I prefer not to get involved in talking about politics and religion as people always believe passionately about different things so it only causes arguements :)
Printable View
I prefer not to get involved in talking about politics and religion as people always believe passionately about different things so it only causes arguements :)
All that time you spend there and they never taught you to look at things in prespective or at least spot bullshit when you see it?Quote:
if you had read before, i stated that i was merely talking, hell you could call it musing. Now i am serious. Don't tell me that i am not good at political debate. I have two all-state plaques (sp?) on my wall that say "Oklahoma State Champion, Policy Debate." weird.. these people, these thousands of debaters in oklahoma that i have beaten all think i am somewhat good at it.. but you, who read a thread on the internet, assume that i am not good because of what you read.. i can assure you that if we were in a room, with 3 judges, over a topic, i would slaughter you. Unless of course you have been to The University of Kansas debate camp, the university of Texas's debate camp, for a month. Spent countless hours with senators, supreme court judges (state), coaches, teachers, and philosphers of political theory, you know political scientists, and learned from them, i believe you will have trouble. for i have done all and more of this. thankyou, very much.
please take a look at this thread:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...e&pagenumber=1
Please go through the thread and pay attention to it.
I'll save u a little time:
Those are some quotes i've found disprooving the "Well Documented" facts that moore produced. Are you seriously that blind to see how big of a Liar Michael Moore is? I mean c'mon even the Democrats saw it...thats why they don't want him anywhere near them... How blind can you be? Or are you just embarrased to admit the truth. You boast one more time about your little debate trophy there and I'm going to throw up....I wasn't aware that I needed to go to a particular school to be good at debating with bullshit and try to pass it as facts blindly "debating" about it. Don't automatically assume that you're better than the rest of us in debating neither...Quote:
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
quote:
Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving in Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
quote:
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
quote:
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.
quote:
Early in this segment, Moore states that “only one” member of Congress has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”
Moore’s conclusion is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)
http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/warsignup.htm
Why doesn't Michael Moore sign up with the military and go to Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter? Would he allow his sons and daughters (if he had any) to go to war?
quote:
Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. However:
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
quote:
Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, “insurgents”) in Iraq…or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
You did hours of research on Moore and you couldn't find anything to disproove him? Are you serious? C'mon really get serious or just stop arguing.
....lol you're just sad. Just go clean up your cute little trophy...make sure it doesn't get dust on it.Quote:
Anyone ready for another round cause i am having loads of fun.
ok genius, that was not directed towards anyone else but Tiger Shark who was openly degrading me. I felt i must boast my credentials.Quote:
Ok, you win, I will switch my vote to Kerry. Man I feal better about myself allready.
For another, i like to argue, that is why i debate. that is why i started this thread. I knew something along these lines would happen. this keeps me going, stimulated etc.. particuarly when it is like this.. to where i have many against me, myself, and I.
As for Cybr1d.
Notice, in my last post, that i stated "If any of fahrenheit 9/11 is true, then george bush is a bad president." which went untouched. that is a key part of this argument.Quote:
Those are some quotes i've found disprooving the "Well Documented" facts that moore produced. Are you seriously that blind to see how big of a Liar Michael Moore is? I mean c'mon even the Democrats saw it...thats why they don't want him anywhere near them... How blind can you be? Or are you just embarrased to admit the truth. You boast one more time about your little debate trophy there and I'm going to throw up....I wasn't aware that I needed to go to a particular school to be good at debating with bullshit and try to pass it as facts blindly "debating" about it.
You did hours of research on Moore and you couldn't find anything to disproove him? Are you serious? C'mon really get serious or just stop arguing.
Those things above against michael moore are mere technicalities. Notice that the man does not have a son in iraq. Notice that michael moore deliberatley said "would you send YOUR kid to iraq" blah blah.. big deal he has a nephew in afghanistan, the forgotten country. There isn't **** going on in afghanistan except for our troops rebuilding what little the people there had before we destroyed it. Who cares if there are 102 veterans, that leaves over 400 who aren't. hrm.. so one and four congressman are army vets.. well thats good to know. WHICH Is entirely beside moore's point. Did any of the congressman he asked say they would send their child to fight in iraq? No. that is what he was trying to prove. Not that some family member down the line has fought somewhere. Currently, as to that date, would a congressman send their child to iraq. Besides, thats not even the focus of the movie. He was just adding to it, putting some spice on the movie. Remember again, if moore is right in nearly anything he put in that movie, bush is a bad president and shouldn't be in office.
for the osama bin laden thing, just because moore stated that osama is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't mean he himself thought he was guilty or not guilty. For another, ever hear of sarcasm, or irony even? For another, Bush is the one saying osama bin laden is guilty, not moore. Moore was pointing out that although Bush says osama is guilty, BUSH HAD AND HAS TIES to the bin laden family, and kept them after 9/11. There is definite proof of that. ****ing video footage of bush, bush's daddy etc with the bin ladens. What moore is pointing out is that bush says "yo bin laden you are guilty, but im not going to catch you because i make money off your family, or at least, the very least, the american economy makes money off of your family."
