Michael Moore
- Thread starter Goblin
- Start date
a cool link from a car forum where i am a member . that is an interesting gwb vs jfkerry thread
http://speed.supercars.net/Board?viewThread=true&bottom=60&fID=7&tID=126012
http://speed.supercars.net/Board?viewThread=true&bottom=60&fID=7&tID=126012
Another lightheatred statement,
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html
Not that there is anything wrong with this type of relationship, but in the spirit of the jibjab song that is going around.
Ranger
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html
Not that there is anything wrong with this type of relationship, but in the spirit of the jibjab song that is going around.
Ranger
Well I asked for an argument so now I guess I have to pay the price.
I'm not sure about that
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Right now clearly the polls are in favor of Kerry
I agree that the media isnt unbiased but the point is their supposed to be where as Moore isnt. That's why Moore can complain about the media without being a hypocrite. The Media is supposed to be unbiased but their not. Moore isnt supposed to be unbiased so he can give his opinion. I agree that Moore's questionable editing is a bad thing and I believe that one day it will be his downfall but his film is an OPINION peice and opinions dont always need to be 100% true it's just expressing someones point of view. Whats true to one person isnt true to another and vice versa.
Of course Moore has an agenda he admits that he wants Bush out of office and he admits that's why he made the film. He leaves it up to the people who see his movie to decide for themselves and if their not smart enough to know that his movie is an opinion then that's their problem.
Clinton's mistakes didnt lead to the death of over 3,000 people on 9/11 and over 900 troops in Iraq.
Moore talked to Bill O'Reily about his film I refer you to my post at the top of the previous page.
When Moore was being interviewed by O'Reily he didnt run away like Heston.
It was mostly the Daily Show that mocked the guy. Moore only had a cameo in that piece.
I love Pancakes! Listen I'm sick and tired of people thinking Bush is better on terrorism than Kerry. KERRY IS A DECORATED WAR HERO BUSH DODGED SERVICE IN VIETNAM. If you really think Bush is better on terrorism then I ASK YOU FOR A THIRD TIME
"why is america in iraq and not in sudan? because when it comes to oppressing human rights..."
"why is america in iraq and not in iran? because when it comes to weapons of mass destruction..."
"why is america in iraq and not in libia? because when it comes to threatening the usa with terrorist acts..."
Answer that and then tell me that Bush is better than Kerry on terror. BUSH ISN'T EVEN ATTACKING THE RIGHT TERRORIST COUNTRIES. ANYBODY COULD DO BETTER THAN BUSH BECAUSE EVERYBODY BUT BUSH KNOWS THAT IRAN HAS MORE TERRORISTS AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAN IRAQ DID. Apparently Bush is so good at staying the course that he's still staying the course of his father's administration that's what invading Iraq was. Bush created a whole new generation of terrorists by invading Iraq and he didnt stop anybody but a brutal dictator who wouldnt even have allowed terrorists in his country. How can Bush be better on fighting terrorism when all he did in Iraq was just create more terrorists? It seems to me like that's supporting terror not stoping it.
How could the world be in any worse shape than it is now with Hillary in charge?
Dirty Sanchez said:
I'm not sure about that
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Right now clearly the polls are in favor of Kerry
Dirty Sanchez said:
I agree that the media isnt unbiased but the point is their supposed to be where as Moore isnt. That's why Moore can complain about the media without being a hypocrite. The Media is supposed to be unbiased but their not. Moore isnt supposed to be unbiased so he can give his opinion. I agree that Moore's questionable editing is a bad thing and I believe that one day it will be his downfall but his film is an OPINION peice and opinions dont always need to be 100% true it's just expressing someones point of view. Whats true to one person isnt true to another and vice versa.
Of course Moore has an agenda he admits that he wants Bush out of office and he admits that's why he made the film. He leaves it up to the people who see his movie to decide for themselves and if their not smart enough to know that his movie is an opinion then that's their problem.
Clinton's mistakes didnt lead to the death of over 3,000 people on 9/11 and over 900 troops in Iraq.
