You go girl! I like your style....shut all the dumb ass's up out there with there heads up there big fat butts.....hahahahhahaha

Moores movies is like the food line at a restaurant people just line up to eat his shit...some because they think its cool, most because the could not find themselves out a paper bag, clueless.

:thumbsup

If telling the truth about Moore is *making personal attacks on Moore* then Moore has a lot of explaining to do.

Michael Moore doesn't resemble a *patriot* by any twisted interpretation of the word. He has been overseas calling Americans *possibly the dumbest people on the planet.*

Yet here is man of the people.

He advocates re-destribution of the wealth in the US for the sake of *social justic* yet brags about his wealth and pushed for the R over the PG13 rating simply because of the higher monetary returns (can a person under 18 vote?).

A day after 9/11, his website puts the blame on Bush rather than the actual terrorists for the WTC attack.

I have heard merely emotional arguments from the anti-Bush.

Images are emotional--they appeal to the right-half of the brain much more than the left, thus emotional people find it very moving, but of course the logical, left-half of the brain has been entirely left out of the process.

too busy to get all the way into this at the moment.

Ill only take up ONE ISSUE now.

** the Saudi flghts out of the country **
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

Excerpt:
------------------------------------------------------------

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission?s March hearing, ?Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ?Yes, you?re clear to go, it?s all right with the United States government,?? Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

?I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,? Clarke testified. ?I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don?t know. The two ? since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff?s office.?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

How far off base is Moore about this subject?

correction: *pushed for the PG13 over the R*

I think it makes a lot of sense that if Saudi Arabia really has investments in the US that total 5-6% of the total wealth in the US... that they would be very well protected... and hustled out of the country.

A trillion dollar run on the banks and financial system, causing a complete collapse not be a better or more responsible solution for the nation.'

Life is often unfair and full of shitty choices.

Also... I clearly remember that several Bin Laden family members were in the states well after 9/11... which Moore does not mention.

wow.

you are so far over the edge, its scary. the article rebuts almost every MM point with an argument or explanation, not with "so what". you don't have to agree with it, or like it.. but you should at least find the maturity to recognize it as such.

you once criticized MikeAI characterizing his views as "my country, right or wrong" as not being patriotic... yet your views are ALWAYS "democratic/liberal party, right or wrong" and you really can't see that where any other opinion might have the slightest bit of validity. that fact really highlights the absurdity of your position on any political issue.

Interesting.

Clarke states

Why would Clarke have ever have stated that if he didn't believe it? He didn't appear to have any interest in making Bush look good especially during his initial testimonies with the commission. I would have thought he would have chosen to say whatever it is he thought might cast suspicious glances toward Bush -- if only to help sales of his book?

Clarke is quoted as saying about Roemer's speculation:

Also note that Roemer is a Democrat and Moore's book is the best ally the Dems have at the moment. If they can help to plug one of it's many holes by rampant posturing suspicious *maybe* speculation .....

The problem is people are taking Moore to task over his assessments of various events. Dispute his contentions all you like, but at least attack the man on his material, not on personal remarks that have nothing to do with the film. Even if it's nothing but a polemic, it's still a terrific film.

If we're going to go stone paranoid about anyone, better to aim it at somebody who has power in the world, not at a filmmaker.

My primary problem with Bush has nothing to do with anything in this film - it's solely because the man has the intelligence of a muskmelon. His cumulative SAT score was 600. That's *terrifying*. I don't even care that he was a bad businessman....I care that he's a moron.

John Kerry is the same breed of animal, only with a slightly higher IQ (this is not saying much).

I still wish Harry Browne had a shot at the office, but sadly, he doesn't...

All right, fire up the flamethrowers, I'm out of here.

Although one last thing, I'm always confused by diehard business people who are avowed Democrats (as allied as they are with Democratic Socialism), but what confuses me as much is how can an adult webmaster belong to the party of Pat Robertson who wants to see all of us stoned till death? I suppose the Dems have leaned away from their extremists, but George Bush went to school with their ilk. So....?

Just asking.

oh is that right?

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 21, 2003

Are you going to tell me he never claimed that Iraq DEFINITELY had WMD's as well?

No, to rebut something means that you show it's factually inaccurate. This article doesn't do that. It repeats a MM claim, says 'so what?' and then tries to show that whatever action they're defending i.e. his vacation time doesn't matter.

