http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/i...nytimes-ad.jpg
Read this book.
Printable View
http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/i...nytimes-ad.jpg
Read this book.
Hell no.
Maybe MM forgot about this precursor to war:
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20...ures/001_m.jpg
Mike Moore can bite me.
Once again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush is by far the most ignorant president the US has EVER had.
Not just a war against 9/11 perps - it is against all terrorism - Saddam was a contributor, and the middle east (and neighboring asia) contributes to and tolerates terrorism.Quote:
Originally posted by milkman
Once again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush is by far the most ignorant president the US has EVER had.
Mike Moore even has a problem with Afghanistan, which was directly involved in 9/11.
In my book he is all complaint and no solution.
He makes a movie about guns: ""Bowling for Columbine" is an alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States. It is a film about the state of the Union, about the violent soul of America. Why do 11,000 people die in America each year at the hands of gun violence? "
What about the idiots that pull the trigger. What about the hundreds of thousands Saddam Killed Mike Moore.
Mike Moore is a boob.
I have been trolled.
A bunch of psycho islamic terrorsits attack your country. As a result, you have the support of most of the planet for whatever you choose to do in response. Do you:
a) Try to fix the conditions that are generating these terrorists, while going after governments that actively support them (yes I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan too)
b) Attack a totally secular ditactorship that had nothing to do with the terrorists thereby angering a bunch of not-so-psycho Islamic people in neighboring countries, who you might have managed to bring over to your side with the appropriate actions.
c) Nuke all Islamic countries and repopulate them with radical white Christian fundamentalists, strip malls, and Wal-Marts.
I think it's obvious which choice Bush would have made if he could have talked the world into it. Unfortunately being president of a superpower surrounded by yes-men, he was still able to execute b). (Yeah, taking care of Afghanistan was a good idea, but I don't think he's provided enough resources to turn that country around, so it will probably just fall into anarchy).
The war on terrorism is a joke. The US has supported many brutal regimes (including Saddam) when it suits them. When there is money to be made, they don't care who they support. The US does business with China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Colombia etc, all of which have HORRIBLE human rights records. Some are equal even to Saddam. It's all about business. Do you think for a second Bush cares about any of the persecuted people anywhere in the world? Do you really think Saddam was a threat to the US? Sounds like the propaganda's working.....
"This country is in the grip of a President who was not elected, who has surrounded himself with thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth... The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war on innocent people in other countries, but it is also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House."
Howard Zinn
Sorry for the rant. We should get back to skiing....
Wouldn't be (c), Halliburton, Schlumberger and Bechtel don't build strip malss and Wal-Marts.Quote:
Originally posted by AntiSoCalSkier
A bunch of psycho islamic terrorsits attack your country. As a result, you have the support of most of the planet for whatever you choose to do in response. Do you:
a) Try to fix the conditions that are generating these terrorists, while going after governments that actively support them (yes I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan too)
b) Attack a totally secular ditactorship that had nothing to do with the terrorists thereby angering a bunch of not-so-psycho Islamic people in neighboring countries, who you might have managed to bring over to your side with the appropriate actions.
c) Nuke all Islamic countries and repopulate them with radical white Christian fundamentalists, strip malls, and Wal-Marts.
I think it's obvious which choice Bush would have made if he could have talked the world into it. Unfortunately being president of a superpower surrounded by yes-men, he was still able to execute b). (Yeah, taking care of Afghanistan was a good idea, but I don't think he's provided enough resources to turn that country around, so it will probably just fall into anarchy).
McWop ~ Don't do it man!
Fish on! Fish on!
:D
I'll pay attention to Michael Moore when he's elected. Or he gives me a million dollars, whichever comes first. I'm gonna go out on a limb & say neither's gonna happen. :rolleyes:
Mike Moore should be elected. It would be the first step in the right direction.
Yes you have. Now read the book. Or are you afraid to discover how much of a douchebag Bush is. He's done things much worse than blowing his load on a blue dress.Quote:
Originally posted by Mcwop
Not just a war against 9/11 perps - it is against all terrorism - Saddam was a contributor, and the middle east (and neighboring asia) contributes to and tolerates terrorism.
Israel has been fighting a war on terrorism for over 40 years. It's kind of like a war on drugs- it ain't ever gonna end
Mike Moore even has a problem with Afghanistan, which was directly involved in 9/11.
