Moore vs. O'Reilly

[Guest SP-1]

Also: I suppose you think it's ok for us to just withdraw everything and leave the new government without a support net of any kind. That'll show everyone the US cares about Iraq.

[Guest thebigjig]

Also: I suppose you think it's ok for us to just withdraw everything and leave the new government without a support net of any kind. That'll show everyone the US cares about Iraq.

First off... you were not being sarcastic

 

you see, to be sarcastic, you must have what they call... a sarcastic fucking tone

 

Secondly... they may not have known at the time that they would be making a mistake, but guess what USUALLY happens in the real world when mistakes of this calibur are made?? Thats right... a major overhaul and shake up! I wouldnt be NEARLY as hard as I am on Bush if I had seen him trying to make an attempt to punish those that gave him wrong intel... Kennedy did it to the CIA after the bay of pigs... and damnit this kind of mistake deserves retribution... the FBI and the CIA should be shaken to the core and restructured like never before seen... and what is Bush doing? Oh thats right... he pushed Tenet out after fighting politically to keep him unscathed before the heat got turned up too much

 

And NO I DO NOT support withdrawing the troops, never have never will... but doesnt mean I cant still criticize how we went about doing it. I will not turn a blind eye and use that ridiculously ignorant "well we're here and theres nothing we can do about it" mentality. I support the troops, and I support the effort... but I will not forget who fucked it up

[Guest SP-1]

Wow, jiggy. That's a heck of a talent there. You can tell just by text, concretely, when someone's being sarcastic or not by their very tone.

 

Amazing.

 

Yes. Yes, I was being sarcastic. Whether or not you can come to accept that would be your failing, not mine. Deal with it. It's the nature of text-based communications.

 

 

We agree pretty much, judging by your last paragraph there. The intelligence communities screwed up. Or Saddam was just quick enough to have shipped out to his allies so we'd find nothing. And even if that happened, we should have caught it and nailed him and whomever was helping him so the intelligence community still failed there. We do need to recognize that and we do need to overhaul things and make sure it doesn't happen again. Leaving them high and dry now doesn't work either. So don't get all worked up.

[Guest GreatOne]

Whoever thinks Moore owns anything but a Super-size machine here better go back and brush up on your reading and comprehension skills, you need work and LOTS OF IT........

 

First off this is the same clown that's supposedly an "independent", yet whenever the Democrats come calling he's right there to suck them off. The same guy who called Wesley Clark "the Butcherer of Kosovo" yet he's right there on his bandwagon during the primaries. I don't know who's the bigger fool really, Moore who can't make up his own mind on where he stands (we should have been more pro-active before WWI and WWII) or any Democrat who trusts this hot air balloon knowing that he doesn't really support anything--other than 24/7 burger buffets.

 

Again, you know half these morons in Boston this week not only voted for the war in Iraq but also made cases for going as far back as '98 (coincidentally all of whom are speaking/have spoken). Now somebody actually not only SAYS it, but BACKS IT UP as well and it's OH MY GOD, WE WERE JUST KIDDING, HOW DARE YOU?!'

 

And jiggy as far as Vietnam, first off we've lost just under 1000 in what, a year-plus of fighting? let's see, Saddam Uday and Qusay are gone, a free Iraq who may go back to the old ways down the line but now it's their choice that will INCLUDE elections. I doubt success was a word that didn't describe Vietnam much less to that extent.

 

But if it's established that Al Qaeda was actually not a bunch of towel-wearing Afghanis but instead a group of exiled rebels, you--I'm talking to the left now--can make the argument that Afghanistan didn't attack us so why the hell would you support action in Afghanistan and not Iraq when their support of Al Qaeda has been established as well? No there wasn't a Taliban bankrolling anybody in Baghdad but there was still support. Where do you think Al-Zarqawi came from?

 

So Moore owns NOTHING here but a super-size machine and giant flock of sheep, 'I'M GOING TO SEE F911, BAH-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H!!!!!!'

[Guest thebigjig]

Whether or not you can come to accept that would be your failing, not mine.  Deal with it.  It's the nature of text-based communications.

 

Is that comment sarcastic??

 

I only ask because it has just as much sarcasm in it as the first statement.

 

 

We do need to recognize that and we do need to overhaul things and make sure it doesn't happen again.  Leaving them high and dry now doesn't work either.  So don't get all worked up.

 

Call me crazy, but after 3000 deaths on 9/11 and 1000+ deaths so far in this war... yeah, I think NOW would be a good time to shake things up. How many more bodies have to fall before someone decides to take some action?

