Michael Moore...love him or hate him?

[Blue Aurora]

I figured that if I were to put this topic in the General Discussions forum, things would get a tad heaty there, so I'm putting it here.

For me, I like this guy, he knows how to expose things. Sure, he might twist the truth, but at the very least he doesn't lie (unlike George W. Bush). He managed to expose the reporter who wrote that Bush was winning...and it turned out to be one of Bush heinious relatives. He's a very resourceful, funny guy.

Who here agrees? Who here absolutely likes or abruptly despises and loathes him?

[Wow Your Ugly]

Completley disagree. My cousin saw him speak and told me about him. My very liberal anti Bush cousin. He told me that all he ranted and screamed about was about how Bush sucks, and provided no evidence or proof. But then my cousin said Fahrenheit 911 rocked, so he still likes Michael Moore. But personally I think he is a ranting person, who needs to be punched. And 1 more thing. I also feel Bush did NOT lie, and was misinformed like the rest of us.

[nilloC]

He's an asshole. And should die. Jesus, he... Just pisses me off.

It's not that he twists the truth. He uses the truth alright. He just blows it extrememly out of proportion, and denies the other parts of the fact that are USEFUL.

[Wow Your Ugly]

He's an asshole. And should die. Jesus, he... Just pisses me off.

It's not that he twists the truth. He uses the truth alright. He just blows it extrememly out of proportion, and denies the other parts of the fact that are USEFUL.

I agree! But that is interesting... Aren't you a Democrat? Or am I a ranting moron?

[nilloC]

I'm pretty liberal, yes. :p

[Wow Your Ugly]

I'm pretty liberal, yes. :p

I have never come across a liberal who does not like Michael Moore other then my cousin.

[Artificial Idiot]

Politicians can't afford to be misinformed in times of war. They can't afford to make mistakes on something so serious. It's just pissing me off that Bush and Blair supporters are trying to brush this under the carpet. The process was rushed. Things weren't checked as closely as they should have been, and the international voice WASN'T heard. Chances are if they'd have cooled off a bit and not been so eager to get to war, we wouldn't be in such a mess as we are now. But hey, it's happened now. And I'm glad at least Blair has dug himself a grave he can't crawl out of... even if he did try to ruin the BBC in the process. bastard. :|

Anyway, as for Moore... there's only one Moore I like, and his name isn't Micheal :p

If nothing else, Bowling for Columbine was a good laugh. Especially when he went around opening the doors of those Canadians... and the cartoon! That was great! :D

And it did bring up one interesting point... why doesn't anyone ever blame bowling for mass murders? It's a brutal game.... think of all those pins that are savaged on a daily basis... :shifty:

[Aircraftkiller]

The international voice was heard. Why do you think we have about 30 nations helping us, if not more?

The only "large" nations that didn't want to go along with this, and were highly vocal about it, were the ones being paid off by Saddam during the Oil for Food scandal. Russia, Germany, France... That's just one reason. Don't forget the oil ties with Russia and France to Saddam, or the weapons contracts that Saddam got going with the French.

This war was not rushed. It was twelve years in the making. Saddam lost the first Gulf War, we never ended it. We have had every right to invade for any reason whatsoever for the past 12 years.

[Artificial Idiot]

TWELVE YEARS IN THE MAKING! HOLY FRAG! :lol:

If that's the best America can come up with in TWELVE YEARS PLANNING, then thank GRUD I live in Engla... wait.

[Time2ki1l]

He's an asshole. And should die. Jesus, he... Just pisses me off.

[Madge]

I'm pretty liberal, yes. :p


I wouldn't say that you were that pretty of a liberal:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Majmun/nilloCsister.jpg

[Malebranche]

The international voice was heard. Why do you think we have about 30 nations helping us, if not more?

The only "large" nations that didn't want to go along with this, and were highly vocal about it, were the ones being paid off by Saddam during the Oil for Food scandal. Russia, Germany, France... That's just one reason. Don't forget the oil ties with Russia and France to Saddam, or the weapons contracts that Saddam got going with the French.

This war was not rushed. It was twelve years in the making. Saddam lost the first Gulf War, we never ended it. We have had every right to invade for any reason whatsoever for the past 12 years.
Yes, in the first war Saddam was wrong. But now, Bush invade a country using false evidences. Who's wrong now?
And I looked the list of helping countries. Most are poor nations wanting some help, one offered an army of monkeys to deactivate mines.
And about ties, do you know the ties between the Bush and the Bin Laden?

[Marxman123]

Lol, I hate Mike Moore. He's so anti-American. If he said the things he's saying now in other countries about them then they would shoot him. In Canada, they would kill him, in Iraq they would kill him. If he went to France, they'd surrender... :p

[SirSnake]

The international voice was heard. Why do you think we have about 30 nations helping us, if not more?

The only "large" nations that didn't want to go along with this, and were highly vocal about it, were the ones being paid off by Saddam during the Oil for Food scandal. Russia, Germany, France... That's just one reason. Don't forget the oil ties with Russia and France to Saddam, or the weapons contracts that Saddam got going with the French.

This war was not rushed. It was twelve years in the making. Saddam lost the first Gulf War, we never ended it. We have had every right to invade for any reason whatsoever for the past 12 years.



the thing about that is, officially countries may have helped, but a lot of people in those countries didnt want the war to go ahead.

the vast majority of british people didnt want the war to go ahead, at least, not in the manner that it did.
officially of course, the voice of britain was supporting, so its not the US's fault, its our govenments fault, but hey, isnt that always the way?