Dirty Sanchez said:
Moore talked to Bill O'Reily about his film I refer you to my post at the top of the previous page.
When Moore was being interviewed by O'Reily he didnt run away like Heston.
It was mostly the Daily Show that mocked the guy. Moore only had a cameo in that piece.
Dirty Sanchez said:
I love Pancakes! Listen I'm sick and tired of people thinking Bush is better on terrorism than Kerry. KERRY IS A DECORATED WAR HERO BUSH DODGED SERVICE IN VIETNAM. If you really think Bush is better on terrorism then I ASK YOU FOR A THIRD TIME
"why is america in iraq and not in sudan? because when it comes to oppressing human rights..."
"why is america in iraq and not in iran? because when it comes to weapons of mass destruction..."
"why is america in iraq and not in libia? because when it comes to threatening the usa with terrorist acts..."
Answer that and then tell me that Bush is better than Kerry on terror. BUSH ISN'T EVEN ATTACKING THE RIGHT TERRORIST COUNTRIES. ANYBODY COULD DO BETTER THAN BUSH BECAUSE EVERYBODY BUT BUSH KNOWS THAT IRAN HAS MORE TERRORISTS AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAN IRAQ DID. Apparently Bush is so good at staying the course that he's still staying the course of his father's administration that's what invading Iraq was. Bush created a whole new generation of terrorists by invading Iraq and he didnt stop anybody but a brutal dictator who wouldnt even have allowed terrorists in his country. How can Bush be better on fighting terrorism when all he did in Iraq was just create more terrorists? It seems to me like that's supporting terror not stoping it.
Dirty Sanchez said:
How could the world be in any worse shape than it is now with Hillary in charge?
They want to lower the taxes mostly of principles. The only things they want the state to provide are things like police and military. Everything else they want people to pay for from their own pockets.
Well, as USA has the lowest federal and state in the world (in percentage of the GNP), the taxes in Sweden are high in comparison.
Some Liberals/Conservatives says that Sweden has the highest taxes in the world, but that isn't true, but it's true that Sweden has one of the highest. But if you think of all you get back of the tax money as grants, free schools, free hospital care and so on I think some people actually goes plus.
The principle of the tax politics of the Socialdemocrats is that everyone has to pay tax after their capabilities. (ie the rich pays more taxes than the poor, as they wouldn't have been able to gain their riches without their country's resources, and thus has a responsibility to pay back to the society.) The last years this has changed a bit though, partially because the non-Socialists (Liberals/Conservatives) were in power between 91-94 and made many taxcuts, mainly for the rich, but also because some Socialdemocrats began to realise they are beginning to get old and rich, so they did also some taxcuts. (The old generation of the party are beginning to get too old (born in the 40s-50s), but doesn't want to leave room for the younger generation.)
So now it's about equal procentually in how much tax you pay if your poor or if your rich.
Originally posted by Ranger
Another lightheatred statement,
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html
Not that there is anything wrong with this type of relationship, but in the spirit of the jibjab song that is going around.
Ranger
Funny!
Thanks Ranger, this was amusing no matter which politics one support.
Starman said:They want to lower the taxes mostly of principles. The only things they want the state to provide are things like police and military. Everything else they want people to pay for from their own pockets.
Well, as USA has the lowest federal and state in the world (in percentage of the GNP), the taxes in Sweden are high in comparison.
Some Liberals/Conservatives says that Sweden has the highest taxes in the world, but that isn't true, but it's true that Sweden has one of the highest. But if you think of all you get back of the tax money as grants, free schools, free hospital care and so on I think some people actually goes plus.
The principle of the tax politics of the Socialdemocrats is that everyone has to pay tax after their capabilities. (ie the rich pays more taxes than the poor, as they wouldn't have been able to gain their riches without their country's resources, and thus has a responsibility to pay back to the society.) The last years this has changed a bit though, partially because the non-Socialists (Liberals/Conservatives) were in power between 91-94 and made many taxcuts, mainly for the rich, but also because some Socialdemocrats began to realise they are beginning to get old and rich, so they did also some taxcuts. (The old generation of the party are beginning to get too old (born in the 40s-50s), but doesn't want to leave room for the younger generation.)
