Yeah, but could we get it there? I'm not sure even one of these would be up to the task:
Posted on 07/01/2004 9:27:32 AM PDT by pookie18
If I were a member of Congress and Moore approached me with this challenge, I would've responded by saying "How about if I introduce a special bill in Congress that would authorize the President to draft your fat ass into the Army and then ship it overseas to Iraq?"
Uh, lugsoul, part of the justification for Iraq was based upon a change in national policy after 9-11.
I used to wonder just how dense someone had to be in order to be a fan of Michael Moore. Thanks for the demonstration, it's much clearer now.
Yeah, but could we get it there? I'm not sure even one of these would be up to the task:
In other words, exactly what I said it was about.
Where did I say anything about being a Moore fan. Oh, that's right, I didn't. You just made that up. Because if anyone takes issue with any old BS charge anyone makes about him, they must be a 'fan', right?
You obviously have nothing cogent to say - except that you disagree with the President about the war on terror being a coherent effort against ALL of the terrorists - and I have no interest in a flame war with one armed only with a soggy match, so I'll move on.
Who cares if they are untrue. Unless they constitute slander and/or libel, one can say pretty much anything they want about a 'public' person.
The beauty of the 1st ammendment is to allow people/political parties to compete in the marketplace of ideas/opinions.
While some may claim that the mainstream media has a monopoly, that is simply untrue with the advent of Fox, Rush and the Net.
Given the tools at our disposal, if we can't persuade enough people to vote for Bush (and endorse his Iraq policy), then we don't deserve to have him as president.
Hardly. But go ahead and believe that if you want. After all, you're a liberal and that's your perogative. The point is, you have taken the initial issue - that Bush wasn't talking about terrorism against Americans in that clip but Moore failed to show that - and completely twisted it.
Where did I say anything about being a Moore fan. Oh, that's right, I didn't. You just made that up.
The shoe fit. After all, you both twist facts and logic in a very similar manner.
Because if anyone takes issue with any old BS charge anyone makes about him, they must be a 'fan', right?
Well, are you going to go see the movie? Have you ever seen any other of Moore's movies?
You obviously have nothing cogent to say
Coming from you, that's a compliment.
- except that you disagree with the President about the war on terror being a coherent effort against ALL of the terrorists
There you go again. And my position is backed up by American foreign policy regarding Israel. We try to hunt down and kill the leaders of terrorists who attack us - but we often criticize the Israelis when they do the same against Hamas - so there is much more at play here than just a simple premise, that all terrorism is of equal interest to us. But, once again, don't let reality get in the way of your indignation at me.
- and I have no interest in a flame war with one armed only with a soggy match, so I'll move on.
Like Rush said, we can kick liberal butt with one arm and half our brains tied behind our backs. As I've shown here yet again. Adios.
We do. And we point out the errors. Your point is?
bump
Now, let's see. The President says "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers." But, according to you, he is only talking about the Israeli/Palestinian issue and not the broader war on terror. Right.
Game. set. match. You lose.
Lugsoul: and I have no interest in a flame war with one armed only with a soggy match, so I'll move on.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Now, let's see. The President says "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers." But, according to you, he is only talking about the Israeli/Palestinian issue and not the broader war on terror. Right.
No, I am not - and I already clearly documented the difference between the way we execute our war on terror and how we want the Israelis to execute theirs. But, then again, I can hardly expect you to grasp the difference between broad statements and the specific actions taken in carrying out American foreign policy. That might require you to do something really, really radical, like gather facts and actually process them, instead of bleating out Dem talking points.
Oh, and you never did answer - have you ever seen a Michael Moore movie?
That's okay, dirtboy. It is obvious that you just wouldn't know what to do if you slipped out of lockstep for a moment.
So, what exactly was the President calling on "all nations" to do with regard to Palestinian terrorists that doesn't apply to terrorists in general?
Whoops - sorry about that. I know you hate to be asked questions that undermine your entire premise.
I've seen lots of movies made by or starring people that I'm not a "fan" of - I'm sure you have difficulty with that concept.
Now, since I graciously answered your question, why don't you tell me what you think the President was talking about?
Its all in ZE EDIT!
Not from where I'm sitting. Looks to me like he won the discussing and you're still spinning.
Moore's inclusion of that clip was grossly misleading, just as he meant it to be. And pointing that out is a legitimate discrediting of Moore and his propaganda film.
Presenting something in a way that you know the audience will draw an improper conclusion from is no different from an outright lie. In a way it's *worse*, since it rapes the truth in service to an untruth.
You may not be able to see that without being misled, but most of us understand that not everything relating to the war on terror is directly tied to 9-11.
Strange how similar your argument is to the liberal argument claiming that the Adminstration misled the public into thinking Iraq was behind 9-11.
And I already pointed out the contradiction between what the president said there and American foreign policy regarding Israel doing to Hamas leaders what we do to al Qaeda leaders - kill them. So to the Bush Admin, our war on terror is more important than Israel's - we ask that they exercise restraint whereas we don't, for whatever reasons - probably to keep down Arab anger at Israel while we are in Iraq. That is applied policy, not speeches, not statements, not edited film clips. In the end, it is applied policy that matters.
So I've countered your contention. Not that it even matters to the original point - that Bush wasn't even talking about 9/11 in that clip and it was dishonest editing. You've managed to drag the discussion well away from the original subject, I countered it long ago, but you persist like the annoying liberal you are. So you can have the last word in this discussion.
Yes. Both Roger and Me and Pets or Meat.
But you're not a fan of his work.
Sorry, but I don't support the work of people I despise. I would rather get a root canal than have any of my money go to fatboy.
So, what exactly was the President calling on "all nations" to do with regard to Palestinian terrorists that doesn't apply to terrorists in general?
That's what liberals do. Just like Bill Clinton in Kosovo conceded to what Milosevic was willing to do all along - and then declared victory - so does lugsoul pick up the football after the game is over, run the length of the field and celebrate in the end zone.
Who said he was talking about 9-11? Oh, that's right. the title says 9-11, so Moore must be trying to mislead you into thinking that is what the President is talking about. Right.
What was the President asking "all nations" to do? You are still ducking the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.