[GMP]

No Moore lies!

The man spouts out crap like the asshole he is.

[Massacure]

Of course Michael Moore spews a bunch of left wing crap, but there are plenty of people who spew right wing crap as well.

Let the wings do what they want, the general public won't pay much attention to them. Raising objections about it, will just make it worse.

[Aircraftkiller]

the thing about that is, officially countries may have helped, but a lot of people in those countries didnt want the war to go ahead.

But now, Bush invade a country using false evidences. Who's wrong now?

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/pw_sign_19.gif

[SirSnake]

at least, not in the manner that it did.



:rolleyes:


done quote me out of context please. it all fits together.

i didnt say the war wasnt wanted to go ahead at all, just simply the way it was done, and the reasons why we went, was more based on fictionary WMD, rather than the kurds.

[Artificial Idiot]

Ssh, don't talk about Kurds too much. They'll add it to the excu... I mean "valid reasons for war" list. :p

[wargrudge]

Read the book "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David T. Hardy & Jason Clarke. That book shows just how much M.M. twisted the truth, and made up his own truths to sell his movies.

[tagbert]

It's politics. No one tells the truth exactly as it is. They twist it, leave out details, exaggerate, Michael Moore isn't the first and he won't be the last.

[Artificial Idiot]

At least Moore is only doing it as a film maker, and not actually doing it in power...

But then, nobody seems to mind that. :rolleyes:

[SirSnake]

At least Moore is only doing it as a film maker, and not actually doing it in power...

But then, nobody seems to mind that. :rolleyes:



ironic really.


but when democracy comes down to voting between two people based more on what you think of them rather than what they stand for, nothing else is to be expected.

[VO]

ironic really.


but when democracy comes down to voting between two people based more on what you think of them rather than what they stand for, nothing else is to be expected.

Ever since the Ancient Greeks put spheres in urns to vote, we've all known that politics is a load of balls. :rolleyes: :p

[SirSnake]

well plato had some good ideas, atristotle,


apart from that, pretty much yeah

oh, except for karl marx, now *he* had some great ideas!

[Aircraftkiller]

i didnt say the war wasnt wanted to go ahead at all, just simply the way it was done, and the reasons why we went, was more based on fictionary WMD, rather than the kurds.

Then why didn't you say that to begin with?

Oh, and yeah - Marxism is great.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/pw_sign_4.gif

[SirSnake]

Then why didn't you say that to begin with?

Oh, and yeah - Marxism is great.



my apologies, it was implied. :)



well tbh, i was slight joking, but in actual fact, it was stalinism, not marxism. marxism has *never* existed, given that it would have to occur from a revolution from a capatalist society, and of course its only occured from an agircutural society.

really what killed most of them was some warped guys who were making a mockery of communism.
all the same, marx does have *some* good ideas, but a lot are rather odd.

[nilloC]

Oh, and yeah - Marxism is great.


Marxism/Communism are both great ideas. Unfortunately, you forgot the fact that the governments that used them made a great posterchild for the "Evil Commies!!11!" Fear that most people have... Oh well I guess.

[Aircraftkiller]

Great ideas don't flow against the grain of human nature. Man is meant to better himself and work to eat and live. The more he works, the more he gains. This is the system capitalism is based on, and that's why most versions of capitalism work so well.

Communism does not work well. Capitalism takes into account the corruptability of the human element. Communism does not. No good idea involves someone sitting on their ass getting free food for doing nothing.

[Statalyzer]

I hate Moore because he's all about himself. He's not out there crusading for a cause he believes in with all his heart. He's out there just to stir up all the crap he possibly can to get all the money, fame, and attention he possibly can.

[Chuckie]

moore blows dogs for quarters......'nuff said.



Thanks KO :D

[KrasnyOktyabr]

You're welcome Chuckie... :p

[Fenring]

I just find this completely ironic. Everyone here enjoys freedom of speech but the second someone says something they don't like, you're all like, "He needs to be kicked/hurt/mangled/etc." or "He shouldn't be allowed on TV." Isn't that a little hypocritical?

I don't like his opinions either but I would never say he should be taken off the air or his videos destroyed or whatever.

[Statalyzer]

He doesn't deserve to be kicked/beaten/etc because we don't believe in free speech. He deseves to be kicked/beaten/etc because he's an idiot asshole, and because this a flamerz forum and we tend to exaggerate a bit (just a bit, mind you). I don't really think he deserves torture for being radicially liberal, and I doubt anyone else thinks that either.

1st Amendment = you have the right to say stupid crap. :rant:

[Wow Your Ugly]

If I saw him walking down my street, I would personally go up to him, kick him in his nuts, and throw him in my pool. Following that I would start to drown him repeatedly. Then I take him out and tie him up against a tree where I get to fully use my airsoft gun! and rotten eggs! Then I set my hound loose on him, and let my dad have a go on him to.

NOTE: If there are any law enforcement officials reading this I would just like to announce I do not wish to do any of these things.

[Fenring]

Stat, there are TONS of idiots on TV. I mean, the whole Republican party for instance but that's beside the point. He has his views and you have your own. You're not to condemn someone for having a radically different view than yours. His approach might not be great but he should not be harmed for radical opinions. Besides, that's how got where we are today: radical opinions.

[Statalyzer]

but he should not be harmed for radical opinions.