They don't ever say MM is a liar because they can't show anywhere he actually lies.

how the hell is Kerry the same animal? He went to Vietnam when he didn't have to and served his country honorably, even heroically. Bush's daddy pulled strings to get him into the NG and he couldn't even handle that, had to go awol.

I haven't heard any stories of Kerry drunkenly crashing cars or threatening to beat up his father.

How the fuck is Kerry like Bush? I can't stand it when people try to put on this world weary 'oh they're all the same' face. It's just not true.

Where did you find that SAT score at?

Whether that is true or not, he is surrounded by extremely bright people. Rumsfeld not only attended an Ivy League college but did so by SCHOLARSHIP. Many people would just like to be *admitted* to an Ivy League college, but would never dream of doing so by scholarship.

Wolfowitz was Dean of International Relations at Rutgers.

http://www.capmag.com/ represents an atheistic *Right* that I believe is gaining more influence and power every day.

Most of them can be called Social Liberals and Fiscal Conservative.

But Pat Robertson is anathema to them -- and myself.

Notice COPA did not pass

:winkwink:

Diggy, am I going to have to put you my *unable to reason list*?

Iraq could have aided the terrorists indirectly, without having any conscious knowledge or material involvement in the execution of 9/11.

Both Clinton and the inspectors stated that Saddam had WMD that was unaccounted for.

Didn't Rumsfeld get an athletic, rather than academic, scholarship?

Regardless, yes he's a bright guy. So are several of the other neocons, but the fact is that they've built their entire career around bad policy.

Not all republicans are bad. I like John McCain and a few others, but the repubs are not the party of Trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt or The Great Emancipator anymore. The GOP is practically owned, lock stock and barrel, by the religious right. 'Social liberals' have NO power in the GOP and NO say in the direction of the party. Saying you're a social liberal and still a republican is about as smart as being a Log Cabin Republican, which is to say, not very. Democrats are better for the economy than republicans, and the current deficit is shining proof, unless you're the type that wants to blame it on Clinton :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

If you're socially liberal, you have NO REASON at all to be in the GOP, and GWB should be your worst enemy.

yeah except nobody's ever been able to find one shred of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with AQ. Sure, they COULD have. And I could be Queen of England, dreaming about being an online pornographer.

We know he had WMD's at one time, because we still have the receipt from when we sold them to him, but you don't go to war and lose billions of american dollars and thousands of american and iraqi lives because you think he might still have some stockpiles of the stuff we gave him buried in the desert. You don't waste American lives and money unless you're damn sure of what you're doing.

now THIS guy did some RESEARCH!

LOL

It was both, academic and liberal.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by social liberal--it means morally liberal, and has nothing to do with Socialistic programs.

You're wrong about the economy as well, Dig -- Reagan brought the economy back after a terrible recession under Carter.

Jobs are booming right now, and the economy is improving daily.

Kerry has lost all of his running points.

You need to read something besides the Guardian Dig.

The 9/11 commission agrees that there is ample evidence of ties between Al-Quaeda and Saddam.

100 sheep who are too scared of "terrorism" to question their government.

Yes, don't insult Bush by implying that Kerry can be raised to the same level.

Reagan propped up the economy with short term high interest loans that killed the presidency of Bush #1.

Conservatives want to ban Howard Stern from the airwaves. They want to teach kids abstinence and ban Huck Finn. They want prayer in schools and probably before every major sporting event and at every red light. Bush hasn't created ONE job during his Presidency, he's still WAAAAY in the red on jobs. Conservatives want creationism taught in schools instead of evolution. They want to ban stem cell research.

Regarding socialistic programs, you can pay a little now or a lot later. It's cheaper and more productive to fund better education in the ghetto than it is to put them all in prison. It's cheaper to send someone to college for a year than to keep them in jail for a year. If someone can't make enough money working full-time at minimum wage to feed their family, they WILL do crime. I would. The truth is that a lot of these 'socialistic' programs are proven to work, to make a difference for the better, but that means nothing to conservatives.

I could go on and on. There is no room for socially liberal people in the Republican Party, there's no reason for a socially liberal person to be a Republican, just like there's no reason for a gay guy to be a Log Cabin Republican. They don't like you, you have no impact on the agenda of your party. It's like being in the Nazi Party and not hating jews. Who gives a fuck? You're a NAZI.