No one seems to be pointing out things such as, you know THE ****ING lack of weapons in iraq. Where are these weapons? Heh, some of which in colin powell's footage turned out to be balloon tanks but no matter. Where are these weapons? Where is hans blix(sp?) etc? No weapons, no justification. The iraqi people are happy yeah, because saddam is a tyrant and we got rid of him. But you know what? we killed thousands of their families in the process.
This is what really crawled up my ass along time ago and has been bugging me ever since. Since when is the United States in charge of policing the entire planet? Why is it our job to ensure that the iraqis, the cubans, or whatever are not in danger of a tyrant? Orwell wringing in anyone's ears? The US has taken over the globe and watches over it for its and its own interests. Other countries, such as britain simply tag along to reap benefits. Saddam had nothing to do with september 11, but bush says he has weapons... so lets disarm him and kill alot of his people.. OK that makes tons of sense, but when we get there... no weapons.. no "evil plans to destroy america"
the "liberated" joyous iraqis that are shown on tv are almost guarenteed those who have not lost family members by bad american bombs. of course i'd be happy if someone took my principal out of school and put someone else in who gives me candy.. but if my friend at school was removed in the process, i wouldn't be happy about it. This is a horrible argument against moore. Simply because he didn't show happy iraqis the war is justified? **** that, if you believe that you are ignorant. The iraqi people on the whole would have rather had their family members stay alive than lose their children, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, nephews, nieces, etc just because george bush felt that he needed to attack iraq because he felt saddam had weapons.
neat. not every democrat "ran" from the film or whatever anyway. There is this little thing called "fear." Some democrats, just like some republicans would have done, shunned the film simply because:Quote:
the Democrats saw it.
a. they didn't want to believe it or
b. they knew there might be a chance that some of the information was misleading or wrong and didn't want to be publicly condemned for it. I would have done the same thing if i need election to satisfy my hunger for power. my thirst for control. But as i don't have either of those, or an election to win, i look at this: Some of it is indeed true, bush is tied to the bin ladens.
notice how this doesn't argue the link between bush and the bin ladens at all, but merely tries to pull a "michael moore" and mislead people into not believing moore by possibly twisting his words. It doesn't matter if moore thinks osama is guilty or not. George ****ing bush thinks bin laden in guilty, apparently. yet won't catch him? Is it really that hard to catch him? I don't think so. We have satellites, spies, every kind of technology or information we need to find anyone on the globe, yet we don't catch bin laden. i wonder why.Quote:
Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. However:
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
No one seems to be arguing the fact that the saudis own what was it, 6% of america? O wait they do.. and most of that is in oil.. o wait.. the president and the vice president, and the presidents family depend or depended on oil ties to the saudis to keep their businesses going. Ha... ha.. ha.
Next, i wasn't boasting about "My little debate trophy." and no you don't have to have one to be credible etc.. i was merely listing my credentials. As i may not sound the best arguer here or some ****, according to tiger shark, i felt that i must show in real life that i am. And that i am being birraded (sp?) by several, people against myself while i am also supposed to be:
reading moby dick.. ugh
reading tess of d'urbervilles ugh.
cleaning my house, etc and doing other chores, but i am here arguing against a small army of you. And it is indeed fun but difficult.
Yes i did hours of research on moore and no i didn't find anything entirely disproving what he said in the movie. Neither have you yet apparently. notice, keyword: entirely. but i digress.
keep it coming, i am indeed having fun.
just remember erok, when you go to vote for kerry, he keeps saying we should send more troops into iraq and at the same time hes saying we're spreading our armed forces to thin. You are of draft age aren't you? and if all the reasons for iraq moore has given are true why is kerry not arainst the war? hes only against the fact that hes not running it.
er0k was your opinion the same before you saw farenheit 9/11? or has it been swayed by moore?
yeah ill be of draft age thursday.
and i don't support kerry. i just really don't support bush and would rather give kerry a chance to screw up his term.
