How UnAmerican of you all.
-
Blueghost — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 07:16 PM)
Untrue. I wasn't attempting to assert nor reaffirm the correctives of the conservative view of Moore's illogic, but rather demonstrate that Moore himself used very specious reasoning to weave the image of "conspiracy" or, what might be more accurately terms, as ill-begotten-irony of parties who know one another, waging war on parties with whom there is some threadbare connection.
Moore's point is that everyone's either in on "the gag" and scheme to wage a war a make a buck out of destroying lives and shedding blood, or, that there should be some kind of shame or other social negation by the public to disavow and/or suspect some collusion between the powers that be.
The simple fact of the matter is that Hussein pursued WMDs, France 1908via Israel had to deal with Hussein's nuclear power plant in the 80's (I remember the day the news broke that Israel had performed a strike on Iraq's nuclear power plant), and then Hussein tried to rebuild. And even after we kicked him out of Kuwait and dealt with his programs, he continued to play hide and seek and intimated to the state department that if had WMDs, then he may use them, hoping to scare us off.
You can argue that Bush Jr. used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq and take out Saddam once and for all, and you'd be right. But you would not be correct in arguing that he went in there solely for oil and merely to line Cheney's pockets with Halliburton contracts.
Saddam Hussein had proven to be a threat to the region and needed to be dealt with. Better that we do it then before he rebuilt his military (or WMD programs) and decided to threat another nation; the US and Europe included. -
generationofswine — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 08:29 PM)
Silly me, & here I thought that the W administration outed one our own CIA agents (Valerie Plame) because her husband was one of the people that found out & published the fact that Iraq did
NOT
try to purchase Yellow-cake Uranium from Niger & was in fact
NOT
pursuing WMDs, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that, while occupying the country, we not only failed to find a single WMD nor did we find a shred of evidence that Iraq was even developing a WMD program.
In fact, that, despite the single outside source that confirmed that Saddam was playing hide-and-seek with IAEA inspectors not because he actually had WMDs but because he wanted his people to believe that he had them& the CIA came to that conclusion before we even invaded.
Now don't take my word for it, do your own thinking, it's easy to verify
EVEN
if you read the right wing
Daily Mail
. In fact
ANY
news source, aside from Fox & the crazy right-wing conspiracy sites will have all of that archived & waiting for you to read. All you need to do is broaden your horizons a little. Point-of-fact, if you are so inclined, money says you can probably even look it all up on Wikipedia.
So, that being the case, I think I would, in fact, be
"correct in arguing that he went in there solely for oil and merely to line Cheney's pockets with Halliburton contracts."
Untrue. I wasn't attempting to assert nor reaffirm the correctives of the conservative view of Moore's illogic, but rather demonstrate that Moore himself used very specious reasoning to weave the image of "conspiracy" or, what might be more accurately terms, as ill-begotten-irony of parties who know one another, waging war on parties with whom there is some threadbare connection.
So, here we have a problem. You might well have not been consciously attempting to
"assert nor reaffirm the correctives of the conservative view of Moore's illogic,"
but in not doing so you seem to still be asserting that the only news you read or watch was the Fox drum-beat to war about a decade plus ago to the extent that you are either ignorant of the revelations that had illuminated the globe in every major paper around the world
NOT
associated with Fox news or simply willfully ignoring them for half-truths in the hopes that you are debating someone that is either illiterate or to young to have followed the news.
In either case despite you testimony of
NOT
"assert[ing] nor reaffirm the correctives of the conservative view of Moore's illogic."
you are, in fact, doing so by parroting the drum beat to war talking points.
In fact, your very verbiage
"Moore's illogic."
seems an entirely blatant proclamation that you are, in fact,
"reaffirm the correctives of the conservative view of Moore."
And this is because neutral parties, or even liberals (with the exception of Norman Goldman) tend not to play diminutive word games when referencing journalists, commentators, or even propagandists like Moore.
So, would you care to redact? Or are we going to trudge onward? -
generationofswine — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 08:55 AM)
I'll take that as a redaction brought about by the realization we didn't invade Saudi Arabia to get Saddam, that Bin Laden did have ties to the the Saudi Royal family, & the no WMDs or WMD programs were found during or after the invasion.
-
doggie_rodriguez — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 06:42 AM)
I paraphrased his quote.
I'd really like to have the last word so it looks like I won.but debating is hard when you have no idea what you're talking about.
That's what it sounds like to the rest of the class. -
awesomedawson — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 07:41 PM)
Perhaps wishing harm is a bit excessive. But on your point freedom of speech protects you from being criminally prosecuted for the things you say. It does not protect you from people disagreeing with you and sharing their opinion on what you said. He is incredibly wrong on most of the things he says, and he only says most of these things to get attention. I respect his ability to have an opinion, but I do not respect the things he said. I have even less respect for him when he back tracks on all of his responses. If he truly has these thoughts then stand by them.
-
xMCGRUBERx — 10 years ago(September 11, 2015 03:05 AM)
Just so you know liberals are the new facists. Open your eyes. People can say whatever they want but people in positions of great influence really out to be mindful of its effect. Look at all the bozos that believe what michael moore actually claims. Theres REAL documentries on how he makes his. How is personally orchestrates and manufactures the points he makes. Like bowling for columbine. He led viewers to believe that if u walked into a bank down south and opened up a bank account you could leave with a gun. The promotion was true but thats the only part that is. Very iconic part of that movie is when he leaves the bank and hold the gun to the sky like see Isnt this crazy! What actually happened was michael moore set this up weeks prior so they could do a background check. The guns arent in the bank as he depicted. Their in a vault on the other side of the state and are usually shipped to the person once everything has been checked out. Michael moore played his im a hollywood bigshot card on a smalltown of about 1000people's bank so they would make an exception for only him. They were thrilled hollywood was in their town and actually wanted to film their bank. It was the biggest thing to have ever happened to that tiny tiny town. It came down to the wire and michael moore demanded that the gun be present there for the day of filming or he wasnt coming at all, They obliged. It was not a fun day for the bank. Several times they had to cut and the tellers be coached about what to say. He even stopped filming when someone said something humorous and told them that "he'd be the one making the jokes". He turns into a maniac when asked about any of this. Even in rare Q&A's he does (which are basically mainly on college campuses) and asked about the virtually unlimited manipulations and distortions he'll immediately silence them before theyve even finished the question. So ya, he lies and hes a hypocrite. He likes to ambush people with interviews and ask question above their paygrade, dont have the proper info handy in front of them to make an official statement and present it to the braindead public that slops it up like hogs. Try to get an interview with him if u really want to see someone squirm
-
doggie_rodriguez — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 06:37 AM)
Just so you know liberals are the new facists. Open your eyes.
Good argument.
Like bowling for columbine. He led viewers to believe that if u walked into a bank down south and opened up a bank account you could leave with a gun. The promotion was true
Oh, so open a bank account get a free gun was true? That's probably where you should have stopped typing. Who cares if the gun had to be shipped out? The issue isn't where the guns were being held it was the promotion in the first place.
It came down to the wire and michael moore demanded that the gun be present there for the day of filming or he wasnt coming at all, They obliged. It was not a fun day for the bank. Several times they had to cut and the tellers be coached about what to say. He even stopped filming when someone said something humorous and told them that "he'd be the one making the jokes".
I would love to see a link for that. (please don't be lazy and tell me to research YOUR claims).