George Bush isn't fit to lick John Kerry's nutsack. Why don't you tell me ONE way in which Bush is a better man than John Kerry?

WHAT? no they fucking DON'T!! The closest they came is that AQ made overtures to Iraq and got shot down.

Just because I tried to fuck the homecoming queen and she laughed at me, that doesn't mean we had a relationship.

for just a second there, you were starting to seem like someone who might be saved, but then you fucked up.

Have you ever had an original thought Dig?

You merely regurgitate Socialistic dogma from the Liberal grab bag of *feel good* nonsense.

Why do you bother arguing with someone who just repeats what he is told by Rush Limbaugh?

Give up on this one. If you want to convince him, get yourself a Limbaugh mask - he'll believe everything you say without question. :1orglaugh

http://www.fantasyfestival.com/media/9999906877.jpg

You're wrong Dig man.

Read something besides the Guardian.

I see you've abandoned any attempts at reasonable discourse since you discovered on Netpond that you had no talent for it.

Resort to name-calling right? :1orglaugh

As soon as he spoke I'd realize he was too stupid to be Limbaugh.

:1orglaugh

Fiction you haven't said shit that was worth reading or resembled anything besides *go Moore*

You're a mindless fuck.

Thats a lot of "so whats"

This article has has more BS and hyperbole than a ...Michael Moore film!

You would have to boil this article down to 1-2 points per diatribe ....then work on those individual points. ...but its big time biased.

*Biased* has taken on an awfully broad definition as these discussions have progressed.

It seems that biased merely means you have a different point of view, and that there is no objective truth?

You would need to combine that article with several others that also *critique* the film.

Here are some:
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
http://evilpundit.com/archives/004374.html#004318
http://www.moorelies.com/
Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man (new book)
http://moorelies.com/book/
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.hardylaw.net/mental.html (Moore's disorder)
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3760

:eek7 :eek7

How many newsources agree with that statement besides FOX and MSNBC?

Bustit, I don't even know what the Guardian is. I read Salon, Slate, the NYT, Drudgereport and the LA Times every day, and sometimes I follow links out to wherever they take me.

You're just a fucking troll, an idiot. You had me fooled for a half second talking about being socially liberal but surprise surprise you're just a typical Limbaugh shit talker when you get cornered. I shouldn't have wasted my fucking time pretending you were a human being.

I should know by now; conservatives can't be reasoned with, only deported.

The fact of the matter is that reading those three articles does not constitute research. You're simply reading someone else's spin. If you wanted to do research, you would have to exhaust yourself sifting through footage, memos, articles and such to the tune of hundreds of hours. I read the articles, and it's clear that all the writers have a contempt for Michael Moore and his work. I can certainly understand that, he's an incredibly inflammatory filmmaker. Also, having perused a number of articles that Christopher Hitchens and Michael Isikoff have written, neither are liberals, or conservatives for that matter. They're both journalists, ripping apart those that they deem to be stupid, liars, or other unseemly things.

Being a Democrat doesn't make you a Liberal, it simply indicates your general leaning towards certain social and economic policies.

It also seems to me that sperbonzo became what he despises when assumed that all liberals were so thick headed that they wouldn't want to research all sides of a story. Shame.

you mean that fat fucking junkie that turned his hired help into drug dealers? That self righteous piece of shit?

The funniest thing about conservatives are the barely humans you choose for your role models.

christ are you even old enough to post here? get back to the fry-o-later bitch and supersize me.

Trust me, conservatives have been scouring every microsecond of that film looking for anything they can say is a lie. There isn't one in there or it would have been on the front page of the WSJ and Drudge by now.

MM is pissing in their face and there's nothing they can do about it except cry like bitches and call him anti-american. If conservatives had their way in history, we'd all still be bowing to a king. Fucking anti-american, treasonous motherfuckers.

With Bush in office, there is no such thing as objective "truth" - just ask any Republican or your hero Rush. Any lie Bush or Cheney tell is just a mistake or can be interpreted some other way or it might be true someday.

Remember, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are, and Saddam is ready to use within hours once the war starts. Is that truth or a lie?

Watch this video clip of Bush and Cheney, if you aren't afraid to:

http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm

What's true? What's a lie? Who knows when Bush and Cheney are talking?