For another, I believe that kerry is subject to what i was explaining earlier. Basically i believe kerry's strategy is that he wants to say whatever he thinks the american people will believe. He probably thinks, that like so many, that the majority of americans won't by fahrenheit 9/11, so he's staying away from or at least looking like he isn't supporting it. All i have to say is that i agree with alot of the things michael moore put on tape, and that bush is a very bad president. as for kerry, who knows, maybe he will surprise me, but i already know what bush has done and is going to do (at least to a certain extent) and thats enough to make me vote for a man who may be bad for us as well.
fyrewall : i have never liked george bush, or his father. im deeply read in imperialistic discourse and philosophy and i believe that the bush's are just venturing for their own "manifest oil destiny"
But yes michael moore did add to my hatred for bush.
Actually THIS following comment was key part to your argument:Quote:
Notice, in my last post, that i stated "If any of fahrenheit 9/11 is true, then george bush is a bad president." which went untouched. that is a key part of this argument.
So according to you EVERY single one of the accusations has to be false for you not to side with a liar like moore. Can you please define for me what "outrageous proof" means to you? You still do not see any misleading from Moore. Then you're either to ignorant, or too stupid to see it. I think you should had that trophy over to someone else...because you suck at it.Quote:
. But until i see some sort of outrageous proof that every last one of his accusations were entirely false, i will side with michael moore.
Sure they're technicalities to you because you deliberately choose not to see the truth and the fact that Moore LIED and the whole movie was set to sway the public againts Bush by misleading them. Afghanistan is the forgoten country? Said who? I sure haven't forgoten about it, the soldiers that are there haven't forgoten it. Maybe you have but don't assume the rest of us have. I care that 1 in 4 congressmen put their lives on the line for the freedom that you and myself enjoy. Obviously you don't give a ****. Just sad. How is it besides moore's point...THATS EXACTLY THE POINT HE"S TRYING TO MAKE YOU FOOL! He enjoys showing the congressmen not wanting to "sacrifice" their sons....would you want to sacrifice YOUR SON? Wait since you're 17 i'll rephrase that...would you want your Father to sacrifice you? If you enlisted in the Army, would you go if you were told to? STop being so god damn stupid. It is a significant part of the movie EROK, pay attention...Quote:
Those things above against michael moore are mere technicalities. Notice that the man does not have a son in iraq. Notice that michael moore deliberatley said "would you send YOUR kid to iraq" blah blah.. big deal he has a nephew in afghanistan, the forgotten country. There isn't **** going on in afghanistan except for our troops rebuilding what little the people there had before we destroyed it. Who cares if there are 102 veterans, that leaves over 400 who aren't. hrm.. so one and four congressman are army vets.. well thats good to know. WHICH Is entirely beside moore's point. Did any of the congressman he asked say they would send their child to fight in iraq? No. that is what he was trying to prove. Not that some family member down the line has fought somewhere. Currently, as to that date, would a congressman send their child to iraq. Besides, thats not even the focus of the movie. He was just adding to it, putting some spice on the movie. Remember again, if moore is right in nearly anything he put in that movie, bush is a bad president and shouldn't be in office.
Sorry i didn't hear Bush saying "yo bin laden you are guilty".....so don't quote him if it wasn't said that way.Quote:
"yo bin laden you are guilty, but im not going to catch you because i make money off your family, or at least, the very least, the american economy makes money off of your family."
Is it really that hard to move them? Do you even consider the fact that the weapons were moved before we went in Iraq? We are still looking for the weapons. I believe they found 3 warheads in Iraq recently, but we're waiting to be validated so I'm not going to voucher for that. Relax btw...no need to get angry...we're merely having a nice little debate.Quote:
No one seems to be pointing out things such as, you know THE ****ING lack of weapons in iraq. Where are these weapons? Heh, some of which in colin powell's footage turned out to be balloon tanks but no matter. Where are these weapons? Where is hans blix(sp?) etc? No weapons, no justification. The iraqi people are happy yeah, because saddam is a tyrant and we got rid of him. But you know what? we killed thousands of their families in the process.
