NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not a hoax. A few minutes ago, Bill O'Reiley interviewed Michael Moore on his show. It was actually taped yesterday, but aired today. The conditions were that Moore could also ask questions, and with the exception of a commercial break, the interview wasn't edited.
The interview was a gentlemen's discussion. Moore was a bit idealogic, but composed himself. I think that O'Reiley was able to hold his own, although he did skirt a question (that one Moore always asks about children and war, although O'Reiley did say he'd sacrifice himself). In the end, I'm glad I saw it. Besides, it was something few politicos wish to do: debate their counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Did they fist fight or say the other one is satan? I'm going to watch it at 11pm Eastern tonight.

Just wondering because if your only exposure to political debate is on this board you'd be bound to think Liberals and Conservatives were rioting in the street and we're in the middle of a civil war.

God forbid someone has a different opinion than you! May they rot in hell seems to be the sentiment here.

Did they fist fight or say the other one is satan? I'm going to watch it at 11pm Eastern tonight.

Just wondering because if your only exposure to political debate is on this board you'd be bound to think Liberals and Conservatives were rioting in the street and we're in the middle of a civil war.

God forbid someone has a different opinion than you! May they rot in hell seems to be the sentiment here.
It was very polite, even though it was unedited (and Moore will speak up if it was). I was surprised at how composed they were. Even though they fiercely disagreed, they didn't fight eachother.

I hate Bill O'Reilley.

I hate Bill O'Reilley.


See...read post above.

I hate Bill O'Reilley.
dito.

What?

O'Reilly is an arrogant jerk who usually makes his point by interrupting and shouting down the other side. This usually makes him come off as a pompous ass.

Lumpy Riefenstahl does the same things to such an extent he makes Bill O look like a logical gentleman by comparison.

O'Reilly should have that sack of sedition on more often.

I am amazed that Bill didn't blow his top.




He still didn't answer the question about "will you send your child to the army?"

most parents love their children more than themselves.

I am amazed that Bill didn't blow his top.




He still didn't answer the question about "will you send your child to the army?"

most parents love their children more than themselves.
It's pretty much what he said.

Michael Moore's question was ridiculous. "Children" aren't sent to war. These "children" are adults that make the choice to enter the army. It's not up to a parent to send their kid to war or not. O'Reilly was correct in saying that HE would go to war; he would have little to no say over an adults choice to enter the military. I was pleasantly surprised that neither blew up at the other, though.

Michael Moore's question was ridiculous. "Children" aren't sent to war. These "children" are adults that make the choice to enter the army. It's not up to a parent to send their kid to war or not. O'Reilly was correct in saying that HE would go to war; he would have little to no say over an adults choice to enter the military. I was pleasantly surprised that neither blew up at the other, though.
18-25 year olds are the children of people who are the age of or younger than the politicians. Moore isn't asking anyone to send a child to Iraq; he is asking people if they would send their child to Iraq. My grandma refers to my dad as her child even though my dad is getting close to being fifty years old. Is he a child? No. Is he her child? Yes.

I like Bill O'Reilly. He's an Independent, so am I. What people find irritating, his yelling at people, is often misunderstood. I get it. When I am discussing something with someone and they continue to change the topic, elude a topic, or creep in illogical ideas or unsubstantiated statements as fact (what Bill calls Spinning), that gets me pissed off. And trying to communicate with some folks that don't want to answer a direct question with a direct answer is annoying. That is why Bill gets upset. He doesn't push people to see things and agree with his opinion. If you think that, you haven't watched or listened to his shows often enough.

He talks to high level government people, never gives names because of security issues, and only checks reputable polls to give statistics. That's the kind of straight forward person I like in a JOURNALIST.

Now compare him to Michael Moore, well there isn't a lot to say. Bill wins the debates because Moore doesn't have the FACTS to substantiate what he spews. He shows images of things going on or being said, but out of context, you can make Mother Teresa look like a Nazi. So his idea of documentary is a farce. Bill on the other hand, tells it like it is.

BUSH in 2004!!!!

I'm going to to download the video feed tonight from somewhere online... I was more interested in watching the DNC not be pre-empted.

I like Bill O'Reilly. He's an Independent, so am I. What people find irritating, his yelling at people, is often misunderstood. I get it. When I am discussing something with someone and they continue to change the topic, elude a topic, or creep in illogical ideas or unsubstantiated statements as fact (what Bill calls Spinning), that gets me pissed off. And trying to communicate with some folks that don't want to answer a direct question with a direct answer is annoying. That is why Bill gets upset. He doesn't push people to see things and agree with his opinion. If you think that, you haven't watched or listened to his shows often enough.