You must have missed the point where I said I don't seriously believe he deserves to be beaten for his beliefs. :rolleyes:

[Aircraftkiller]

Fenring, you're guilty of what you accuse others of. Try not to judge people so quickly.

[Massacure]

Hehe, Sinclair, who owns 63 airway stations, is planning on running a propaganda piece similar to Michael Moore's, except to bash Kerry. Their stock is down 21% since they announced their decision.

Talk about suicide.

[prodigalson83]

love em or hate em, hes got more money than me and you for doing something hes good at. but its still fun to hate on people, so he's a bonehead!!

[Fenring]

You love that word, don't ps83? :p

But I digress, I have to agree.

[prodigalson83]

its much more elequent that mother*ucker...and i dont have to censor myself. lets say it like this...i like bonehead as much as you like quoting the dictionary ;) and whats funner than hating on people who are doing better than you? not too much.

[Fenring]

What's better? Watching Cops is better! There's nothing better than watching poor white trash for 30 minutes. :lol:

I only quote the dictionary when I need a definition and that's not often.

Besides, mother*****er is a perfectly good word. :p

[prodigalson83]

but mother*ucker is too generic. i need some flavor in my words, and bonehead is nice for that. and yes, cops is probaly better than hating. dont forget about the poor black trash either! they share the starring role with the white guys.

[Fenring]

But now you're racist. :rolleyes: Well, that's what the PC Police would have you believe. <_<

[prodigalson83]

lucky for me, i couldnt care less about PC, right? black people, white people, yellow people, and even if there were purple people, act stupid and commit crimes. i grew up in a majority white place, but it was poor and run down, so there was as much fighting and dealing as there is in the black hoods. PC is a load of crap too. i think everyone is equally stupid. except me, of course. and BTW, i hate you, but we seem to dislike the way things are going in the world today, so now i dont hate you. alright!!:)

[Fenring]

Um, yeah. How can you hate me then not hate me? I'm confused. :|

We should get the PC Police on Michael Moore. :p

[prodigalson83]

well, i didnt like you for a while because you hated on me, even though you can clearly see that im not to serious around here, and you seemed to have taken me very seriously. but that was then. i was expecting you to hate on me again, but you didnt, so i was swayed. and micheal moore...i hate that guy. not because of his beleifs, but because he better off than me :lol: and PC, whats the definition of that? heres mine..

PC. crap.
a tool used by people to sue other people when they piss each other off.

[Fenring]

PC = political correctness :|

[prodigalson83]

PC = political correctness :|
dude, i know what it means, cmon man. i was being sarcastic.

[Fenring]

So was I. ;)

[prodigalson83]

so you agree? mike moore is a bonehead. and we hate him? i hope so.

[Statalyzer]

PC. crap.
a tool used by people to sue other people when they piss each other off.

It's main problem isn't lawsuits. It's how it fosters intolerance in disguise as tolerance and acceptance.

[GMP]

The man is against big business.......what the hell?

[weezl]

Ssh, don't talk about Kurds too much. They'll add it to the excu... I mean "valid reasons for war" list. :p

how dare you?

Gassing the Kurds was an act of unmitigated evil. Ass.

Then why didn't you say that to begin with?

Oh, and yeah - Marxism is great.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/pw_sign_4.gif

Dude, I seriously like your attitude.

[Illyria]

And yet how often was the Kurdish element cited as a reason for going to war in Iraq? Granted it was wrong, but the reason for war wasn't to "liberate the Kurds from their oppressors." And I'll assume you meant you liked his opinion since usually people don't commend others for using sarcasm.

[weezl]

my apologies, it was implied. :)



well tbh, i was slight joking, but in actual fact, it was stalinism, not marxism. marxism has *never* existed, given that it would have to occur from a revolution from a capatalist society, and of course its only occured from an agircutural society.

really what killed most of them was some warped guys who were making a mockery of communism.
all the same, marx does have *some* good ideas, but a lot are rather odd.

This is the old saw. That marxism has never seen a real test, so lets keep trying! Marxism and communism have their root in a big fantasy about human nature, that folks will simply contribute to a society without some type of incentive other than 'lets make a great system'. And in the 80 years that marxism has been tried, all the 'pure' experiments in it have ended up in millions dying. How in the hell can that ever be good?? I hate to bring you this message, but studying history is actually good for something! You get to learn what works and what doesn't! And communism/marxism doesn't! Wake up!

Great ideas don't flow against the grain of human nature. Man is meant to better himself and work to eat and live. The more he works, the more he gains. This is the system capitalism is based on, and that's why most versions of capitalism work so well.

Communism does not work well. Capitalism takes into account the corruptability of the human element. Communism does not. No good idea involves someone sitting on their ass getting free food for doing nothing.

I totally agree. Capitalism gives people the freedom to fail, which causes the desire to succeed. That simple motivation is what makes capitalism tick.

And yet how often was the Kurdish element cited as a reason for going to war in Iraq? Granted it was wrong, but the reason for war wasn't to "liberate the Kurds from their oppressors." And I'll assume you meant you liked his opinion since usually people don't commend others for using sarcasm.

Don't put words into my mouth.

My opinion goes like this:

Before the war in Iraq, these reasons were put to the American people:

Harsh Regime
Defying UN Mandates
WMD
Killed Kurds
Invaded border countries
Funding Terrorists.

I don't know what you read in the papers and heard on news reports, but that is what I heard and read.