Since we became the #1 superpower in the world. Does that naswer your question. We're one of the few countries that can do something about a problem. It is our job because we cannot just sit down and watch someone like Saddam continue his killing and torturing. The US has not "Taken_over" the world...but its presence is felt everywhere because it is a superpower...I hope this is the last time I repeat this. The US was not the only country that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush was not the only person that said Saddam had WMDs. Your little John Kerry also said that Saddam had WMDs...why don't you get pissed at that as well? The rest of the EU (you know the coalition that Kerry wants to bend over backwards for) agreed/said that Saddam had WMDs...so stop bitching about it.Quote:
This is what really crawled up my ass along time ago and has been bugging me ever since. Since when is the United States in charge of policing the entire planet? Why is it our job to ensure that the iraqis, the cubans, or whatever are not in danger of a tyrant? Orwell wringing in anyone's ears? The US has taken over the globe and watches over it for its and its own interests. Other countries, such as britain simply tag along to reap benefits. Saddam had nothing to do with september 11, but bush says he has weapons... so lets disarm him and kill alot of his people.. OK that makes tons of sense, but when we get there... no weapons.. no "evil plans to destroy america"
Why show only the sad little iraqis and the killed Iraqis when you can show both sides of the story and see something positive come out of the whole thing. Unless of course you're trying to be a little bitch and purpously misguide the viewer of your documentary...if you believe that wasn't Moore's intention you're a dumbass, plain and simple.Quote:
the "liberated" joyous iraqis that are shown on tv are almost guarenteed those who have not lost family members by bad american bombs. of course i'd be happy if someone took my principal out of school and put someone else in who gives me candy.. but if my friend at school was removed in the process, i wouldn't be happy about it. This is a horrible argument against moore. Simply because he didn't show happy iraqis the war is justified? **** that, if you believe that you are ignorant. The iraqi people on the whole would have rather had their family members stay alive than lose their children, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, nephews, nieces, etc just because george bush felt that he needed to attack iraq because he felt saddam had weapons.
Its called common sense, some have it, some don't. You seem to have some, but do not show any sign of it...still waiting to see some. Some realized how much Bullshit was involved in this movie. Some of them (without much common sense)(YOU) believed everything in the movie, without thinking about it for a second there....and now you're over here Barking....Quote:
neat. not every democrat "ran" from the film or whatever anyway. There is this little thing called "fear." Some democrats, just like some republicans would have done, shunned the film simply because:
The quote mainly concentrated on the second sentence...pay attention and read it carefully.Quote:
notice how this doesn't argue the link between bush and the bin ladens at all, but merely tries to pull a "michael moore" and mislead people into not believing moore by possibly twisting his words. It doesn't matter if moore thinks osama is guilty or not. George ****ing bush thinks bin laden in guilty, apparently. yet won't catch him? Is it really that hard to catch him? I don't think so. We have satellites, spies, every kind of technology or information we need to find anyone on the globe, yet we don't catch bin laden. i wonder why.
Its called Capitalism brother, learn about it.Quote:
No one seems to be arguing the fact that the saudis own what was it, 6% of america? O wait they do.. and most of that is in oil.. o wait.. the president and the vice president, and the presidents family depend or depended on oil ties to the saudis to keep their businesses going. Ha... ha.. ha.
You seem to have some sort of grudge inside you about something that has happened to you in your life, irrelevant and unrelated to this argument, so we'd all appreciate it if you kept them for yourself...Whats your goal in this argument, to sound like you're the best "arguer" or to prove a point? Get your goals straightend out and you're more than welcome to jump back in here.Quote:
Next, i wasn't boasting about "My little debate trophy." and no you don't have to have one to be credible etc.. i was merely listing my credentials. As i may not sound the best arguer here or some ****, according to tiger shark, i felt that i must show in real life that i am. And that i am being birraded (sp?) by several, people against myself while i am also supposed to be:
reading moby dick.. ugh
reading tess of d'urbervilles ugh.
cleaning my house, etc and doing other chores, but i am here arguing against a small army of you. And it is indeed fun but difficult.
So I assume, by using your logic, that if I 99% of the movie is false, you'll continue to side with Moore because its not "Entirely" disprooven. Even though some lies are clearly shown?Quote:
Yes i did hours of research on moore and no i didn't find anything entirely disproving what he said in the movie. Neither have you yet apparently. notice, keyword: entirely. but i digress.
Go do some more research and rethink your argument. You're doing a really bad job at it so far. I'm curious how you won that trophy...Is it really that easy or did you just argue with some numbskulls who wouldn't know how to tie their shoes?
I'll be leaving work soon, Hopefully I'll see a smarter argument from your side in the next 30-45 minutes.