So now it's about equal procentually in how much tax you pay if your poor or if your rich.
Well then unfortunately we cant argue because I basically agree with you and the SocialDemocrats. I think it would be too hard for me to try and compare american politics with Swedish politics especially since I dont know much about Swedish politics. But I agree that the rich should pay more although not for the reason you gave.
Ranger said:Another lightheatred statement,
http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html
Not that there is anything wrong with this type of relationship, but in the spirit of the jibjab song that is going around.
Ranger
It's not true! It's not true I tell you! :eek:
Starman said:Which are your reason(s)?
I believe that since the rich are indeed so rich they dont need tax cuts as much as the poor. Since they have so much money they can afford to pay taxes and support their country. Where as the poor shouldnt be taxed as much because that only makes them poorer. And the Middle class should been dead even. And I believe that this tax distribution should only change in times of crisis. But I dont believe the rich owe their country for being rich because they could just get their money elsewhere and a lot of people get rich by working in Global companies. Some people get rich threw the stock market too so do they owe their country because they took a risk and got lucky?
Well, I guess I should make a little more serious answer too. Sorry, couldn't help myself earlier.
I agree with what you're saying. We have that thing that if you have under a certain income you do not have to pay any taxes. So it's only those above a certain income that gets taxed. And a high income enough you have to pay an additional high income tax.
One can also apply for accommodation (housing) grants and other sorts of grants as a help with the finances. The grants are conditional so that they are of different amounts depending on your income and your expenses. The richer you are, the lower grant you get, or no grant at all if you're too rich for it.
The school are free, even at university level, and you can apply for a study grant, with voluntary additional loan, which gives you enough money to pay for rent and food, and you can concentrate on the studies instead of having to work on the side. If you do work on the side, then you have to, if you earn over a certain limit per year, have to pay back some or all of the grants.
These are just some of the many things done to even out the differences between rich and poor in Sweden. Free things paid by the tax money, and grants that lets those with low income manage.
Dirty Sanchez
Banned
Starman said:Sorry Sanchez, but I just want to be sure about this. You're only against having just Hillary as a president, not against having a female president, right?
No, its Hilary. We were talking last night what would happen if Hilary was Prez, and that Ubuma guy was VP. (I hope that Ubuma guy does work his way up the political chain). Hilary on the other hand is a tool, and countries will see how strong she is (which I fully expect her to fail)
Middle Eastern Countries hate American because they are the definition of freedom. Imagine the hatred if a female was in charge of the most powerful nation in the World.
Dirty Sanchez
Banned
Brino said:
Not an arguement Brino, a discussion.
First, lets not forget we are still 96 days away from voting, and I'm sure things will change. Second, its not like Kerry is running away with it, and things could very well change. And third, how do I not know for sure this outlet isn't hidding the truth, and just showing its support for Kerry. Like I said, for all these "horrible" things Bush has done, he's not getting blown out of the water. Lets wait until the Demo's convention is over, and the GOP's start. Lets let the undecided hear everything.
I hear what you are saying, and do agree. But, the media always has been biased. Its a fact. And what Moore did is no better. I'd have no problem if he did what he's done, and didn't complain about the media. But by complaining, and then doing the same, he really is no better. 3 sides to a story; my side, your side, and what really happened.
He leaves it up to the people, but he just doesn't tell the truth. I left the movie wondering why he left so many things out. The guy beside me left hating Bush. Maybe if these people aren't smart enough to know most of his movie is bullshit, then maybe they shouldn't be voting. If Moore wants to give the American voter the whole story, why doesn't he inculde all the facts so the voter can make an informed decision. Like I said before, he is no better then the media he slams.