He talks to high level government people, never gives names because of security issues, and only checks reputable polls to give statistics. That's the kind of straight forward person I like in a JOURNALIST.

Now compare him to Michael Moore, well there isn't a lot to say. Bill wins the debates because Moore doesn't have the FACTS to substantiate what he spews. He shows images of things going on or being said, but out of context, you can make Mother Teresa look like a Nazi. So his idea of documentary is a farce. Bill on the other hand, tells it like it is.

BUSH in 2004!!!!



Bill is Independent?


He is ultra right conservative. And so are you. Don't go soiling the good name of Independant with your lies. Michael Moore has FACTS. Bill has never ever told it like it was. He makes things up right on the spot. When he interviewed the chairwoman of the United Women's Accociation, he told her that 58% of single women are employed, when in fact, it was 14%. He was NOT mis-informed, but randomly made the number up. Obviously, the show never became a rerun.

Liberals have a strong point of using facts to back up their opinion.

Conservatives are extremely well at either yelling louder or covering up their ears.



http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OReillyGlick.mov
That poor person lost his father to 9/11 and look how Bill treats him.

I hate Bill O'Reilley.



:rolleyes:

Is he to honest for you?

:rolleyes:

Is he to honest for you?
Too much of an arrogant self-absorbed asshole for me, and people call me arrogant all the time...

looks like moore did a very poor job on the bush lying issue. he lost that hands down

looks like moore did a very poor job on the bush lying issue. he lost that hands down
Iraq is a more dangerous threat to the United States than Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and DPRK?

Okay, anyone who missed the Moore/O'Rielly interview, it is on right now. Switch to FOX News and watch it. You'll see what I'm talking about. At the end of the interview O'Reilly takes his cheap shots on Moore without Moore having a chance to make any retort because the interview was pre-recorded and Moore wasn't there for the actual recording of the show.

This was on Fox News Channel, right?



I wish I had cable...

This was on Fox News Channel, right?



I wish I had cable...
Yea...Bill O'Reilly knows little about history. Michael Moore does.

"No matter how much evidence we produce, no matter how much we say that Clinton and Bush [senior] admitted Hussien had WMDs, you can never get a Bush-hater to concede that there were no lies, and that ladies and gentlemen is blind ideology" then he commented something negative about blind ideology. This comment, from Bill O'Reilly was a blatant attack on Michael Moore AFTER the pre-recorded part of the show was over. Moore was not there and had no chance to defend himself. Not only that, but the same can be said about people on the opposite side of the spectrum. Fair and balanced? Not quite.

Then he attacks Dean for not subjecting himself to O'Reilly's idiocy.

"No matter how much evidence we produce, no matter how much we say that Clinton and Bush [senior] admitted Hussien had WMDs, you can never get a Bush-hater to concede that there were no lies, and that ladies and gentlemen is blind ideology" then he commented something negative about blind ideology. This comment, from Bill O'Reilly was a blatant attack on Michael Moore AFTER the pre-recorded part of the show was over. Moore was not there and had no chance to defend himself. Not only that, but the same can be said about people on the opposite side of the spectrum. Fair and balanced? Not quite.

did you realy miss the point i was trying to make? at the time many sources was saying sadom had wmd. so how does that make bush a lyer? kerry and cliton both belived it. kerry voted for the war but now flip flops on the subject. do you really belive kerrys voting record has nothing to do with what he will do as president or do you just not care

But you cant refute what he said about idealogs never accepting the fact that they might have it wrong. O'Reilly simply wanted to get Moore to admit that Bush didn't mislead the country about WMD, rather he acted in what he saw as the best course of action on the intelligence he had at the time.

But idealogs on the left wont admit that.. no matter what facts are brought up. Brittish intelligence, Russian intelligence, the CIA, Isreali intelligence all said that Saddam had WMD. George Tenant said "Sir, it's a slam dunk".

