cbacon

Trying to disprove the arguments would contradict the statement you just quoted... No, but your more abundant on this board, far more vocal and irrational. Nothing can be disputed because everything said is legitimate and anything opposing is either deemed ludicrous or ignored. There's no middle ground. Yes, being the Northern neighbour to your country frightens me as it does many other nations, which is why there is such keen interest in the outcome of this election. The lives of potentially millions hang in the balance of US international affairs. If you want to assume the book will contain ten letters, sure. And dude, you don't need 20 ellipses after making a point.

No, it's more about the voices of the soldiers in Iraq that happen to be in Moore's new book. Message, not the medium.

Look, no matter how much evidence is portrayed, any facts will be twisted or mis-interpreted by the conservative bunch on this board. The left side is just as guilty in certain aspects but it's more abundant in this particular forum of posters, some of which i'm convinced are glorified gimmick posters. I'm just glad the concentrated narrow minded on this board isn't typical of most communities, but at the same time it's scary considering it makes up a large portion of the United States, given the fact Bush still has managed to garner 50% of the votes when he should be clearly losing by a landslide. Thus, refuting and disproving Michael Moore is pointless, and the validity of the letters from the soldiers will be seen as the release of the book draws nearer. I looked at it briefly since i'm going to bed, but will give it a more thorough look in the morning. From what I skimmed through, I didn't see anything ground-breaking other than "Moore distrorts this and that using such techniques" . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there may have been incorrect facts that the article pointed out that i may have missed though.

I agree, its a sad state of affairs that Moore has to be the one to portray this. Kerry didn't send these kids to a war based on a lie. Again, you don't refute points, you just throw in irrelevant points because you can't argue anything without doing so or making reference to wrestling. If that's the case, be my guest.

Because it took Michael Moore's movie to open the eyes of many that were in the dark, and many see him as the voice that the Bush Administration would like to see shut. And although bias may be involved, it's not like he's pulling facts out of thin air and portraying them as fact. He makes a statement, voices his opinion and backs it up. Whether or not you choose to agree with his opinion is entirely subjective though. His evidence seems to go ignored by the typical ignorant conservative who usually counter-attack with the ever so fresh fat joke of the day.

Source

No, it's called going with Moore's track record. These letters are bogus and Moore cannot possibly die quickly enough. -=Mike Wow, getting personal there eh? Or this just some fabircated notion of anything remotely anti-bush = bogus? Of course individuals such as yourself easily dimiss anything Moore says as (even with factual back-up) as faulty. You should know that there is a growing resentment among the troops, Moore wasn't the one to break this.

Wow. Given the fact you didn't even read them is examplary of your character. You choosing to ignore anything that may not agree with your stance is sad.

Perhaps the underlining joke of the title (which will go over many Americans heads) and political commentary is a bit too much for the people over at the MPAA

Farenheit 9/11

Like a deer caught in a headlight, Cheney will have to make some VERY persuasive arguments to dupe more intelligible viewers. Despite his experience, he'll have to come to terms with the fact that he and Rumsfeld had "bullet proof" evidence that al Qaeda had ties with Saddam. “"We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," Mr Rumsfeld said. "We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade and of possible chemical and biological agent training," he added..” - BBC And also: Lies, thy name is Rumsfeld BUT YESTERDAY~!!!: “In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.” Zing. And someone tell GreatOne you don't need 20 ellipses in order to trail off after saying something irrelevant/stupid.

My favorite movie of the year. I went to pick it up on release day last week when i'd been informed my parents had ordered it from some DVD club. The extra week or two, while frustrating, is well worth the wait.

That's what i'm thinking. And random capitalization hurts my eyes.

Yokozuna's face turn. I still don't understand that one.

But this thread isn't about CBS. You argree with BX's statement though right?

This one: Capitalista

Damn. How do you think I feel? I've tried to acknowledge your silly clap-trap.

Ah, and he oh so gracefully cops out.

Your right, the majority dosen't give a shit. Good to see your stance on the issue.

Indeed. Morgan being OVW champion certainly helped his case, so it's not that far of a stretch having him at #48, being the champion of the WWE's farm team and all.

I also guess it's not surprising that the US is actually PANDERING to countries that violate human rights by actually sending people there. Source I'm dying to see this defended.

Source More of the same. -=Mike Hardly. It's only irrelevant bullshit when it conflicts with your conservative interests. Holy ambiguity. Hmm, "U.S. State Department finally Saudi Arabia to list of religious liberty violators". Well, thats maybe a tenth of the way there I guess. Thank God we can sleep easier now knowing that they were added to that list. It's interesting that nowhere in that article does it outline any kind of human rights violations in which Bush alluded to in regards to Iraq during the debate. In fact the words "human rights" or "violations" aren't mentioned once in the entire piece. Merely "religious oppression", which is only one of many reasons human rights violations are occuring in Saudi Arabia. Of course if the US were truly critical of these violations such as public beheaings, it would be a conflict of interest in their dealings with the nation. Somehow, i don't think that we'll be seeing the US "liberating" the people of Saudi Arabia anytime soon. Thus, there will be no further action stemming from this supposed "adding to the list" and Bush using Iraq as an example of 'liberating' citizens is highly hypocrticial. So your saying its condonable? Hate to break it to you, but some of these 'criminals' were merely responsible by taking non-violent actions against their government or have differing idealogical, religious beliefs and even sexuality. Not to mention those who are accused of legitimate crimes do not have a right to a fair trial. Even those who commit petty crimes such as theft are dealt with in this manner. Try telling Daniel Pearl's family that he was execution was just due to his 'criminal behaviour'. Your very naive if you believe that these violations are strictly for mass murders and the like. For you to allude that these actions are in anyway condonable is asinine, and one of the most ridiculous things i've read. And even IF you are justifying this, how is it different from Bush alluding to liberating the people of Iraq from such actions? Are the victims in Iraq any less of criminals than those in Saudi Arabia? You totally swayed away from the basis of the agrument here. It dosen't make him as stupid as it does hypocritical. Which was the point that was brought up anyway, not the concept of the death penalty in itself. That's a different argument all together.

They could throw a curve ball and have RVD win it. Of course that's just wishful thinking.

*rim-shot*

So we should get this here in Canada later on the Comedy Network, right?