I really can't believe you are blaming what happened on 9/11 on George Bush. bin Laden was intent on striking American. If 9/11 had been foiled, another plan would have been put in place. I find it sickening that you can blame that day on George Bush, and honestly think there wasn't a fool proof plan to stop it. Yes, mistakes were made, things went wrong. I am absolutly positive if Gore won the election, or these attacks took place when Clinton was still in office, you wouldn't be blaming them. If you hate Bush, fine. But don't think he, and he alone is the problem with the World. And again, why does no one care that more Americans are dying on the streets of LA in a day then in Iraq in a war?
I saw a bit of the intial meeting, but don't expect Moore to say anything of substance to back his movie. He will run around in circles, and keep off actually answering. Its what people of his kind do best.
It was a cheap shot Moore did to make the guy look bad. It maybe wasn't his idea, but he knowingly went along with it. Again I ask, what was Moore like when he first started out as a filmmaker. Either help the guy, or ignore him. But mocking him was classless (a Moore trademark).
I compare this with my country's recent federal election. The one party promised all kinds of things,why? because they knew they'd never have to deliver. Simply put, John Kerry wasn't in office when these things happened. He can say what he wants about what he would have done (didn't he suport the war?) because he has the luxury of hindsight. Will you be willing to stand up and place the full blame on Kerry if he becomes Prez, and something bad happens?
I am not a Bush or Kerry supporter. And again, I don't fully agree with why Iraq was choosen. But, whats done is done. Lets figure out how to fix it. If done right, a new Iraq will be a positive thing for the entire World. And if Iraq gets fixed, then sure, go into Sudan, Iran, and Iibia. You poise those questions, yet if Bush had gone in there, you'd be bashing him for doing so. The bigger problem with this planet, is the candy asses at the UN.
Saddam didn't allow terrorist's in his country???? Didn't Bush Sr. pull out once Kuwiat was freed? You think its George W. Bush that is creating the hatred some people have towards the USA? You hate Bush, fine, whatever, but don't use that hatred to cloud your judgement.
In middle eastern countries, woman are barley allowed to speak. Put a woman (and a useless one at that) in charge of the free world, and shit will hit the fan. Especially since she's a demo, and teh flavour of the moment is to be against fighting, terrorists will hit American and Western targets like mad.
Dirty Sanchez said:
Do some research and check where those polls are coming from. Because the polls they are using are the same polls the news is using.
You still dont understand. He's not doing the same as the media because Moore isnt the media. He's not a news organization or outlet. He is biased in his documentaries because it's his job, it's his opinion, and it's his point of view. It is not the media's job to be biased though I do admit they are but the point is it's not their job to be where as it is Moore's job to be. That's why Moore is complaining about them because their doing something their not supposed to be. Im sure that if they wanted to make a documentary about their opinions then Moore would have no problem with it. The difference between the news and a documentary is that a documentary reports something in a dramatical fashion where as the news just reports the facts. And Moore doesnt feel the news is doing that. Just as you feel as if Moore is leaving facts out of his movie and showing things in a certain light to get people to agree with him Moore feels as if the news is doing the exact same thing. The difference??? Moore is supposed to do that it's his job to be biased but not the media's.
You know I feel the same way about Bush and his supporters. People blindly follow Bush when he leaves out facts and misleads the public. And that's a far more serious charge when it's the president doing it. Unfortunately we live in a society where people are so easily manipulated but that doesnt mean their not smart. I know a nurse who was so confused about Iraq and terrorism that when Saddam was caught she believed that there would be terrorist attacks in the states in retaliation as if Saddam actually had terrorist cells in the United States. Now I admit that there probably are terrorist cells in the U.S. but by no means are they loyal to Saddam. Now just because she was confused about that that doesnt make her stupid (she's a nurse for crying out loud) it just means she's been mislead. A president's job is to lead not mislead! Just because people can be manipulated so easily doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Bush manipulates people into thinking his way and Moore manipulates people into thinking his way it all even's out in the end.