Okay, read this book. Were any of the hijackers from Afgahnistan? Is Osama Bin Laden Afghani? No, he and the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And if you want to attack places that are freindly to terrorists, point your missiles at Boston. What? Boston? Yup, because if you want to end terrorism, perhaps you should trck down all the people in the Boston area who help fund the IRA. But I forgot- white terrorists don't count, do they?
In my book he is all complaint and no solution. Well, I haven't read your book (plese post a link so I can order it on Amazon), but he has an interesting solution in HIS book to some issues.
He makes a movie about guns: ""Bowling for Columbine" is an alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States. It is a film about the state of the Union, about the violent soul of America. Why do 11,000 people die in America each year at the hands of gun violence? "
What about the idiots that pull the trigger.
Thanks to the gun lobby, it's relatively easy for those idiots to get the gubs so they can pull tose triggers. If it was a little harder for those idiots to get the guns, we wouldn't have to worry about them so much.
What about the hundreds of thousands Saddam Killed Mike Moore. I was watching ER last week, the episode where Carter and Luka were volunteering in an African country torn by civil war. How come we don't go into Africa? Oh yeah, I forgot. No oil reserves. And do you think all the Chinese government does is look for potential NBA centers amongst their population?
Mike Moore is a boob. Yea, but he lost 50 punds, so his man-boobs are smaller. At least he's not an idiot like Bush.
I have been trolled. [/B]
It might when Arafat drops dead. Too bad Israel hasn't taken him out sooner.Quote:
Originally posted by Plakespear
Mcwop in bold - Plakespear in plain text
Not just a war against 9/11 perps - it is against all terrorism - Saddam was a contributor, and the middle east (and neighboring asia) contributes to and tolerates terrorism.
Israel has been fighting a war on terrorism for over 40 years. It's kind of like a war on drugs- it ain't ever gonna end
Mike Moore even has a problem with Afghanistan, which was directly involved in 9/11.
Okay, read this book. Were any of the hijackers from Afgahnistan? Is Osama Bin Laden Afghani? No, he and the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And if you want to attack places that are freindly to terrorists, point your missiles at Boston. What? Boston? Yup, because if you want to end terrorism, perhaps you should trck down all the people in the Boston area who help fund the IRA. But I forgot- white terrorists don't count, do they?
In my book he is all complaint and no solution.
Well, I haven't read your book (plese post a link so I can order it on Amazon), but he has an interesting solution in HIS book to some issues.
He makes a movie about guns: ""Bowling for Columbine" is an alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States. It is a film about the state of the Union, about the violent soul of America. Why do 11,000 people die in America each year at the hands of gun violence? "
What about the idiots that pull the trigger.
Thanks to the gun lobby, it's relatively easy for those idiots to get the gubs so they can pull tose triggers. If it was a little harder for those idiots to get the guns, we wouldn't have to worry about them so much.
What about the hundreds of thousands Saddam Killed Mike Moore.
I was watching ER last week, the episode where Carter and Luka were volunteering in an African country torn by civil war. How come we don't go into Africa? Oh yeah, I forgot. No oil reserves. And do you think all the Chinese government does is look for potential NBA centers amongst their population?
Yes you have. Now read the book. Or are you afraid to discover how much of a douchebag Bush is. He's done things much worse than blowing his load on a blue dress.
Osama was in Afghanistan, the Taliban supported and sponsored his group. There is even video of Osama discussing how his 9/11 plans worked. IRA terrorism is just as bad, and was fought tooth and nail. I believe that episode is over.
Like your point on drugs. They are illegal, but people still get them. People will get guns even if illegal. In Baltimore they hardly penalize people that commit felonies with guns. Project exile is the solution to that one.
We have gone into Africa. Remember Somalia. We went into a Civil war in Europe. Clinton was right on that one and put an end to it. Recently, Bush sent troops to liberia, now UN troops are there. So on that point - well I don't see your point.
The reason why I do not read his book is because it is full of baloney and is factually wrong on many points.
Want to read a real book with actual solutions? Try this one:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/15...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
It is written by a Democrat and is excellent. Not useless MM satire.
If you haven't read the book then how can you say "it is full of baloney and is factually wrong on many points?"Quote:
Originally posted by Mcwop
The reason why I do not read his book is because it is full of baloney and is factually wrong on many points.
Because all his stuff is. see here for but a few examples:Quote:
Originally posted by Ski Monkey
If you haven't read the book then how can you say "it is full of baloney and is factually wrong on many points?"
Here
I spend my time with more worthy books.
yawn....