O'Reilly has been asking everyone lately, if they were president and had the intelligence reports that he had at the time, what would they do? The exact same thing.

did you realy miss the point i was trying to make? at the time many sources was saying sadom had wmd. so how does that make bush a lyer? kerry and cliton both belived it. kerry voted for the war but now flip flops on the subject. do you really belive kerrys voting record has nothing to do with what he will do as president or do you just not care
Whether or not Bush lied doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly flamed Moore on live national television. Also, if you watched Larry King Live, which Moore was also on tonight, Moore made some other good points. If it was an honest mistake, which all Republicans are arguing it was, then he still doesn't deserve to be re-elected. We can't afford to have people making huge mistakes like that when they are in charge of the country. Also, couldn't we put more troops in and made more of an effort to get the real threat, Osama bin Laden? And even if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, whether or not he was a threat is still questionable. Bush did not even wonder much about that he just heard WMD and got his finger on the red button...

Also, please drop the flip-flopping bullshit because that's all that is. The facts were one way, Kerry supported the war. The real truths developed, he changed his mind and now doesn't support the war. Bush still supports the war even though the real truths have shown that we had bad intelligence. The war and Iraq has shifted attention away from the war on terror and the real threat to America.

But you cant refute what he said about idealogs never accepting the fact that they might have it wrong. O'Reilly simply wanted to get Moore to admit that Bush didn't mislead the country about WMD, rather he acted in what he saw as the best course of action on the intelligence he had at the time.

But idealogs on the left wont admit that.. no matter what facts are brought up. Brittish intelligence, Russian intelligence, the CIA, Isreali intelligence all said that Saddam had WMD. George Tenant said "Sir, it's a slam dunk".

O'Reilly has been asking everyone lately, if they were president and had the intelligence reports that he had at the time, what would they do? The exact same thing.
German and French intelligence contradicted all of that but they were dismissed as cowardly pussies. Guess what, looks like they were pretty accurate and we could have at least seriously considered their side of the story, did that happen? No.

Bush is sticking with the war now because he understands he has a responsibility to Iraq. Personally, I feel that liberating several million impoverished people was justification enough; it's too bad that Saddam's own buddies are recruiting a resistance. Bush isn't going to withdraw all of our troops and let the interim government collapse; he understands that it'll need some help before it can stand alone.

Michael Moore is certainly not all facts. He's a propagandist along the lines of Goebel. He takes something and twists it into something else. Moore tends to take the opposite side of whatever issue is popular at the time, and then gathers the smallest, most insignificant scraps of information and twists them into something they are not. His connecting Bush to the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Ladens was absolute rubbish and lies; if you dig deep enough you can probably find closer connections between Moore and the Bin Ladens.

Read "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man." Yes, I understand that the title seems rather hypocritical, but it really should be read before anybody goes around spouting something out of Moore's movies or books. Given that Moore's works are biased, and that the above book is biased, read both sides and you'll come out with a pretty good understanding.

And as an aside: since when was being hit by shrapnel a qualification for President (Kerry)? If I dove on a hand grenade, could I run for Congress?

As it happens, France isn't one of our cloest allies. If your own intelligence service is telling you that the man has weapons, if your closest ally in the world is telling you that he has weapons, and if two former presidents all are swearing that the man has weapons, how could you not make an ultimatium? If someone refuses your ultimatium, do you then just let it go? Not unless you want to be viewed as a weak nation unable to make good on it s promises.

Of course France and Germany are going to claim that there are no weapons there; they've been getting bribes from Iraq for a decade at least. (in the form of business contracts, if not outright bribes in oil for food scandals)

I agreed with Moor as usual. He isn't left-wing, he's an independent. Why didn't the iraqis rise up? was my favorite line of his. That's right!

I agreed with Moor as usual. He isn't left-wing, he's an independent. Why didn't the iraqis rise up? was my favorite line of his. That's right!
Yea...you gotta rise up...

Actually, the funniest thing I've heard in a while was some episode of "The Best Week Ever" they were answering Jadakiss's questions, one of them being "Why'd Bush hafta knock down the towers?" to which one of the people responded, "Hmm...I don't know...why don't you go ask MICHAEL MOORE!"

I hate Bill O'Reilley.

He really is an awful human being.

I agreed with Moor as usual. He isn't left-wing, he's an independent. Why didn't the iraqis rise up? was my favorite line of his. That's right!

Why didnt the Iraqi's rise up? If you can remember, they did.. at least the kurdish population in the north of Iraq did. And what did Saddam do to them? He used his (non-existant) WMDs on them killing hundreds of thousands.

After a response like that.. Im sure anyone would be hesitant to speak out against him, let alone rise up.

I like Bill O'Reilly. He's an Independent, so am I. What people find irritating,

I used to think he was ok till he did an interview on NPR. Terry Gross(sp?) is probably one of the most polite individul on this planet.

Sure he has issues with NPR but there was no reason to act like an ass with somebody who was going out of her way to be polite.