900 people arent dying in the streets of LA everyday. I think that it's only a couple thousand people that die from gun violence in the U.S. a year. No I dont think Bush is directly responsible for 9/11 but nor do I think he paid enough attention to terror before 9/11. I do think however that Bush is responsible for the over 900 lives lost in the Iraq war. A war that we did not need to fight. Bush was reckless and irresponsible and the blood of those 900 soldiers is all over his hands. And the blood of anybody who dies from a terrorist attack done by an iraqi is all over his hands. You cant deny that the world hates the U.S. more with Bush in charge and you cant deny that a large portion of the world hates Bush. Just look at all the protests that happen in foreign countries when Bush visits them. These attacks didnt happen When Clinton was in office and Gore wasnt in office when they did happen so we'll never know whether they could have been prevented with another president in office or not. And your right if these attacks wouldve happened under Gore or Clinton I wouldnt have blamed them but if they used those attacks as an excuse to start a war that cost 900 of our american troops lives based off of a lie then I would blame them.
I dont think he was running around in circles. I think it was an issue that involved different peoples definition of a lie. I think O'Reily was running around in circles by not saying that he would be willing to send his children to fight for fallujah. Instead saying that he'd do it when that's not the same as sending your children to do it. O'Reily is an ass that would allow other's children to fight and die for Iraq but wouldnt send his own children.
Moore would be! He's even stated on CNN that if John Kerry gets elected then his camera will be on Kerry watching his every move. Kerry supported the war based of off of false information the president and the Bush administration gave him and the other Senators. If John Kerry were in that position he would not lie to the cabinet for a green light to go to war. John Kerry would never start a war we didnt need to fight. How do I know this you ask? Simple he's seen a war we didnt need to fight and what it did to people he even protested that war when he got home. He would not willingly put other people threw the same hell he had to go threw and if he did he sure as hell would tell them the truth as to why their fighting.
Bush wouldnt go in there but would go into Iraq that's the problem. You can not invade every country in the world just because they have an unjust leadership and thats essentially become the reasoning for the war in Iraq. You cant invade one country on that premise but not invade all the countries that do the same thing. You cant do it, it's not right, yet Bush did it and he did it with the one country that had nothing to do with terrorism and 9/11 and he created a whole new generation of terrorists doing it that's what makes his policies on fighting terror wrong!
Again yes a lot of people hate the U.S. Government more now than they did before. And Yes Saddam didnt allow terrorist in his country because they would be competition for control of Iraq.
Let's get this straight. Are you actually admitting that it's because she's a woman that she shouldnt be president??? And dont use how the middle east views us as an excuse. Last I checked extremist muslims from the middle east dont dictate how we live our lives and what our culture should be like. If we want a woman as president then that's our choice not theirs!
Brino, please, take all of your intelligence, research and figure out a way to help the coaching staff of the Seahawks . I am tried of watching them loose.
BTW, watched some "CNN experts" review of the Moore/O'Reilly debate and they came away with Moore being the a-hole because all he could do was say, "would you send your children to Falujah?" He came across to me as a pompous ass that has the "Mr. Know it All" attitude.
Again, I have some past history with the ass in BFC, so I know that I can't be objective.
I guess that you have to be real happy that the DNC holds him in such high esteem that he got to sit next to Jimmy Carter.:bowdown:
I see that he decided that it wasn't right that he attend the premier of 9/11 in Crawford. I wonder is that was before the twenty bags of manure was sent to him or after. Coward. He sure knows how to dish it out but .................
Ranger:glugglug:
. I am tried of watching them loose.BTW, watched some "CNN experts" review of the Moore/O'Reilly debate and they came away with Moore being the a-hole because all he could do was say, "would you send your children to Falujah?" He came across to me as a pompous ass that has the "Mr. Know it All" attitude.
Again, I have some past history with the ass in BFC, so I know that I can't be objective.
I guess that you have to be real happy that the DNC holds him in such high esteem that he got to sit next to Jimmy Carter.:bowdown:
I see that he decided that it wasn't right that he attend the premier of 9/11 in Crawford. I wonder is that was before the twenty bags of manure was sent to him or after. Coward. He sure knows how to dish it out but .................