2 cents from me on the issue MM is simply the liberal version of rush limbaugh basically they're both full of hot air and are more interested in whining and crying about the problem so that they can make money and sound important whilest they pontificate about how badly the other side in screwing things up....rather then working to find creative solutions to the problem.....
and I'm done with the subject.....BRING FORTH THE STOKE!!!!!
Here, here; this administration is full of shit and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Simply look the the CONSTANTLY changing reasons for why they chose to invade Iraq. The bottom line was that they wanted to, and they didn't give two shits whether or not it was justified.Quote:
Originally posted by milkman
The war on terrorism is a joke. The US has supported many brutal regimes (including Saddam) when it suits them. When there is money to be made, they don't care who they support. The US does business with China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Colombia etc, all of which have HORRIBLE human rights records. Some are equal even to Saddam. It's all about business. Do you think for a second Bush cares about any of the persecuted people anywhere in the world? Do you really think Saddam was a threat to the US? Sounds like the propaganda's working.....
"This country is in the grip of a President who was not elected, who has surrounded himself with thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth... The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war on innocent people in other countries, but it is also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House."
Howard Zinn
Sorry for the rant. We should get back to skiing....
Agree with Laseranimal. Bring on the stoke:
http://homepage.mac.com/mcwop/.Pictu...3/IMG_0109.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/mcwop/.Pictu...3/IMG_0136.jpg
Those are a few examples. Below is an example of spincity.org's inaccuracy in a certain situation.Quote:
Originally posted by Mcwop
Because all his stuff is. see here for but a few examples:
Here
I spend my time with more worthy books.
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/spinsanity.html
A lot of what is on your site may be factual, just as a lot of what Michael Moore writes is indeed factual. Everyone has an agenda, but that doesn't mean everything they say is crap. Forget about Michael Moore, read some Noam Chomsky and see if you can disprove any of his writings. Here's one article:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...40&ItemID=3768
This is my last post on the subject. I agree we should bring on the stoke (I did my degree in Poli Sci,so I get a little heated at times :rolleyes: )
P.S. I'll check out your book
<-------poli sci major as well
It is not the whole Islamic middle east and neighboring Asia who contribute to and tolerate terrorism. It is a small percentage of extremists and fundamentalists who instigate all of this violence within this huge Islamic population. They are enemies of freedom, this is true. No one wants to be blown up. But statements like your's, Mcwop, are just as ignorant and terroristic as 9/11. The middle-east is being torn apart by civil strife and the long reaching effects of colonialism, and you truly believe the solution is to perpetuate hatred of the west with occupation and violent acts? Read something about Islam (if it's worth your time). You might learn that their entire life and society is based around defending their liberties, freedom, and homeland (sound familiar? can you relate?). We are attacking all three. Our enemies are the extremists. But if we continute to act with disregard for the Islamic world's rights, we may find ourselves with a billion new enemies, fighting a war that will never be won.Quote:
Originally posted by Mcwop
Not just a war against 9/11 perps - it is against all terrorism - Saddam was a contributor, and the middle east (and neighboring asia) contributes to and tolerates terrorism.
Here are my .02
http://home.comcast.net/~ajanido/sign_01.jpeg
http://home.comcast.net/~ajanido/commie_web.gif
Cubano
" Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
Sound familliar Cubano?
"The six million people the CIA has helped to kill are people of the Mitumba Mountains of the Congo, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the hills of northern Nicaragua. They are people without ICBMs or armies or navies, incapable of doing physical damage to the United States the 22,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, are not Russians; they are not Cuban soldiers or advisors; they are not even mostly Sandinistas. A majority are rag-poor peasants, including large numbers of women and children.
Communists? Hardly, since the dead Nicaraguans are predominantly Roman Catholics. Enemies of the United States? That description doesn't fit either, because the thousands of witnesses who have lived in Nicaraguan villages with the people since 1979 testify that the Nicaraguans are the warmest people on the face of the earth, that they love people from the United States, and they simply cannot understand why our leaders would want to spend $1 billion on a contra force designed to murder people and wreck the country."
John Stockwell, former CIA official and author
Capitalism has killed it's fair share of people as well....
