep their ANTI-American mouths SHUT! They have disgraced America enough with their spin, propaganda and putting America and its citizens and its children at GREAT risk by spewing BS in the name of trying to GAIN power back…

That is the FACT’S CASE CLOSED!!!!

It’s as if many on the left, the gutless and illogical do not EVER seem to learn from their past mistakes or failures. Failures are ONLY good if one learns from them and they NEVER seem to learn from them. They practiced for 8 years what they want to practice again if Kerry is elected President and we know what that got us:

A BODY count of over 3,000 DEAD AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What body count are you people on the left looking for next time? 3 million, 30 million? Will that be enough DEAD AMERICANS to put your people back in power?

That is ALL this is about, that is the ONLY reason these wussbags like Kerry go around spewing their liberal weakness of policies, its all about politics and the FACT they have yet to come up with any coherent visions, solutions or ideas for a better future. They run for office on doom and gloom, they truly are a VERY sad bunch of wasted human beings wonder earth in a daze and confused induced mentality…

Moore is for a FACT a propagandist looking for the same stardom that Howard Stern has. Moore is about shock value, it don’t matter to that moron how many American and specifically children he puts at risk to get KILLED for him to make money.

Moore is ONLY about making money on the death of others. He is a very sick man with a sick agenda. Moore feeds into the terrorist’s agenda of divide and conquer, so either Moore is an extremely very stupid man or he is doing his best to assist terrorist in their grand illusions of taking down the MOST powerful nation in the world. So which is it? There are only two choices because he is NOT nor has he ever been after the TRUTH. For the left and people like Moore the TRUTH hurts VERY bad…

The fact still remains for liberals:

A BAD day or disastrous day for America is a GOOD day for liberals.

A Good day for America is a BAD day for liberals.


That my friends are the sad facts, no ifs, ands, or butts about it…

 

BTW - I just realized your talking about two different Clarkes.
The Clarke that ran for president (Sgt. Wesley Clarke) is an entirely different man that had nothing to do with this.

 

Ain’t that the truth

 

lol Who? The 'entire free world' We couldn't 'buy' anyone else's support! It was us and our forces along with the the 'two canoes and a hunting rifle' sent over by the British along with complimentary coffee sent over courtesy of the Spaniards!!!

We couldn't even get a majority to back us in NATO - much less a consensus opinion among the entire free world.

lmao It has???

lmao... Well there ya go...

XLT, my man.. You just proved every point I ever intended to make (and then a few!) about far right-side extremist for me in one single post... I mean that was classic. How could I possibly top that? (I'll sit back, relax and enjoy this for it's entainment value, as you are doing a sensational job of making my point for me!)

 

Q - How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A - Well that answer all depends. First you would need to create a bipartisan commission to determine whose fault it was that the light bulb was not in place in the beginning. Second you would need to call France, Germany and Russia for a competitive price quote to ensure fairness in who actual could put in the bulb. Third you would debate the need for the light in the first place as well as recommend a impractical, expensive, environmentally friendly alternative. And last but not least, you would apologize to the American people for all the trouble you put them through, not to mention the lack of light, because obviously “lightbulbgate” was really all the work a vast Right-wing conspiracy.

 

I'm too lazy to go back and find the exact quotes in this thread but, here goes. Wouldn't it be more suspicious if the Bin Laden's and the Saudi Royal family left BEFORE the attacks. The last time I checked it was against international law to hold the leaders of a forgien country against thier will, it's has something to do with diplomatic immunity and acts of war. The senior Bin Laden is the royal family's construction czar (for a lack of a better term). Do you really think any strong President would allow the family of any of their cabinet to be held by a foriegn friendly government. I don't think so.

As far as the 5-7 minutes to for GW to get out of the classroom to go to the undisclosed air base, think about it people. When the planes crashed what did we know? We knew jackchit. Where was he going to go what was he going to do? Nothing that's what. GW had nothing to work with yet. Do any of you fly large aircraft? How long does it take to preflight it. Air Force one is landed and shut off. The reason for this is the limited amount of fuel available. Do any of you know the logistics for a presidential motorcade? I do. It is a PAIN in the **** and again the time schedule cannot be changed in an instant. It takes a time to prepare the route. He prolly could have stayed another 5-10 minutes without any real delay in his response.

Edited to add:

Oh yeah, the whole impeach Clintoon thing happened in late 1998 and early 1999. Prolly about the time the terrorists were starting their entrance into the county to learn to fly, but not land the 747's.

Michael Moore's film would have more impact on the elections if he had released it in say September. A lot of Americans have very short memories and all of the ire raised by this movie will most likely be forgotten by the time of the elections.

 

Who authorized the exit of the bin Laden kin? Let's look at what is known, instead of what some would like to be true; but, have no real proof of.



http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20040601a.html

 

Yes we did authorize bin Laden famly to leave the country. I remember thinking after hearing the news that they left to avoid being harrassed because of their name, that it was prolly a real good idea to get outta Dodge. Actually, it's a bit unnerving when you are stationed in Saudi and see that a lot of the gov't buildings have bin Laden stenciled on them. The bin Laden clan owns the largest construction company in the kindom. Osama was disowned by his father, given his inheritence, and told to go away and never return.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destructi on again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1 999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Huss ein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destructio n has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of ch emical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every signific ant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003