Good Luck.
ok i was just curious ... :) havent seen farenheit 9/11 yet
Yes every single one has to be false. For instance: The bin laden ties to bush. that is one part of the movie. if that is not proven false, than michael moore suceeded. You are discrediting michael moore entirely because he possibly misguided people in some parts of the movie. I am saying, if some of it is true, than it is worth paying attention to, and worth persecuting bush over it. You are saying, if some of it is false, all of it is. You are being the cynic here, a true *******. One thing i've noticed about you kind of people is that you don't argue for your cause, you argue for yourself, and take shots at others in the process unnecessarily. I could be rude, and make deliberate fun out of your posts, etc. but i choose not to. therefore i am the better person which leaves a smile on my face.Quote:
So according to you EVERY single one of the accusations has to be false for you not to side with a liar like moore. You still do not see any misleading from Moore. Then you're either to ignorant, or too stupid to see it. I think you should had that trophy over to someone else...because you suck at it.
the part about afghanistan being the forgotten country was a smartass comment by me. The "soldiers in afghanistan" are just cleaning up. So quit throwing a pity party for them. I'm saying we are focused on Iraq, therefore we forgot about afghanistan, meaning that it is not "The current national focus" as iraq is. You pick out little things in my text that aren't even points to be argued.Quote:
Sure they're technicalities to you because you deliberately choose not to see the truth and the fact that Moore LIED and the whole movie was set to sway the public againts Bush by misleading them. Afghanistan is the forgoten country? Said who? I sure haven't forgoten about it, the soldiers that are there haven't forgoten it. Maybe you have but don't assume the rest of us have. I care that 1 in 4 congressmen put their lives on the line for the freedom that you and myself enjoy. Obviously you don't give a ****. Just sad. How is it besides moore's point...THATS EXACTLY THE POINT HE"S TRYING TO MAKE YOU FOOL! He enjoys showing the congressmen not wanting to "sacrifice" their sons....would you want to sacrifice YOUR SON? Wait since you're 17 i'll rephrase that...would you want your Father to sacrifice you? If you enlisted in the Army, would you go if you were told to? STop being so god damn stupid. It is a significant part of the movie EROK, pay attention...
And no, Michael Moores point in the movie was not to show the world that congressman don't want to send their kids to iraq. His point was to show us that bush is a very bad man. <- you know what i mean by that don't come back and say something totally irrelevant to the argument.
For another, if i was drafted, i would go to prison before i go to iraq, just like that corporal who said that he would do the same if he had to go over and do/witness the injustice. btw you never argued that point. convienient for you eh?
again you pick out irrelevant things, that was me saying "This is how bush feels, that bin laden is guilty." stop wasting your own time trying to look smart misinterpreting my rhetoric.Quote:
Sorry i didn't hear Bush saying "yo bin laden you are guilty".....so don't quote him if it wasn't said that way.
Umm yes it is hard to move weapons when we are supposed to be watching iraq like a hawk on a mouse with our "130,000 + troops there, our satellites, our radar, etc." wake up. Iraq can't move under our grip. 3 warheads eh? possibly three ****ing warheads? amazing, wonder what type of warheads these are, bet you they aren't even iraqs. for another, how easy is it for us to place warheads in iraq and say they are theirs. Incredibly. Considering the saudi's dont want to get in trouble, the bush's, and the other countries.. how can you not expect them to end up being right? They will find away, for those in power are always right.Quote:
Is it really that hard to move them? Do you even consider the fact that the weapons were moved before we went in Iraq? We are still looking for the weapons. I believe they found 3 warheads in Iraq recently, but we're waiting to be validated so I'm not going to voucher for that. Relax btw...no need to get angry...we're merely having a nice little debate.
WOULD YOU PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD QUIT ACTING LIKE IM ON MY KNEES FOR KERRY. I DON't SUPPORT THE MAN. UGh. GOD..Quote:
Since we became the #1 superpower in the world. Does that naswer your question. We're one of the few countries that can do something about a problem. It is our job because we cannot just sit down and watch someone like Saddam continue his killing and torturing. The US has not "Taken_over" the world...but its presence is felt everywhere because it is a superpower...I hope this is the last time I repeat this. The US was not the only country that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush was not the only person that said Saddam had WMDs. Your little John Kerry also said that Saddam had WMDs...why don't you get pissed at that as well? The rest of the EU (you know the coalition that Kerry wants to bend over backwards for) agreed/said that Saddam had WMDs...so stop bitching about it.