Ranger:glugglug:
Ranger said:Brino, please, take all of your intelligence, research and figure out a way to help the coaching staff of the Seahawks
BTW, watched some "CNN experts" review of the Moore/O'Reilly debate and they came away with Moore being the a-hole because all he could do was say, "would you send your children to Falujah?" He came across to me as a pompous ass that has the "Mr. Know it All" attitude.
Again, I have some past history with the ass in BFC, so I know that I can't be objective.
I guess that you have to be real happy that the DNC holds him in such high esteem that he got to sit next to Jimmy Carter.:bowdown:
I see that he decided that it wasn't right that he attend the premier of 9/11 in Crawford. I wonder is that was before the twenty bags of manure was sent to him or after. Coward. He sure knows how to dish it out but .................
Ranger:glugglug:
First of all the fact that you said the Seahawks are bad proves you dont know what your talking about! They were better last year than they were in a long time and this year their going to be even better than that. They made it to the playoffs and almost beat Green Bay.
Let me take a wild guess who those CNN experts were. Was it Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson the CONSERVATIVE hosts of crossfire?
Listen though it sounds different I'm really not a big fan of Moore's either and I dont agree with the DNC sitting him next to Jimmy Carter. Why don't I agree with that? Because Moore himself isnt a democrat and has publicly stated that he doesnt like democrats much more than republicans although he agree's with us more than republicans.
I'm only discussing this with you guys because you guys seem to like thinking everything he does is a lie and that he's a coward and asshole. Not everything in his movie is a lie, he's no more of an asshole than most republicans I know, and he spoke up against this administration when everybody else was afraid to for fear of being called unpatriotic and in my book that's not the mark of a coward.
And regarding the Bill O'Reily and Michael Moore Interview I personally think they both came across lookin like assholes. There was no winner in that interview republicans and conservatives are going to say Moore dodged the questions and democrats and liberals are going to say O'Reily was attacking him. And me being biased I personally think O'Reily was dodging the question of whether or not he would send his children to fight in Iraq. So there's no real winner in that interview.
I dont know why Moore backed out of the Crawford Texas showing of his movie but I do admit that at face value it does seem like a cowardly thing to do nonetheless for now I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt but that could easily change.
BTW did you send him that manure Ranger? Awfully nice of you! :hatsoff:
hi brino
more i am looking for the thread and more i see people following jk, je,moore without any valid reasons.I will say something that will probably strong concerning these people but i need to say because it gets on my nerves to hear the same moore bs every time to be honest: At the Democratic convention were the three most powerful men JK, JE and Michael Moore. Mr. Propaganda. Amazing how it looks like the theme (similarity i would say) of another political party, the Nazis. They had Hitler, Goerring and Goebbels. Again, the information/propaganda minster up with the top two powers. I am sorry but to do this comparisons but the way wthe way democratic convention was close to that for me
If you really think that Mr Moore is so honest and 100% respectful towards then that is fuckin bullshit
The democrats before clinton are not as good as they were under roosevelt and kennedy.In many other boards where i am a member kerry is qualified as the worst democrat candidate ever, doesn't that mean something.
I don't mean to offense you or anyone but i am just telling you as well as to others my honest and frank opinion
regards and no offense taken
georges:georges:
more i am looking for the thread and more i see people following jk, je,moore without any valid reasons.I will say something that will probably strong concerning these people but i need to say because it gets on my nerves to hear the same moore bs every time to be honest: At the Democratic convention were the three most powerful men JK, JE and Michael Moore. Mr. Propaganda. Amazing how it looks like the theme (similarity i would say) of another political party, the Nazis. They had Hitler, Goerring and Goebbels. Again, the information/propaganda minster up with the top two powers. I am sorry but to do this comparisons but the way wthe way democratic convention was close to that for me
If you really think that Mr Moore is so honest and 100% respectful towards then that is fuckin bullshit
The democrats before clinton are not as good as they were under roosevelt and kennedy.In many other boards where i am a member kerry is qualified as the worst democrat candidate ever, doesn't that mean something.
I don't mean to offense you or anyone but i am just telling you as well as to others my honest and frank opinion
regards and no offense taken
georges:georges:
Similar threads
- Locked