 

Face it... its not even on Bush's agenda

[Guest thebigjig]

Whoever thinks Moore owns anything but a Super-size machine here better go back and brush up on your reading and comprehension skills, you need work and LOTS OF IT........

 

Who's arguing with you on this?? I think most of the lefties on this board will admit that he's nothing but a blowhard... however, I'm fair, and if he makes a good point, I'm not going to ignore it.

 

Democrat who trusts this hot air balloon knowing that he doesn't really support anything--other than 24/7 burger buffets.

 

A case can be made as well for the King of right wing media, Rush Limbaugh who once stated that there are more native americans alive today than before Columbus arrived

 

 

Again, you know half these morons in Boston this week not only voted for the war in Iraq but also made cases for going as far back as '98 (coincidentally all of whom are speaking/have spoken).

 

Here's how I see it... I supported the war too. That's right, I'm also an ex-Republican. Most here know this, I'm not sure if you did or not. Slowly I started to notice things I didn't like until I realized that I was wrong, so therefor, I support the opposite side now. Call me crazy but I still believe that politicans can change their minds, especially if they're misled

 

And jiggy as far as Vietnam, first off we've lost just under 1000 in what, a year-plus of fighting? let's see, Saddam Uday and Qusay are gone, a free Iraq who may go back to the old ways down the line but now it's their choice that will INCLUDE elections. I doubt success was a word that didn't describe Vietnam much less to that extent

 

It's obvious you have a reading problem... I said Iraq is the worst military mistake SINCE Vietnam. I am not foolish enough to compare body counts, or direct connections... I realize they are two completely different situations, and the fact that the ignorant misunderstand the entire reasoning comparing the two speaks volumes. We don't compare body counts... we make an argument comparing Vietnam to Iraq in terms of mentality, ignorance, and ego

 

 

But if it's established that Al Qaeda was actually not a bunch of towel-wearing Afghanis but instead a group of exiled rebels, you--I'm talking to the left now--can make the argument that Afghanistan didn't attack us so why the hell would you support action in Afghanistan and not Iraq when their support of Al Qaeda has been established as well? No there wasn't a Taliban bankrolling anybody in Baghdad but there was still support. Where do you think Al-Zarqawi came from?

 

So I guess by support you mean a few phone calls and some in the Iraqi government thinking "damn I hope they get those bastards" ? I'm sure a few people in North Korea cheered the bastards on, but that's not a fucking good enough reaso to invade. Iraq was not a threat and unless someone can give me some concrete proof other than "Saddam was evil! And Arab! So therefor by default he was in on it!" then I am not going to buy it.

[Guest GreatOne]

Slowly I started to notice things I didn't like until I realized that I was wrong, so therefor, I support the opposite side now. Call me crazy but I still believe that politicans can change their minds, especially if they're misled

 

OK was Kerry or Kennedy misled when he pleaded with Clinton for action in Iraq in June of 98? Is this really 'realizing you were 'misled'' or just not liking the guy in charge so you'll undercut his action any way possible to make yourself look good?

 

So I guess by support you mean a few phone calls and some in the Iraqi government thinking "damn I hope they get those bastards" ?

 

I guess the training camps and the AQ cells have absolutely nothing to do with it right?

 

I'm sure a few people in North Korea cheered the bastards on, but that's not a fucking good enough reaso to invade.

 

Ah yes let's just wait until their nuke capabilities are EXTREMELY functional!--i.e. they've already bombed the shit out of somebody

 

Iraq was not a threat

 

And now they won't be. Again this goes back to the pre-emptive argument, which there's NEVER a case for, until a year or two down the road after a national tragedy and all the sudden we SHOULD have been pre-emptive.

 

then I am not going to buy it.

 

Fine you don't have to, but by that same token when somebody comes along and cuts through Moore or Kennedy or Kerry or whoever's BS when they're just as if not more guilty don't get your tits all in a bunch OK?

 

You know like when I make fun of the Democrats as "being the People's Party" for example.

[Guest thebigjig]

OK was Kerry or Kennedy misled when he pleaded with Clinton for action in Iraq in June of 98? Is this really 'realizing you were 'misled'' or just not liking the guy in charge so you'll undercut his action any way possible to make yourself look good?

 

No one was arguing for a full out invasion, though it was an idea on the table... once again, I can turn the 9/11 argument right around on you. Taking Saddam down was an idea thrown around before 9/11 came and changed our priorities... or did it?