Everyone likes to quote 'no WMDs' and say that they were misled, and therefore we shouldn't have gone. So we still haven't found WMDs, big freakin deal. Its not the only reason we went, and the Pres and his cabinet said so, many times. It ain't my problem that everyone has such a selective memory of the events.

I personally believe this stupid chant was started by folks that want it to seem that way in an effort to discredit the current administration (with a long term goal seeing a democrat in the US White House), but I pay closer attention to all the news than most average Americans, who are easily fooled by such tripe because they don't pay such close attention and get their news in 15 minute bursts via TV.

[Illyria]

Well there you go. As I only heard/read about some of those things. Mostly WMD and terrorist funding (probably due to the recent terrorist attacks, it makes sense to focus on this aspect) but also on the harsh regime, border countries, and a bit on the UN mandates (probably less because the UN seems to hold little real power) as well as a bit on the Kurds. But a lot less on the latter two. So while I did hear/read the Kurds as a reason, it was much less prominent for me than other reasons. But maybe you saw plenty of headlines about the Kurds.

Great ideas don't flow against the grain of human nature. Man is meant to better himself and work to eat and live. The more he works, the more he gains. This is the system capitalism is based on, and that's why most versions of capitalism work so well.

Communism does not work well. Capitalism takes into account the corruptability of the human element. Communism does not. No good idea involves someone sitting on their ass getting free food for doing nothing.

Not saying I disagree with you here, but what capitalism seems to really take into account is the laziness of humans. In communism a person who does nothing, as you say, still reaps the benefits of others, whereas in capitalism they will fail. But capitalism can still fall prey to corruption, and there are many people who can work their hardest and not move up into higher echelons at their work place. Some corporations use their position to influence politics unfairly.

You're citing as examples of failed communism/Marxism the mass murders, but those were the failings of Stalinism and the sort. Communism falls victim to laziness and people taking advantage of others which is without a doubt bad, but not on the level of millions being killed. Compared with the flaws in capitalism, communism may not be Heaven-sent, but it's at least on somewhat even footing.

I guess my point here is that both systems have their flaws, and what it really comes down to is whether you'd rather have a system that encourages work or encourages equality; not an easy choice.

[Madcap_Magician]

At least Moore is only doing it as a film maker, and not actually doing it in power...

But then, nobody seems to mind that. :rolleyes:

The scary thing is, films ARE power.

[Statalyzer]

Well there you go. As I only heard/read about some of those things. Mostly WMD and terrorist funding (probably due to the recent terrorist attacks, it makes sense to focus on this aspect) but also on the harsh regime, border countries, and a bit on the UN mandates (probably less because the UN seems to hold little real power) as well as a bit on the Kurds. But a lot less on the latter two. So while I did hear/read the Kurds as a reason, it was much less prominent for me than other reasons. But maybe you saw plenty of headlines about the Kurds.

I doubt it, the media didn't have many headlines about the Kurds. The order of how often you heard those reasons is in the order the media placed on them; even though all reasons were given, they didn't concentrate on them all anywhere near equally.

[CrowRbot]

I doubt it, the media didn't have many headlines about the Kurds. The order of how often you heard those reasons is in the order the media placed on them; even though all reasons were given, they didn't concentrate on them all anywhere near equally.

the possible acquisition or development of wmds in iraq was a primary (though hardly the only) reason for the war occurring when it did. if the plight of the kurds and saddam's treachery were the driving forces of the attacks, why didn't we invade iraq when we had the chance in 1991? we had the support of the people, they were revolting against his rule. we knew he gassed kurds, and we knew he was a vicious ruler, heck, he had demonstrated to us that he was a threat to the stability of the region- shouldn't that have been enough to invade and depose him, and to try him for crimes against humanity? instead we let him reassert control over his country and kept up these cat-and-mouse games for 12 years.

iraqis had to suffer another 12 years of rule under him AND 12 years of economic sanctions because of our inaction back then. before the 1991 war iraq had the second best health care system in the middle east- where is that now? if we drove into iraq in '91 and deposed him, iraq would likely be in much better shape than it is now.

[Toxic10x]

yeah, I still have confidence we can rebuild the place better than it ever was, despite how "chaotic" most liberals claim post-war Iraq to be.

Anyway, I saw Michael Moore speak at Penn State while I was there this weekend and wrote up a livejournal entry about it. Here's what I had to say...

------
Well folks, I just returned from hearing Michael Moore speak to a crowd of about 10,000 here at Penn State (I'll recap the PSU trip in another entry when I return). Advanced apologies to the uber-liberals amongst you, but I've seldom been fed more rhetorical B.S. than I recieved during Moore's speech. The man simply appeals to the prejudices most liberals already have, without actually making any points of his own. He is sensational, loud, bombastic, and often excessively animated just to pull a reaction out of the crowd. He is not a thinker, he is a cheerleader.
I gathered basically the same impression of him I did after I saw "Bowling For Columbine." He talks to people involved in the issues, he mentions related events, and he presents touchy subjects, but he fails to actually make any solid points. In the two hours during which he carried on this evening, he made maybe two legitimate points. That takes two minutes, not two hours. Most annoying perhaps, was the fact that he carried on about how the media brainwashes us all with a conservative skew, while he preaches to a crowd that he himself has thoroughly brainwashed.
I'm kind of just ranting now, but it annoys me that a guy who brings so little to the table is so popular and carries so much sway. I'm not a hardcore conservative (I'm mostly liberal on social issues, mostly conservative on economics and foreign policy) but this demagogue fails to pull me any further too the left.
---------

I think the most important thing I said there was that he is not a thinker, but a cheerleader. The real annoying thing is that the sneaky mother tries to pass himself off as a thinker. He has nothing to say, but he fools people in to thinking he's a genious, because he targets an audience who want to think he is.

anyway, what else have we got here...