Why didnt the Iraqi's rise up? If you can remember, they did.. at least the kurdish population in the north of Iraq did. And what did Saddam do to them? He used his (non-existant) WMDs on them killing hundreds of thousands.

After a response like that.. Im sure anyone would be hesitant to speak out against him, let alone rise up.
Then why doesn't Bush create a Kurdistan in the Northern part of Iraq? It's the obvious solution.

Then why doesn't Bush create a Kurdistan in the Northern part of Iraq? It's the obvious solution.

Im sorry, what does that have to do with the people of Iraq not rising up against Saddam?

Oh, and Michael Moore isnt an independant... right now he's anti-Bush, but thats his right.

Im sorry, what does that have to do with the people of Iraq not rising up against Saddam?

Oh, and Michael Moore isnt an independant... right now he's anti-Bush, but thats his right.

Maybe he independently came to the conclusion of having an anti-bush stance.

It's not a hoax. A few minutes ago, Bill O'Reiley interviewed Michael Moore on his show. It was actually taped yesterday, but aired today. The conditions were that Moore could also ask questions, and with the exception of a commercial break, the interview wasn't edited.
The interview was a gentlemen's discussion. Moore was a bit idealogic, but composed himself. I think that O'Reiley was able to hold his own, although he did skirt a question (that one Moore always asks about children and war, although O'Reiley did say he'd sacrifice himself). In the end, I'm glad I saw it. Besides, it was something few politicos wish to do: debate their counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I watched it earlier this evening and expected M&M to blow up after a few of O'Reiley's questions, but he remained very calm to my surprise.

I was expecting a situation like when O'Reiley interviewed Jenna Jameson, but that did not turn out. Per usual, Moore talked about idealistic stuff (us all holding hands around the campfire and singing Coom-by-ya) but besides that, I actually learned more about Moore than any of his Mockumenteries have ever showed.

Im sorry, what does that have to do with the people of Iraq not rising up against Saddam?

Oh, and Michael Moore isnt an independant... right now he's anti-Bush, but thats his right.
Not sure how you can tie "Democrat," "Leftist," or "Liberal" to "Anti-Bush." Democrats, Leftists, and Liberals aren't the only anti-Bush people in the world. Although I do like your response to my question dodging. I mean, whats the best way to respond to a dodged question about a foriegn uprising against a dictator? I know! Dodge a question about a leader who attacks sovereign nations.

To answer your question about Kurds rising up. Here, in my opinion, is how it should have been done. In the exact same fashion we put the Taliban in place. Have the CIA go into the Kurdish part of Iraq, get some organization going, prop up a leader, have them rise up against Saddam with extreme organization. As soon as the Kurds rose up and proved to the world that they wanted to be free of Saddam, the US could send in sympathy support for the Kurds in the exact fashion we had sent in "liberators." It would have gone over much better with the world community had it gone down that way. Plus, you don't even have to violate the UN Charter really. You could leave Saddam in power because the only people he murdered were Kurds really. And then if he later attacked the new country of Kurdistan, which would be an American ally, America could justifiably remove Saddam as he had attacked an American ally, just like he did to start the first Gulf War.

Maybe Kuwait had the revolution planned, then the US ruined it.

I agreed with Moor as usual. He isn't left-wing, he's an independent. Why didn't the iraqis rise up? was my favorite line of his. That's right!

There were uprisings in Iraq, just the Saddam controled state-media did not report it.

His question was about pointless though....
"Why didn't the Iraqis rise up against Saddam?"
answer: a few of them did. after they did, they all got gassed

its kind of like:
"Why didn't American slaves rise up against their owners?
answer: a few of them did. after they did, they were all hanging from a tree.

There were uprisings in Iraq, just the Saddam controled state-media did not report it.

His question was about pointless though....
"Why didn't the Iraqis rise up against Saddam?"
answer: a few of them did. after they did, they all got gassed

its kind of like:
"Why didn't American slaves rise up against their owners?
answer: a few of them did. after they did, they were all hanging from a tree.
Read my suggestion a couple posts up. It has worked before; it would've worked in Iraq.

Im not saying democrats, leftists, or liberals are anti-Bush, Im saying Michael Moore is. I am making no generalizations about any other person.

Im not sure just what you are saying about dodging... my response would be I wont see the movie Dodgeball because I dont really appreciate Ben Stiller's brand of humor. Fair enough?