 

I guess the training camps and the AQ cells have absolutely nothing to do with it right?

 

I guess a bi-partisan, congressionally mandated committee, as well as former cabinet members, top UN weapons inspector, and 90% of the world just conveniently overlooked that

 

Ah yes let's just wait until their nuke capabilities are EXTREMELY functional!--i.e. they've already bombed the shit out of somebody

 

Yes... lets go into an area where we THINK they have WMD, but negotiate with a country that we know for a fact has it... I love that logic.

 

 

And now they won't be. Again this goes back to the pre-emptive argument, which there's NEVER a case for, until a year or two down the road after a national tragedy and all the sudden we SHOULD have been pre-emptive.

 

And now they won't be... yes... yes I love how you think things through. I could technically use the same argument about France... we could go in and invade them, and someone could say "but they weren't a threat!" and in return... "and now they won't be." Oh but wait, France wouldn't attack us because they're not Arab

 

My biggest complaint is that we've focused our military might away from the areas it should be focused... and now terrorist cells have been rebuilding in Afghanistan at an alarming rate... if we would've spent this much time and money in rooting out AQ itself instead of Iraq where we kinda sorta think they had a link but not really kinda sorta... then maybe we wouldn't be talking about postponing a fucking election

[Special K 0]

I thought hey both came off badly, and Moore's starting to look like a total crazy man with his constant switching between holier than thou, and persistent badgering.

O'Reilly should have made the aforementioned argument, that there's no draft. No one's pulling kids off the streets. Calling it the greatest military failure since Vietnam is over the top too. Unless you count every thing since as a resounding success, making it the worst by default. Anyone with half a brain knows the only REAL similarity to Vietnam is: the enemy is fighting geurilla style, and we maybe shouldn't be there.

 

Moore should have made the point that the President did, in fact, lie with the yellow cake uranium deal. The rest of it was not lying, but there's know doubt he personally wanted Saddam out, and used opportunities to trump up charges. He didn't want to know the truth. He wanted to take Saddam out. If that was the case, he should have just said so.

 

They're both so biased that it's a joke that anyone could take either one seriously as a moderate.

[Vyce 0]

Hannity just said Moore is roaming the floor and they are going to try and get him on the show......wow.

how can you stomach listening to that pompous asshole for more than 5 minutes?

Which pompous asshole?

 

Hannity or Moore? The term applies to both equally.

[Guest GreatOne]

No one was arguing for a full out invasion, though it was an idea on the table... once again, I can turn the 9/11 argument right around on you. Taking Saddam down was an idea thrown around before 9/11 came and changed our priorities... or did it?

 

The UN failing to do their jobs kind of did it as well.

 

I guess a bi-partisan, congressionally mandated committee, as well as former cabinet members, top UN weapons inspector, and 90% of the world just conveniently overlooked that

 

And which ones said that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

 

I could technically use the same argument about France... we could go in and invade them, and someone could say "but they weren't a threat!" and in return... "and now they won't be." Oh but wait, France wouldn't attack us because they're not Arab

 

France has shown quite well they couldn't attack a fly with no wings much less a country with military power.

 

My biggest complaint is that we've focused our military might away from the areas it should be focused... and now terrorist cells have been rebuilding in Afghanistan at an alarming rate... if we would've spent this much time and money in rooting out AQ itself instead of Iraq where we kinda sorta think they had a link but not really kinda sorta... then maybe we wouldn't be talking about postponing a fucking election

 

So what exactly SHOULD the end result be in Afghanistan? Nuke? How else do you deal with people (the term really doesn't apply here) with no regard for their or anyone else's lives? Wanna play Gen. MacArthur or Patton here? Here's your chance.

[St. Gabe 0]

he doesn't really support anything--other than 24/7 burger buffets.

 

Just like A Right Winger. When in doubt insult someone's physical appearance! That'll show them. Awesome!

[Guest GreatOne]

he doesn't really support anything--other than 24/7 burger buffets.

 

Just like A Right Winger. When in doubt insult someone's physical appearance! That'll show them. Awesome!

YEAH! And just like a left-winger, when you can't vouch for the quality of something, point to its' gate success like that'll prove anything! (See F911 or other Moore movies/books)

 

Also just like a left-winger, take one part of a quote and twist it up and cry foul. Yeah I'm such a meanie!

[Guest SP-1]

To be fair, I'm not sure invading a country run by a fairly insane dictator with NUKES at his disposal would prove wise. I understand what you're saying there, jig, and we should do something to stop North Korea, but invading a la Iraq might not be the best thing.