No good idea involves someone sitting on their ass getting free food for doing nothing.
aye- tell that to the democrats! One big reason why I'm conservative in regards to economics is because the democrats like to give money to the poor, which isn't exactly good motivation to get your ass in gear and get a steady job. The Repubs, on the other hand, like to give money to the rich. If there is one certainty in capitalism, it's that the rich want to be more rich. As such, they take that money and they invest, they create jobs, they hire more people- they stimulate the economy rather than encouraging stagnation!


I just find this completely ironic. Everyone here enjoys freedom of speech but the second someone says something they don't like, you're all like, "He needs to be kicked/hurt/mangled/etc." or "He shouldn't be allowed on TV." Isn't that a little hypocritical?
No one said he shouldn't be allowed on TV. He can voice his opinions all he wants. The part that annoys m is that so many people buy into his BS.

[Illyria]

The man simply appeals to the prejudices most liberals already have, without actually making any points of his own. He is sensational, loud, bombastic, and often excessively animated just to pull a reaction out of the crowd. He is not a thinker, he is a cheerleader.
I gathered basically the same impression of him I did after I saw "Bowling For Columbine." He talks to people involved in the issues, he mentions related events, and he presents touchy subjects, but he fails to actually make any solid points. In the two hours during which he carried on this evening, he made maybe two legitimate points. That takes two minutes, not two hours.

Charisma. It can be hard to pay attention to someone making intelligent points if they're doing it in a dull and excessively boring manner. As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) when Kennedy ran against Nixon, the televised debate viewers favoured Kennedy at the end, because he looked better, while Nixon appeared better on the radio. And Kennedy won, despite perhaps more intelligent replies on Nixon's behalf. It's essentially the same thing. Maybe more fixated on make up and proper dressings, but Kennedy had the charisma and people often want charismatic leaders. So while he's only making '2 points' as you saw it, others will have seen more, and he's done what he wanted to. He's gaining influence, maybe not through being completely honest (and who really is) and maybe by reciting a lot of emotional issues to sway people, but he's achieving what he wants to achieve, and his 'modus operandi' as it were proves he's more than a simple 'cheerleader' as you put it.

I think the most important thing I said there was that he is not a thinker, but a cheerleader. The real annoying thing is that the sneaky mother tries to pass himself off as a thinker. He has nothing to say, but he fools people in to thinking he's a genious, because he targets an audience who want to think he is.

People in the public eye will say what the public wants to hear. He's not the only one, and it works.

aye- tell that to the democrats! One big reason why I'm conservative in regards to economics is because the democrats like to give money to the poor, which isn't exactly good motivation to get your ass in gear and get a steady job. The Repubs, on the other hand, like to give money to the rich. If there is one certainty in capitalism, it's that the rich want to be more rich. As such, they take that money and they invest, they create jobs, they hire more people- they stimulate the economy rather than encouraging stagnation!

Some of the poor will take that money as a sign to be lazy. Some will use it as a starting point to help them find a career. Some corporations will use that excess money to create jobs. Some will use the extra money to invest in machinery that decreases employment. Others may use it for corrupt purposes. If a corporation can buy more computers and hardware, they can decrease the number of employees they need and in the end the profit of less workers will balance out the initial cost of the machinery.

No one said he shouldn't be allowed on TV. He can voice his opinions all he wants. The part that annoys m is that so many people buy into his BS.

What about all the people that buy into the BS politicians give? The people who don't understand that issues can be more complex than if Bush just says "Lower taxes." So many politicians use simple phrases that don't convey any sort of understanding of issues (I'm not saying politicians have no understanding of issues, but one-line-wonders don't reflect that knowledge.) They use what works, and Moore is just doing what many others do.

[Master Chris]

I hate propaganda, even if that propaganda happens to share similar beliefs with me. That's why I think Micheal Moore is a sensationalist media whore. I agree with what he says but not the way he says it.

I will admit he does, at least, bring to the public eye some of the lies and half-truths used by politicians. However, he could have chosen not to fight fire with fire and lie himself.

Simply put, I hates the guy to pieces but he's doing a nasty job that needs to be done one or another.

[Toxic10x]

but he's achieving what he wants to achieve, and his 'modus operandi' as it were proves he's more than a simple 'cheerleader' as you put it.

alright, he's a cheerleader and a weasle- and he's fat too :p

[Malebranche]

For me it doesn't matter if Moore is a cheerleader or anything else. It matters that he point the mistakes of Bush.
Say the truth: when did USA decided to invade Iraq only to free kurds and other iraquians? They did it to save the oil! And remember, how did the USA know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? They sold them to Saddam! They did it during Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was USA's friend and Osama was helping to keep the commies out of the Middle East.
And communism? It was bad, I know, but how many people did USA killed in other countries and in their own territory during Cold War? In my country USA put a dictatorship and many people died. Is that fair?

[Statalyzer]

Russia, France, and Germany, all gave Iraq a whole lot more weapons than we did.