Putting cia operatives in with the Kurds wouldn't have worked... although Im speaking with the benifit of hindsight. Saddam crushed the kurdish uprising using chemical weapons killing men, women, and children by the thousands, the vast majority of whom did not bear arms against him.

Regardless.. after that demonstration of the ruthlessness Saddam had against his own people (the kurds were Iraqi afterall) no one in his "inner" cities would risk uprising. Saddam was also extremely adept at taking disidents and making them disappear.

As much as i dont like moore id have to say he did handle himself.he lied through his teeth the whole interview but only tried to dodge bills quentions a couple of times.

I hate Bill O'Reilley.
He can suck it.

Read my suggestion a couple posts up. It has worked before; it would've worked in Iraq.

no that wouldn't have worked.

as a last ditch political effort to save his own ass, Saddam would have granted Kurdistain complete independance from Iraq, and Iraq would have eventually desolved into three seperate states according to their sect of Islam. This would also encourage the Turkish Kurds to rise up against Turkey, creating even more chaos in an already unstable region.

oh, and while Im a conservative and pro-Bush, I served in the military for 20 years defending Michael Moore's right to say what he wants. And defending Jubestan's right to say what he/she wants. :)

I love this country, and will defend to the death everyone's right to disent, disagree and have good ol' fashioned arguements. Just be sure to adhere to the Marquis of Queensbury rules now.

Marquis of Queensbury

I wonder how many readers thought "who?" ;)

no that wouldn't have worked.

as a last ditch political effort to save his own ass, Saddam would have granted Kurdistain complete independance from Iraq, and Iraq would have eventually desolved into three seperate states according to their sect of Islam. This would also encourage the Turkish Kurds to rise up against Turkey, creating even more chaos in an already unstable region.

I've been preaching for a few years that Italia should slaughter Istanbul and change it to Constanople ;)

Im old, old fashioned, and a member of the SCA... I sometimes use 'archaic' quotes ;)

Just a message to the liberals: I completely agree that O'Reilly is an asshole but the best thing you can do is just not watch him. Fox is not interested in informing the public or instigating debate, only keeping viewing figures. As long as you watch you are supporting Fox and its nonsense. I havent watched Fox in 6 months and feel great about it.

Saddam slaughtering the Kurds ---> increased support for Saddam
Turkey slaughtering the Kurds ---> increased U.S. aid for Turkey

To claim that the U.S. cares about the Kurds is absurd.
Furthermore, Bush did lie. First off, he said that the war was about the WMDs. Now he's saying that it was about liberating Iraq. Which is it?

I hate Bill O'Reilley.



Take a look at this ;) (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

Saddam slaughtering the Kurds ---> increased support for Saddam
Turkey slaughtering the Kurds ---> increased U.S. aid for Turkey

To claim that the U.S. cares about the Kurds is absurd.
Furthermore, Bush did lie. First off, he said that the war was about the WMDs. Now he's saying that it was about liberating Iraq. Which is it?

Both. The war was started based on intelligence stating that Iraq had WMDs. Did you think the US would roll in, find the WMDs then leave Iraq under Saddam's rule? WMDs or no WMDs the removal of Saddam was one of the reasons for the war in Iraq. Therefore the liberation of Iraq was a reason for the war.

Both. The war was started based on intelligence stating that Iraq had WMDs. Did you think the US would roll in, find the WMDs then leave Iraq under Saddam's rule? WMDs or no WMDs the removal of Saddam was one of the reasons for the war in Iraq. Therefore the liberation of Iraq was a reason for the war.

Why wouldn't they? If the war was to prevent WMDs from being used by a tyrant, simply removing the WMDs would accomplish that.

Bill is Independent?


He is ultra right conservative. And so are you. Don't go soiling the good name of Independant with your lies. Michael Moore has FACTS. Bill has never ever told it like it was. He makes things up right on the spot. When he interviewed the chairwoman of the United Women's Accociation, he told her that 58% of single women are employed, when in fact, it was 14%. He was NOT mis-informed, but randomly made the number up. Obviously, the show never became a rerun.

Liberals have a strong point of using facts to back up their opinion.

Conservatives are extremely well at either yelling louder or covering up their ears.



http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OReillyGlick.mov
That poor person lost his father to 9/11 and look how Bill treats him.

Bill is a MODERATE conservative--definitely not an independant, though. I sometimes agree with him, and sometimes, he's just off his rocker.