no it is not our job to police the globe. im sorry, but its not. no matter how powerful we are. if it is, why haven't we invaded the hundreds of countries (small) with dictators etc? O wait.. no oil, no money involved thats why we haven't taken over those countries. And how the **** would Kerry know if saddam has wmd's? particulary if bush, nor the weapons inspectors, or hell, anyone even know. I bet you saddam doesn't even know.
you completely disregarded everything i said. just go back and re-read my argument. as for moore's intention, his intention was to make money and to inevitably create controversy, spark thought into the young, future rulers of the free world, which he hasn't done to you apparently.Quote:
Why show only the sad little iraqis and the killed Iraqis when you can show both sides of the story and see something positive come out of the whole thing. Unless of course you're trying to be a little bitch and purpously misguide the viewer of your documentary...if you believe that wasn't Moore's intention you're a dumbass, plain and simple.
you are saying i dont have common sense because i don't stand up for what i believe is right? Wow. You are something else. and no, i didn't believe EVERYTHING in the movie, thankyou. stop making dumb-founded assumptions.Quote:
Its called common sense, some have it, some don't. You seem to have some, but do not show any sign of it...still waiting to see some. Some realized how much Bullshit was involved in this movie. Some of them (without much common sense)(YOU) believed everything in the movie, without thinking about it for a second there....and now you're over here Barking....
what that he had an onstage debate with moore? great. i knew that. re-read my argument again for you are the one not paying attention.Quote:
The quote mainly concentrated on the second sentence...pay attention and read it carefully.
ah so you believe that bush has ties and that the saudi's own 6% of america. Bet you didn't know that before michael moore made his movie. Moore 1 you 0 .Quote:
Its called Capitalism brother, learn about it.
And yes thankyou, i know capitalism quite well. Does that mean i want my leader of my country to have terrorists (supposed) invest in my country? If you support bush and believe he has ties to the bin ladens, you should be committed, or at least change your views. barking.
no, no grudge. sorry. the only grudge i have is against tiger shark and you now whom seem to think you are better than me. which is cute. really cute. my goal in this argument is to have a heated discussion over michael moore, president bush, and him being re-elected. Thats funny how you "allow" me to jump back into "my own thread."Quote:
You seem to have some sort of grudge inside you about something that has happened to you in your life, irrelevant and unrelated to this argument, so we'd all appreciate it if you kept them for yourself...Whats your goal in this argument, to sound like you're the best "arguer" or to prove a point? Get your goals straightend out and you're more than welcome to jump back in here.
You know what dipshit, considering your uber-intelligence, you have not proven a damn thing in this entire thread. Which is funny, considering that i have, or at least have not been disproven. my job as the starter of the thread is to instigate something to talk about and you argue. I don't introduce new discussion, etc. i merely negate yours and defend mine. The rules of debate buddy, one side attacks, and one side defends. I still have arguments that have went un-refuted, which still stand. I still have arguments that are truthful, and undeniable. And yes, if 99% of the movie is false, but that 1 part about bush being tied into the bin laden's is true, then i will side with michael moore, and if you respect your country, you should as well.Quote:
So I assume, by using your logic, that if I 99% of the movie is false, you'll continue to side with Moore because its not "Entirely" disprooven. Even though some lies are clearly shown?
Go do some more research and rethink your argument. You're doing a really bad job at it so far. I'm curious how you won that trophy...Is it really that easy or did you just argue with some numbskulls who wouldn't know how to tie their shoes?
I'll be leaving work soon, Hopefully I'll see a smarter argument from your side in the next 30-45 minutes.
Good Luck.
O and let me tell you, those people i debated were definitley complete morons. You know, the greatest young minds of the state, all few thousand of them that compete. every last one of them is retarded. In fact, i debated in the special olympics, how does that sound? whats funny is that you don't realize that you are losing the argument. Big time. My facts are supported, my points have been made. Michael moore was correct about bush in some points if not alot in that movie, and that simply because he may have lied about some parts of his movie doesn't give reason to discredit the entire thing. Kerry doesnt have a god damned thing to do with this. I dont support kerry. never did. i support the removal of bush from office, which is what i hope to dear god and you should to in the next election. Like i've said before we will look back on bush as a very dark time in american history, and it will be something like slavery, ie something we are ashamed of, i can promise you this. Your great grandchildren will think you a loon. whils't mine will be saying that i was one of the few who stood by what is right and what is difficult, while yours will be saying "well my great grandad wanted to send troops to a country to kill people for no proven reason, and kill thousands for no proven reason, and have some of their own die for no proven reason." until you show me proof that there was justified cause of attacking iraq and killing those innocent people, eat a dick and give up.