[Toxic10x]

It matters that he point the mistakes of Bush.

no, he does not- or often does not. He points out problems with the world but very often fails to tie them to bush, even though he tries to make that implication.

[weezl]

For me it doesn't matter if Moore is a cheerleader or anything else. It matters that he point the mistakes of Bush.
Say the truth: when did USA decided to invade Iraq only to free kurds and other iraquians? They did it to save the oil! And remember, how did the USA know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? They sold them to Saddam! They did it during Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was USA's friend and Osama was helping to keep the commies out of the Middle East.
And communism? It was bad, I know, but how many people did USA killed in other countries and in their own territory during Cold War? In my country USA put a dictatorship and many people died. Is that fair?

I can think of a lot cheaper ways for the US to get its oil than spend billions on a highly risky military enterprise in the Middle East. Try again. Availability of oil will always be a factor for the world economy, not just the US economy.. but the US wasn't having a problem with oil availability in the 90s, so how does it follow? Stop repeating what others have screamed at you and THINK.

[Malebranche]

If they aren't for the oil, what is it? Now do they want to remove the dictator they put there? Maybe.
I can think of a lot cheaper ways for the US to get its oil than spend billions on a highly risky military enterprise in the Middle East.
That's one more motive to think Bush is even dumber.
the US wasn't having a problem with oil availability in the 90s, so how does it follow?
You say it isn't but I've seen some problems with the oil extration in other countries.

If it wasn't the Operation Iraq Liberation, tell the reason of that war!

[Madcap_Magician]

I keep hearing the same, tired old horses being beaten over and over and over again... "Bush lied, thousands died!" "No blood for oil!" :sleep:

Is it at all possible that something NEW will be said on this subject? Not likely.

So I'll repeat the standard answers one last time...

Of COURSE oil was a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. Oil, last I checked, made the world go round. From a strictly economic viewpoint, without oil, the economy stops. So anything that promises to improve the international flow of oil is good. Nobody likes being dependent on oil, but it's necessary. And if certain people won't let us drill for it in Alaska, it's got to come from somewhere... and that somewhere is the Middle East. Furthermore, if Bush just wanted to line the pockets of oil company shareholders (Himself, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many others included.), he would have moved to lift sanctions on Iraqi oil! THAT would have instantly dropped the price of oil. And anyway, what do all you-protestor types think your SUVs run on when you drive down to your local anti-Bush rally? It's not photosynthesis! :rolleyes: :sleep:

Of COURSE things in Iraq are not going entirely as desired. What's the first law of warfare? Oh, that's right, Murphy's. Things screw up. **** happens. But nobody sees that good things are happening in Iraq, as well. It used to be that you had to worry about getting killed for saying the wrong thing there. Now you only have to worry about random violence and not having electricity. Sounds like California, to me. Not everyone hates us there. Not everyone loves us, either, but that's the way it is everywhere. 380 tons of munitions missing in Iraq? So what? That's an acceptable amount. Not good, but acceptable as an inevitable result. 400,000 some-odd tons have already been destroyed, and that would be an A+ in my school...

Bush LIED, did he? Really. If he really thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then he didn't lie, he was misinformed, as was the world intelligence community at the time. And it was a very reasonable thing to believe, for several reasons. First, in the intelligence world, it is better to be safe than sorry, because if you're sorry, it usually means someone(s) got killed. That's the reality of the high-stakes world of the spy game. And when a person with a prior history of developing and using WMDs kicks out weapons inspectors, what's the logical belief? Second, if he didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he KNEW there was the distinct possibility, based on prior history and current intelligence. Flawed? Perhaps. Intelligence is an art, not a science. Furthermore, WMDs were only one reason given for the invasion. And beyond that, even, no one in the Bush administration EVER claimed that WMDs in Iraq were an imminent threat, just that they would be a threat sometime in the future.

And the whole Why Iraq? question? That's laughable. They say that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because there are so many more countries which are (Key Words) JUST AS BAD. If they're just as bad, then Iraq is as good a place to start as any. In fact, it's better for strategic reasons, A. The presence of a dictator in the nation that is the second largest producer of crude oil in the world is a long-term AND short-term strategic threat. B. Iraq was already weakened, and we had already been there. And given the situation in Iran and North Korea, for example, Iraq was a much safer place to start, given the relative stages of each nation's WMD capabilities. And hey, look! What do you know! The use of force once shook loose another bad apple, and Libya gave up its WMD programs! Do you hear anyone congratulating the US for that!?!? No, not even France or Italy, who were well within range of Qaddafi's missiles.

Go figure.

[Malebranche]

Of COURSE oil was a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. Oil, last I checked, made the world go round. From a strictly economic viewpoint, without oil, the economy stops. So anything that promises to improve the international flow of oil is good. Nobody likes being dependent on oil, but it's necessary. And if certain people won't let us drill for it in Alaska, it's got to come from somewhere... and that somewhere is the Middle East.
At least you said you are there for oil.
You said oil moves the world, so when oil finishes, world will stop? We need to develop new fuels instead of invading another countries to take it. And you said some people don't let you drill in Alaska... So it means you can invade a country to fill your needs? Another reason to start war soon, in Afeganistan, was to ride Eron, do you remember?
Bush LIED, did he? Really. If he really thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then he didn't lie, he was misinformed, as was the world intelligence community at the time.
If he was midinformed, that wasn't good. Misunderstand can be a major mistake. In real make a mistake and you are out. If people die due to your mistake, then it wasn't a small mistake.
Of COURSE things in Iraq are not going entirely as desired. What's the first law of warfare? Oh, that's right, Murphy's. Things screw up. **** happens. But nobody sees that good things are happening in Iraq, as well. It used to be that you had to worry about getting killed for saying the wrong thing there. Now you only have to worry about random violence and not having electricity. Sounds like California, to me.
Then I don't want to live in California. Since Saddam lost, it's much more easier to terrorists to enter Iraq and attack. It looks like violence has increased...