Moore does NOT just use facts--he uses sensationalistic facts--and not in historically chronilogical order or context. He also uses false footage--in F911, he used footage from the Desert Storm for his coverage of the current goings-on in Iraq. He takes a great many of his clips out of context--like that "Not from my cold dead hand" speech from Heston, in Bowling for Columbine. He shows the tragedy of the shooting, and then, supposedly, Heston's immediate response was holding that rifle above his head and spouting off that line. That speech happened after more than a year had passed since the Columbine shooting. Moore is a sensationalist, and pushes his creations off as "Documentaries".

Check John Stossel's book, "Give Me A Break". There is a balanced book--it takes shots at business, the media, and the government.

Um, it's the liberals that have the image of yelling, BTW. Not the conservatives (Sharpton, Moore--all he ended up doing at the Oscars was yell, Dean, etc.). Conservatives tend to have the statiticians--and numbers. I like to use a little of both--shouting the numbers. :cool: Dont' get me wrong, the conservatives have idiots that think 98 year-old senators who can't talk and are just puppets are good things.....

14% of single women are employed? HA! Not in the US. If that were the case, I sure wouldn't see as many of them in the workplace.

18-25 year olds are the children of people who are the age of or younger than the politicians. Moore isn't asking anyone to send a child to Iraq; he is asking people if they would send their child to Iraq. My grandma refers to my dad as her child even though my dad is getting close to being fifty years old. Is he a child? No. Is he her child? Yes.
So what?! People of age 18-25 make the coice themselves. It's not up to their parents.

If I had a son in the right age I would never send him to any situation were he might get killed. But if he chose to fight for å good cause, I would suppot him, even if he risked getting killed.

Moores question is downright stupid, and I don't understand why people don't just tell him off.

(Oh, I forgot. Moore probably edits that out.)

So what?! People of age 18-25 make the coice themselves. It's not up to their parents.

If I had a son in the right age I would never send him to any situation were he might get killed. But if he chose to fight for å good cause, I would suppot him, even if he risked getting killed.

Moores question is downright stupid, and I don't understand why people don't just tell him off.

(Oh, I forgot. Moore probably edits that out.)
Uhm, you sir, are a moron. Those people who join the military choose to defend and serve our country. They did not know that a president would be sending them on a crusade based on what he thinks God is telling him stacked on flimsy evidence. They did not choose to go defend and serve the Iraqi citizens who can't even rise up on their own. They chose the defend American freedom which was not threatened by Iraq.

Regardless of how people feel about Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly, you have to admit the debate (and that is what it was, not an interview) was entertaining and civil, though heated at times. I thought there would be more vitriol between the two, but was pleasantly surprised when there was none. Nothing pisses me off more than when a debate turns into a shouting match of ad hominem attacks. This election coming up is very important. I think it is time that the issues of both parties are clearly defined by the candidates. Especially on Iraq. What is the deal and what are we going to do. "Staying the course" - Bush and "Getting help from other nations" - Kerry doesn't do it for me. This "Bush is stupid" and "Kerry is weak" crap has got to stop.

Why didnt the Iraqi's rise up? If you can remember, they did.. at least the kurdish population in the north of Iraq did. And what did Saddam do to them? He used his (non-existant) WMDs on them killing hundreds of thousands.

After a response like that.. Im sure anyone would be hesitant to speak out against him, let alone rise up.

Thank you for the history lesson. Pity this was in 1988.

During the next uprising, in 1992, Saddam did not use WMD, but instead Blackhawk helicoptors that we sold him, gaining permission to fly them through restricted airspace by us.

Thank you for the history lesson. Pity this was in 1988.

During the next uprising, in 1992, Saddam did not use WMD, but instead Blackhawk helicoptors that we sold him, gaining permission to fly them through restricted airspace by us.

We did not sell him Blackhawk helos. Where the hell did you hear that? We did allow them to fly military helocopters. Not the best decision in the world. But, considering that we decided not to topple Saddam in '91 because it would alienate the other arab countries in the coalition, it was just a drop in the bucket.

Bill is Independent?


He is ultra right conservative. And so are you. Don't go soiling the good name of Independant with your lies. Michael Moore has FACTS. Bill has never ever told it like it was. He makes things up right on the spot. When he interviewed the chairwoman of the United Women's Accociation, he told her that 58% of single women are employed, when in fact, it was 14%. He was NOT mis-informed, but randomly made the number up. Obviously, the show never became a rerun.

Liberals have a strong point of using facts to back up their opinion.