1. Michael Moore is an absolutely brilliant and highly skilled propogandist. Bowling for Columbine was brilliant in that respect. Joseph Goebbles would have be greatly impressed. Moore is very adept at twisting and ignoring the facts, lying, etc, while hiding these actions. He fooled the Academy when he received an the Oscar for best documentary when his film clearly was not a documentary (documentaries are factual). It was possibly more sickening than awarding the fugitive child rapist, Roman Polanski, (who had to appear via video conference from France because he woulda been arrested if he actually attended (for drugging a 14 year old girl and then assrapping her)). The Academy managed to see past Polanskis rape and Moore's lies :rolleyes:. Polanski is a violent criminal. Moore is a self aggrandizing arrogant liar. Arnold touched some democratic chick's hiney (and she liked it until she realized he was a republican). For a great fact only based analysis of the falsehoods and manipulations in Bowling for Columbine see http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html it is a great read and very informative. The facts in it are indisputable.
2. Damnit... why is gas so expensive if this war was about cheap oil??? Lessee... Freed the Iraqis from an oppressive Stalanistic regime of tyranny? Check! Managed to do it while killing fewer civilians than Saddam did in an average year (not to mention the number he tortures)? Check! Proper planning for rebuilding Iraq? Uhh.... fuck! (shoulda thought that one through) oh well... uh... Dealt with Iraq first because it was more dangerous than North Korea? uhh.... well... uh... speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil (until it is politically expedient)
3. You cannot kill Arafat. He is the leader of the Palestineans. He is a life long organizer and supporter of terrorism and has no intention of a peace with Israel (that doesn't involve the annihlation of the Israelis), but if he were killed ("martyred"), it would only make things worse. It is a true shame he undermined ran out PM Mahmoud Abbas, a man who might have worked for peace. Arafat must die of natural causes. Ditto for Sharon (another war monger). They both need to drop dead of cerrebral hemmorages... RIGHT NOW! There will be no peace as long as Arafat and Sharon have anything to say about it. Rabin died at the hands of the radical members of his own side because he was willing to make peace. Arafat is not willing to die in such a fashion and told fmr pres Clinton as much when he refused to sign Baraks peace offer ("If I sign this, you will attend my funeral.") Arafat is not willing to die for the cause of peace but he is perfectly willing to send 16 year olds strapped with bombs into cafes full of iinnocent civvies.
4. The Bush economic policy most closely resembles Johnson's "guns and butter" policy (and we all know how much stagflation that fuckup cuased). Lesse... war? check! cut tax revenues? check! increase spending? check! deficit spending? check! :rolleyes:
5. This has nothign to do with skiing. Fuck politics... go on IRC and blather on #politics and PRAY FOR COLD AND SNOW!
Quote:
I think I'll drop in parallel. ;)
I'm not sure which one I think is scarier, me trying to ski that run or listening to Bush relate every damn thing to terrorism.
I'm sorry, I can't hold back any longer. You are the boob, jackass!Quote:
Originally posted by Mcwop
Not just a war against 9/11 perps - it is against all terrorism - Saddam was a contributor, and the middle east (and neighboring asia) contributes to and tolerates terrorism.
How so?Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
I'm sorry, I can't hold back any longer. You are the boob, jackass!
Sorry about that. Let me rephrase...you are a sucker, an indiscriminate sponge absorbing the mucus and filthy wastewater of Fox News, merely an amplifier of Shrub's dilapidated mouth piece, and therefore a boob.
Damn, that's a nic pic. I'm just gonna stare at it for awhile.Quote:
Expert chutes at J-Hole.Quote:
Originally posted by tonghands
Damn, that's a nic pic. I'm just gonna stare at it for awhile.
That's some funny sh1t........Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Sorry about that. Let me rephrase...you are a sucker, an indiscriminate sponge absorbing the mucus and filthy wastewater of Fox News, merely an amplifier of Shrub's dilapidated mouth piece, and therefore a boob.
Oh, and your not a mouth piece and sponge on the other side of the equation?Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Sorry about that. Let me rephrase...you are a sucker, an indiscriminate sponge absorbing the mucus and filthy wastewater of Fox News, merely an amplifier of Shrub's dilapidated mouth piece, and therefore a boob.
For the record, I am not a huge Bush fan (voted for McCain in primary), but do agree with some things his admin has done. I also agree with some things the Dems do. I think I can make up my own mind.
I would love an alternate candidate in the next election, but none strike my fancy yet. If Dean tones down his gargantuan spending plans, and clarifies a rollback in tax cuts will only be on the rich and not middle and upper middle class - I could go for a Clark Dean ticket, and try something new. Unfortunately, they are not doing a good job convincing swing voters yet - but it is just in the primary stage.