[weezl]

At least you said you are there for oil.
You said oil moves the world, so when oil finishes, world will stop? We need to develop new fuels instead of invading another countries to take it. And you said some people don't let you drill in Alaska... So it means you can invade a country to fill your needs? Another reason to start war soon, in Afeganistan, was to ride Eron, do you remember?
First, yes, alternate forms of energy production are good things to research and develop. But all things of that nature take time and energy to produce. Oil makes the current world go around. You can't just stick your head in the sand and say 'just develop new forms of energy'. There are millions of folks that own vehicles in the world that run on oil NOW. The world simply does not have the resources to replace them in an instant. So the stability of the Middle East is an ongoing current problem, whether you like it or not.

If he was midinformed, that wasn't good. Misunderstand can be a major mistake. In real make a mistake and you are out. If people die due to your mistake, then it wasn't a small mistake.

If he was, then the entire world was. I remember reading in the news that Great Britian and the UN though the same thing. The countries of the world disagreed on what should be done, but they all thought the same thing. Go back and read some of the stories in newspapers from back then if you don't believe me.

Then I don't want to live in California. Since Saddam lost, it's much more easier to terrorists to enter Iraq and attack. It looks like violence has increased...

This is a statement of surpassing ignorance. Before the war, Saddam's regime was committing violence on its populace, on a regular basis. Now folks from outside of Iraq are arriving with weapons to create instability for those inside Iraq. The majority of Iraqis, by their own admission, are much much better off than before the war. The pockets of resistance in Iraq are just that, pockets. They are no tougher than faced by the US at the end of WW2 in Germany and the Pacific. Many pockets of very strong resistance existed for 2-3 years after the armistice was signed in 1945. Todays pockets of resistance must be faced if we are to move forward. Saying its 'too much' or that it will 'never go away' shows a shocking lack of knowledge of history.

And on the subject of Syrian/Iranian/Saudi insurgents that are present in Iraq and creating chaos and unrest, there is a simple answer. Put extreme pressure on the governments of those countries to put a stop to funding those terrorists or face military action. Financial support for terrorism must stop in the world, or problems like this will never go away. There will always be terrorists. But a terrorist without a major source of funding is a law-enforcement problem, not an agent with unlimited weapons that can create havoc in a major city of his choosing.

I keep hearing the same, tired old horses being beaten over and over and over again... "Bush lied, thousands died!" "No blood for oil!" :sleep:

Is it at all possible that something NEW will be said on this subject? Not likely.

So I'll repeat the standard answers one last time...

Of COURSE oil was a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. Oil, last I checked, made the world go round. From a strictly economic viewpoint, without oil, the economy stops. So anything that promises to improve the international flow of oil is good. Nobody likes being dependent on oil, but it's necessary. And if certain people won't let us drill for it in Alaska, it's got to come from somewhere... and that somewhere is the Middle East. Furthermore, if Bush just wanted to line the pockets of oil company shareholders (Himself, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many others included.), he would have moved to lift sanctions on Iraqi oil! THAT would have instantly dropped the price of oil. And anyway, what do all you-protestor types think your SUVs run on when you drive down to your local anti-Bush rally? It's not photosynthesis! :rolleyes: :sleep:

Of COURSE things in Iraq are not going entirely as desired. What's the first law of warfare? Oh, that's right, Murphy's. Things screw up. **** happens. But nobody sees that good things are happening in Iraq, as well. It used to be that you had to worry about getting killed for saying the wrong thing there. Now you only have to worry about random violence and not having electricity. Sounds like California, to me. Not everyone hates us there. Not everyone loves us, either, but that's the way it is everywhere. 380 tons of munitions missing in Iraq? So what? That's an acceptable amount. Not good, but acceptable as an inevitable result. 400,000 some-odd tons have already been destroyed, and that would be an A+ in my school...

Bush LIED, did he? Really. If he really thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then he didn't lie, he was misinformed, as was the world intelligence community at the time. And it was a very reasonable thing to believe, for several reasons. First, in the intelligence world, it is better to be safe than sorry, because if you're sorry, it usually means someone(s) got killed. That's the reality of the high-stakes world of the spy game. And when a person with a prior history of developing and using WMDs kicks out weapons inspectors, what's the logical belief? Second, if he didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he KNEW there was the distinct possibility, based on prior history and current intelligence. Flawed? Perhaps. Intelligence is an art, not a science. Furthermore, WMDs were only one reason given for the invasion. And beyond that, even, no one in the Bush administration EVER claimed that WMDs in Iraq were an imminent threat, just that they would be a threat sometime in the future.

And the whole Why Iraq? question? That's laughable. They say that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because there are so many more countries which are (Key Words) JUST AS BAD. If they're just as bad, then Iraq is as good a place to start as any. In fact, it's better for strategic reasons, A. The presence of a dictator in the nation that is the second largest producer of crude oil in the world is a long-term AND short-term strategic threat. B. Iraq was already weakened, and we had already been there. And given the situation in Iran and North Korea, for example, Iraq was a much safer place to start, given the relative stages of each nation's WMD capabilities. And hey, look! What do you know! The use of force once shook loose another bad apple, and Libya gave up its WMD programs! Do you hear anyone congratulating the US for that!?!? No, not even France or Italy, who were well within range of Qaddafi's missiles.