Conservatives are extremely well at either yelling louder or covering up their ears.



http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/OReillyGlick.mov
That poor person lost his father to 9/11 and look how Bill treats him.Don't let stereotypes be the guiding force of your arguement. You come to the conclusion that all liberals have facts to back up their arguements and that conservatives are just big talkers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What matters is not the person's politics, but the person. I have heard some truly outlandish claims made by the left and the right on this website, such as people jumping the gun and saying Bush planned 9-11. Different people are better debaters. Everyone sees facts that support their views, or else they wouldn't hold them.

And, for the record, Michael Moore has half-facts, third-facts, and implications, not facts. For example, remember the golf scene in his documentary? If he had left in fifteen more seconds at the beginning, you would have found that that interview was not in regards to 9-11, but one of the Palestinian suicide/homocide bombings. Also, Moore talked about how there was a meeting of the Bin Laden family in Bush's hometown but neglects to say Bush wasn't there, and he also implies the bin Ladens were flown out of the country during the restricted time following 9-11, when they were actually flown out immediately after the ban was lifted for their own safety. So don't give us any BS saying the guy who thinks Saddam-era Iraq was a utopia has his facts straight.

Uhm, you sir, are a moron. Those people who join the military choose to defend and serve our country. They did not know that a president would be sending them on a crusade based on what he thinks God is telling him stacked on flimsy evidence. They did not choose to go defend and serve the Iraqi citizens who can't even rise up on their own. They chose the defend American freedom which was not threatened by Iraq.

Opal, yesterday, during our 'debate' we had I had developed respect for you as you were a well spoken, well informed individual.

Im sorry to say that I just lost some respect for you when you had to resort to name calling because you didnt like his/her opinion about troops signing up.

No where did Bush mention God in his decision to invade Iraq. I wont put words in your mouth, dont put words in Bush's.

And if the intelligence agencies of 3 nations, as well as the briefing of the outgoing President all said he had WMD, I certainly wouldnt call that flimsy evidence. Rather compelling evidence I would say.

And about the failure to rise up issue again... If someone had you on your knees, hands bound behind your back, with a knife at your throat.. you wouldnt rise up either, so give that arguement a rest will ya?

Opal, yesterday, during our 'debate' we had I had developed respect for you as you were a well spoken, well informed individual.

Im sorry to say that I just lost some respect for you when you had to resort to name calling because you didnt like his/her opinion about troops signing up.

No where did Bush mention God in his decision to invade Iraq. I wont put words in your mouth, dont put words in Bush's.

And if the intelligence agencies of 3 nations, as well as the briefing of the outgoing President all said he had WMD, I certainly wouldnt call that flimsy evidence. Rather compelling evidence I would say.

And about the failure to rise up issue again... If someone had you on your knees, hands bound behind your back, with a knife at your throat.. you wouldnt rise up either, so give that arguement a rest will ya?

All the people Bush's crusade is liberating are prisoners?
And I'll soon post with a reply to Bush talking about God...I'm looking for the quotes.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
George W. Bush

crusade = holy war...which means God has something to do with it...

I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
George W. Bush

Now that has nothing to do with the War...but it's still crazy/scary.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.
George W. Bush

He implies that God is on his side...

Hmm, not really that God is on his side, but rather he feels he is acting in a way that... is not contrary to Gods will.

Bush does not feel that "God told me to do it". However, he believes that his actions lead to a greater good. An evil man was removed from his position of power, preventing him from visiting any future horror on his own people, or on any other people of the world.

Oh, and from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1cru·sade
Pronunciation: krü-'sAd
Function: noun
Etymology: blend of Middle French croisade & Spanish cruzada; both ultimately from Latin cruc-, crux cross
1 capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
2 : a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm

and yes, everyone being liberated were prisoners... there are other bonds than physical.

I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
...God wants him to run, that's why he ran...

Anyway...even if you don't consider crusade to mean "Holy War," a war started because of zest and enthusiasm instead of in seriousness is kind of scary...

I just realised I've hijacked this thread somethign horribly... I'll pm you my answer Opal

What right did the America to sanction Iraq in the first place? Kuwait didn't ask for the help.

I am amazed that Bill didn't blow his top.




He still didn't answer the question about "will you send your child to the army?"

most parents love their children more than themselves.

That's a stupid-ass question in the first place. If I had a son, I couldn't "send him to the army". He'd have to either sign up or be drafted himself.

Well, the question kind of is to make people think about what we really did. Sure they were already signed up, but that doesn't mean they're expendable. If your child was in the army and it was your call, would it be worth it to send him into Fallujah? That is the point Moore is trying to make; it isn't his fault that the conservatives don't get that...

who won?