[Vyce 0]

I could technically use the same argument about France... we could go in and invade them, and someone could say "but they weren't a threat!" and in return... "and now they won't be." Oh but wait, France wouldn't attack us because they're not Arab

No, France wouldn't attack us because most of us are Gentiles.

[St. Gabe 0]

YEAH! And just like a left-winger, when you can't vouch for the quality of something, point to its' gate success like that'll prove anything! (See F911 or other Moore movies/books)

 

Also just like a left-winger, take one part of a quote and twist it up and cry foul. Yeah I'm such a meanie!

If I twisted that quote, what did you mean by mentioning 24/7 burger buffets? I know that wasn't the bulk of the quote, but you made a few allusions to his obesity.

 

Also, not a left winger, and don't agree with Michael Moore most of the time. You make an awesome argument against him without breaking out the fat jokes. That's too easy. It makes you sound juvenile throwing in the same old "ha ha, Michael Moore is a fat slob" jokes. Yeah, he is a fat slob, but we were discussing his political/film-making merits or lack thereof.

 

Almost every Moore-hater on this board has resorted to the fat jokes. You, at least made a good argument without that.

 

 

=Gabe

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

To be fair, I'm not sure invading a country run by a fairly insane dictator with NUKES at his disposal would prove wise. I understand what you're saying there, jig, and we should do something to stop North Korea, but invading a la Iraq might not be the best thing.

If Bush was willing to storm Iraq and bomb the place to hell, even when he was under the assumption that they had WMD, how would North Korea be any different?

 

Oh yeah, we actually know that North Korea has nuclear weapons that they could use, and they are a tad bit closer to US soil.

 

Speaking of WMD, Im convinced that the intelligence could have suggested that there was a 1 in a million chance of Iraq having WMD and Bush's response, a la Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber would have been "So you're telling me theres a chance!"

[Guest MikeSC]

YEAH! And just like a left-winger, when you can't vouch for the quality of something, point to its' gate success like that'll prove anything! (See F911 or other Moore movies/books)

 

Also just like a left-winger, take one part of a quote and twist it up and cry foul. Yeah I'm such a meanie!

If I twisted that quote, what did you mean by mentioning 24/7 burger buffets? I know that wasn't the bulk of the quote, but you made a few allusions to his obesity.

 

Also, not a left winger, and don't agree with Michael Moore most of the time. You make an awesome argument against him without breaking out the fat jokes. That's too easy. It makes you sound juvenile throwing in the same old "ha ha, Michael Moore is a fat slob" jokes. Yeah, he is a fat slob, but we were discussing his political/film-making merits or lack thereof.

 

Almost every Moore-hater on this board has resorted to the fat jokes. You, at least made a good argument without that.

 

 

=Gabe

To give you a hint --- "Awesome arguments against Michael Moore" don't do any good. Lord knows I've done a few. So, when effort does nothing --- you stick with fat jokes and marginalize him as he so righteously deserves.

 

Now, I want to see the Republicans COLLAR the Democrats with the image of Michael Moore in the Presidential box in Boston on the first night of the Convention. Weigh them down by having that tubby blowhard be CLOSELY associated with them.

-=Mike

..."Would you vote for a party with crazy people? Vote Republican. Besides, we have hotter chicks"

[St. Gabe 0]

To give you a hint --- "Awesome arguments against Michael Moore" don't do any good. Lord knows I've done a few. So, when effort does nothing --- you stick with fat jokes and marginalize him as he so righteously deserves.

 

Now, I want to see the Republicans COLLAR the Democrats with the image of Michael Moore in the Presidential box in Boston on the first night of the Convention. Weigh them down by having that tubby blowhard be CLOSELY associated with them.

-=Mike

..."Would you vote for a party with crazy people? Vote Republican. Besides, we have hotter chicks"

 

I must admit, Ann Coulter is pretty hot. But, I will not say who I will be voting for, because it is no-ones business in my opinion. You can wax political about strengths and weaknesses, and it's very interesting and engaging, but I never have been the type to tell someone what party I affiliate with. I just don't like the name calling. I mean, how far do we get by arguing our points appropriately, but ending each post with something like: "Michael Moore is a Fat Slob", or "George Bush is an Idiot". I know this might sound like the easy way out, but why not keep it relegated to the strengths and weaknesses of both parties and not emotionally charged hate mongering(sp?)

 

anyway, thats that

thanks.