I will be voting as I do every year.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Sorry about that. Let me rephrase...you are a sucker, an indiscriminate sponge absorbing the mucus and filthy wastewater of Fox News, merely an amplifier of Shrub's dilapidated mouth piece, and therefore a boob.
(Seattle Times, 10/6/03)
Survey shows Fox led in misleading public
Fox News Channel, like the White House, got a ratings boost from the aftermath of 9-11. The tactics were remarkably similar.
Network executives gauged the nation's anger and panic and recognized war in Iraq as a rallying point, provided they gave viewers the sort of firm leadership unsullied by second-guessing. It was a smart call.
Once war arrived, of course, Fox wasn't alone in the media campaign to win audience hearts. Other cable channels and networks made self-promotional hay from dashing correspondents, surrendering Iraqi soldiers and masterful bombardment set to music.
What great TV we got. Too bad a lot of us were knuckleheads about the facts.
A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.*
The results show 48 percent incorrectly believed that evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iraq has been found; 22 percent that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and 25 percent that world opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq.
A walloping 60 percent overall held one or more of these misperceptions.
How did we get to be such dopes? PIPA quizzed respondents on their main sources of news information. Their findings are at right.
As you'll note, Fox's audience scored lowest. That's fodder for arguing the only place its "fair and balanced" motto really belongs is on the cover of a satirical best seller.
"The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that."
He said that in a separate examination of viewers citing Fox as their primary source, 45 percent held all three misperceptions.
Back to that chart. While the findings for Fox may not be a surprise, second among ill-informed viewers is CBS, long considered a bastion of anti-war liberalism by subscribers to Web sites like www.ratherbiased.com.
Apparently, benightedness cuts across ideological lines, and no network or cable channel can claim its viewers are well-informed about the war's most critical issues. We're like one nation under "Duh."
According to PIPA, political position was a minor factor: Supporters of President Bush and Republicans were more likely to have misperceptions.
However, the report adds, Americans with opposing political beliefs held misperceptions, too.
Three explanations spring to mind while contemplating this equality of ignorance.
The first is that our entire for-profit television sector is engaged in a sinister conspiracy of misinformation. The industry so desperately wants favors from the White House, it suppressed facts contradictory to support for invading Iraq.
But this is too wacky. It also unfairly discounts many reports — for instance, on ABC — that pointed out our grounds for war were shaky. And poor ABC still ended up with 61 percent of its audience believing at least one of those justifications.
A more persuasive notion is that television's emotional story-telling superseded its factual reporting.
All those stories honoring soldiers who died in Iraq had a self-justifying impact. So did the endlessly replayed scenes of joyous citizens toppling statues of Saddam Hussein. So did the patriotic frills adorning network graphics and that thrilling martial music.
The end effect was a tacit endorsement of the venture.
Let's also not forget that in the case of cable channels, this position had a practical payoff: The war raised ratings.
Still, it's hard to sell a product that doesn't resonate at some level with consumers. That brings us to a third possibility: The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, created a passion for action that overcame core beliefs.
"We found a plurality of Americans felt a value conflict with the war," said PIPA's Clayton. "They had serious reservations even when they went ahead and supported it."
Clayton also volunteered a fact about respondents asked to describe how closely they follow news.
It turns out that print readers and those who listen to National Public Radio or watch PBS describe themselves as being devoted to keeping abreast of events — a profile that did not fit most commercial television viewers.
In any event, both the news media and the audience could use some self-improvement. Luckily, it's never too late; I hear there's a presidential election just 13 months away.
* The PIPA report analyzed seven nationwide polls conducted from June through September of this year.
Margin of error is 3 percent; sampling size for the seven polls was 9,611, and sampling size for in-depth analysis was 3,334 respondents.
I wonder if this will soon be a story on NBC?
Mr Moore is very fat.
The War On Terror is nothing but propaganda used to keep the US busy while the government strips us of our freedoms. Look at Operation Pipe Dreams do you think that would have have gone unnoticed if it wasn't for Operation Iraqi Freedom? Do you know about the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II? If you don't then you should, it's scary. Nothing short of Communism.
I hate Bush.
As to Michael Moore I like the guy. Yes he bitches about stuff and whines a whole lot but the guy does bring up good points. Our country really is fucked up. I like how he compared the news in the US and Canada. Which just goes to show how fucked up the US news really is.
This is getting long winded and I should suggest looking for more information here: www.infowars.com
Although, as far as we know, Michael Moore isn't a drug addict!Quote:
Originally posted by laseranimal
2 cents from me on the issue MM is simply the liberal version of rush limbaugh