Go figure.

Very well said.

[Malebranche]

Try at least to take the oil in a pacific way, like civilizated nations.
If he was, then the entire world was. I remember reading in the news that Great Britian and the UN though the same thing. The countries of the world disagreed on what should be done, but they all thought the same thing. Go back and read some of the stories in newspapers from back then if you don't believe me.
I remember reading the newspapers before the war and it was like: 'Bush starts war without finding any proofs of WMD and ignoring all requests of more time.

[weezl]

Try at least to take the oil in a pacific way, like civilizated nations.

I remember reading the newspapers before the war and it was like: 'Bush starts war without finding any proofs of WMD and ignoring all requests of more time.

For the last time, the US is not taking oil from the Iraqis. I don't know what fool you are reading that is claiming that, but it just ain't so.

Second, try reading more than one newspaper for a balanced take on the world. Where did you read that stupid headline?

I read a number of sources because I realize that just one source could be very slanted. This is especially true in the larger cities in the US where I live. I'm an amateur historian, I treat the news like any other historical pursuit. I cross reference sources until I get what looks like the plausible truth. It ain't just one reason like you are making it out to be. Not by a long shot.

[CrowRbot]

The majority of Iraqis, by their own admission, are much much better off than before the war.

of course they are... they're free of the economic sanctions that screwed their country for twelve years more than the sanctions should have existed. if you allow trade and aid to enter the country, no duh they're going to see an improvement.

the timing was horrible- we did in 2003 what should have been done twelve years earlier in 1991. they would have had an infrastructure, dead goat road could have been cleaned up, and the problems of malnutrition and disease that went unchecked due to saddam's greed AND economic sanctions would have long been avoided. the rebelling iraqis would likely have been welcoming the americans into the country (keep in mind we had been allies to iraq in their recent memory in 1991). instead we pulled out, declared our war a huge success, and let the iraqis pay the price, not just in the purge by saddam to squash the revolts, but also for the next twelve years as the economy bottomed up and little was done to rebuild the infrastructure.

[Statalyzer]

I remember reading the newspapers before the war and it was like: 'Bush starts war without finding any proofs of WMD and ignoring all requests of more time.

Exactly the reason those other nations and other requests were stupid. More time? We had already given him too much time to hide/get rid of/sell off whatever he might have had.

Try at least to take the oil in a pacific way, like civilizated nations

"Take the oil"? :wtf:

The funny thing was when Clinton attacked Iraq, it was a good thing.

NO WAR FOR OIL! SAY NO TO WAR! (unless a Democrat is president).

[Madcap_Magician]

The funny thing was when Clinton attacked Iraq, it was a good thing.

NO WAR FOR OIL! SAY NO TO WAR! (unless a Democrat is president).

But of course stat! You can shoot cruise missiles at them all day, but if you actually set foot on Iraqi soil... er... sand, then it's a heinous crime against humanity.

Argh! I can't READ any of this! Well... I'll try.

At least you said you are there for oil.
You said oil moves the world, so when oil finishes, world will stop? We need to develop new fuels instead of invading another countries to take it. And you said some people don't let you drill in Alaska... So it means you can invade a country to fill your needs? Another reason to start war soon, in Afeganistan, was to ride Eron, do you remember?

We didn't invade Iraq to take their oil. Otherwise we wouldn't be paying $2.00 a gallon for gasoline. :rolleyes: . Oil DOES move the world... and yes, it would be a wonderful thing if that were not so, but it is, and we have to deal with reality, not our hopes. I have no idea what you mean by "Another reason to start war soon, in Afeganistan, was to ride Eron, do you remember?" I think it has something to do with Enron, but if it does, I don't know what.


If he was midinformed, that wasn't good. Misunderstand can be a major mistake. In real make a mistake and you are out. If people die due to your mistake, then it wasn't a small mistake.

Of course misunderstanding is not good. Do you think people go out of their way to misunderstand things? Why? The fact is, one of the means was partially flawed, but the others remain, and the ends are good. Yes, people died. In case you hadn't noticed, that is usually a result of war. You should also notice that this war has been fought relatively bloodlessly.

Then I don't want to live in California. Since Saddam lost, it's much more easier to terrorists to enter Iraq and attack. It looks like violence has increased...

I don't want to live in California either. :D . Yes, since Saddam lost violence has increased in tempo. This is to be expected. But in the long run, once the terrorists are suppressed, it will be more peaceful, and just as orderly. The only difference will be that the forces of order aren't keeping order by killing random people. A common attitude seems to be that "Oh, Saddam kept the power on, and we didn't have to worry about looters... and no one I know was killed." Sure. That's selfish. What that essentially says is that having power and running water and 'police' is worth blood... as long as it's somebody else's, and innocent blood at that.

[JJFZ3000]

HEY! Flame me for writing on a, wait let me check, two year old thread!! :rofl::lmao:

[Desolator12]

Now you're just being an asshat and a troll.

[Serenla]

On the bright side, we haven't heard much out of Michael Moore for quite a while.

[Rolk]

Warning points given out for spamming. Cut the crap.