Gabe

[Guest MikeSC]

To give you a hint --- "Awesome arguments against Michael Moore" don't do any good. Lord knows I've done a few. So, when effort does nothing --- you stick with fat jokes and marginalize him as he so righteously deserves.

 

Now, I want to see the Republicans COLLAR the Democrats with the image of Michael Moore in the Presidential box in Boston on the first night of the Convention. Weigh them down by having that tubby blowhard be CLOSELY associated with them.

-=Mike

..."Would you vote for a party with crazy people? Vote Republican. Besides, we have hotter chicks"

 

I must admit, Ann Coulter is pretty hot. But, I will not say who I will be voting for, because it is no-ones business in my opinion. You can wax political about strengths and weaknesses, and it's very interesting and engaging, but I never have been the type to tell someone what party I affiliate with. I just don't like the name calling. I mean, how far do we get by arguing our points appropriately, but ending each post with something like: "Michael Moore is a Fat Slob", or "George Bush is an Idiot". I know this might sound like the easy way out, but why not keep it relegated to the strengths and weaknesses of both parties and not emotionally charged hate mongering(sp?)

 

anyway, thats that

thanks.

Gabe

I don't hate Michael Moore. He is so far beneath the level of humanity he is not deserving of hatred.

-=Mike

[St. Gabe 0]

To give you a hint --- "Awesome arguments against Michael Moore" don't do any good. Lord knows I've done a few. So, when effort does nothing --- you stick with fat jokes and marginalize him as he so righteously deserves.

 

Now, I want to see the Republicans COLLAR the Democrats with the image of Michael Moore in the Presidential box in Boston on the first night of the Convention. Weigh them down by having that tubby blowhard be CLOSELY associated with them.

-=Mike

..."Would you vote for a party with crazy people? Vote Republican. Besides, we have hotter chicks"

 

I must admit, Ann Coulter is pretty hot. But, I will not say who I will be voting for, because it is no-ones business in my opinion. You can wax political about strengths and weaknesses, and it's very interesting and engaging, but I never have been the type to tell someone what party I affiliate with. I just don't like the name calling. I mean, how far do we get by arguing our points appropriately, but ending each post with something like: "Michael Moore is a Fat Slob", or "George Bush is an Idiot". I know this might sound like the easy way out, but why not keep it relegated to the strengths and weaknesses of both parties and not emotionally charged hate mongering(sp?)

 

anyway, thats that

thanks.

Gabe

I don't hate Michael Moore. He is so far beneath the level of humanity he is not deserving of hatred.

-=Mike

you seem angry. I'm sorry If I riled you up.

 

Sorry again,

 

Gabe

[Guest MikeSC]

There's no anger or rage. It'd be like getting pissed off at a rat. He'll die eventually and the world will be a better place.

-=Mike

[St. Gabe 0]

There's no anger or rage. It'd be like getting pissed off at a rat. He'll die eventually and the world will be a better place.

-=Mike

you are really opinionated about Moore. I know that he upset a lot of people, but wow, I didn't really know the extent of it, are there other right wing folks that are as polarized about him as you or do you consider yourself ultra-conservatve?

 

thank ya

 

Gabe

[Guest MikeSC]

Nah, just virulently anti-fat tubby sacks of shit.

-=Mike

[St. Gabe 0]

Nah, just virulently anti-fat tubby sacks of shit.

          -=Mike

Have we learned nothing fom this mini-converasation that has interrupted the flow of this thread?

 

Although I admit, I did chuckle a bit.

 

Thanky

 

Gabe

[Guest DonVito]

Nah, just virulently anti-fat tubby sacks of shit.

-=Mike

I find it substantially offensive that you discriminate against the physically disabled portion of our country's population, which you call "fat tubby sacks of shit". Just because a person is considered obese does not result in them being a vile and terrible human being. Your post is not taking a shot at Michael Moore it is taking a shot at all overweight Americans. I believe you owe the corpulent community of America an apology.

 

-=Vito

[MrRant 0]

On behalf of Mike I offer this apology:

 

 

[Guest DonVito]

On behalf of Mike I offer this apology:

 

 

I do not find that amusing in the least. This is a serious matter to me and I would like to not be mocked and made a fool of.

 

-=Vito

[tommytomlin 0]

He's not calling tubby people sacks of shit, he's calling Mike Moore, who just happens to be fat, a sack of shit.

 

And even if he WAS insulting fat people, how come you only want him to apologise to America's fat people? What about the fat people of Canada, or Britain, or Australia? Are you some kind of fat-ist?

[MrRant 0]

Can I use WHOOSH in this folder?