Its not a contest, and ended quite shortly. They smiled the whole time.

I like Bill O'Reilly. He's an Independent, so am I. What people find irritating, his yelling at people, is often misunderstood. I get it. When I am discussing something with someone and they continue to change the topic, elude a topic, or creep in illogical ideas or unsubstantiated statements as fact (what Bill calls Spinning), that gets me pissed off. And trying to communicate with some folks that don't want to answer a direct question with a direct answer is annoying. That is why Bill gets upset. He doesn't push people to see things and agree with his opinion. If you think that, you haven't watched or listened to his shows often enough.

He talks to high level government people, never gives names because of security issues, and only checks reputable polls to give statistics. That's the kind of straight forward person I like in a JOURNALIST.

Now compare him to Michael Moore, well there isn't a lot to say. Bill wins the debates because Moore doesn't have the FACTS to substantiate what he spews. He shows images of things going on or being said, but out of context, you can make Mother Teresa look like a Nazi. So his idea of documentary is a farce. Bill on the other hand, tells it like it is.

BUSH in 2004!!!!

]
Then as an independant, you should know that Bill O'Reilly is a lying bastard.
Up until very recently, he was a Registered Republican in Nassau County Florida.
Yet, even when he quite clearly was NOT an Independant, he claimed to be.

You should read some fof the things people have written about him, particularly Al Franken.

You should also realize that Bill O Lielly gets paid a lot of money from Rupert Murdoch, to favor the Bush Adminstration.
Its not "Liberal Propoganda" or "Conspiracy Theories",
Its all true.

Bill O ' Reilly is a liar, and gets paid to spin the news in a favorable light towards the right.
And then he gets paid to lie to you, and say that others who do the same thing are "Spinning".

He should be ashamed of himself.

He should be ashamed of himself.

I'm sure he's way too busy counting his money.

Uhm, you sir, are a moron.

In my opinion the moron is the person who are not able to keep to the issue but have to resort to namecalling.


Those people who join the military choose to defend and serve our country. They did not know that a president would be sending them on a crusade based on what he thinks God is telling him stacked on flimsy evidence. They did not choose to go defend and serve the Iraqi citizens who can't even rise up on their own. They chose the defend American freedom which was not threatened by Iraq.
This argument is stupid on so many levels, it's difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, you seem to have a problem with my argument 'people decide for themselves whether they want to go to war' because they don't chose the war for themselves. It's a valid point, but the problematic simplification was introduced by Moores question in the first place. So if making this simplification makes a person a moron, then Moore is the moron.

The consequence of this argument is that those who enlist should be able to reject orders to be sent into conflicts if they decided they didn't like the cause. In my opinion that would make one independable army.

Secondly, your opinion on whether or not Iraq qas athreat to US freedom is not the truth. It's only your opinion. You should learn to distinguish.

Thirdly, when you enlist you never know what conflicts may come in the future. And you do not get to decide uppon which conflicts you want to participate in. (That would make a seriously untrusty army) This is all know at the time of enlistment, and if a person can't deal with the leaders of the country making these choices, then they shouldn't enlist.

In my opinion the moron is the person who are not able to keep to the issue but have to resort to namecalling.

ah, Clever -- you are implying that Opal is a moron - but doesn't that make you a moron by your own definition? And if you really are a moron, then was Opal really namecalling, or just verifying your own admission?

At least O'Reilly had the integrity or conception of integrity to invite Moore to his show. Too bad about the end though ... parting shots in absentium are just the antithesis of his show's name, huh ...
No-Spin Zone?
And, at least he had the integrity of his own accord to actually GO AND WATCH Fahrenheit 911 as compared to a huge number of dimwits that bitch about Moore do WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
I'm not an O'Reilly fan but i think it's cool at least there was a forum like that for at least a short while in all this.

ah, Clever -- you are implying that Opal is a moron - but doesn't that make you a moron by your own definition? And if you really are a moron, then was Opal really namecalling, or just verifying your own admission?
Hehe! :D

I've called nobody a moron. Opal introduced a new issue, that of who is a moron. I just aired my oppinion on this issue in a general way, without resorting to namecalling.

So since there was no namecalling from my side, I am not a moron. (Well, I may be for other reasons, but that's beside the point.)

Hehe! :D

I've called nobody a moron. Opal introduced a new issue, that of who is a moron. I just aired my oppinion on this issue in a general way, without resorting to namecalling.

So since there was no namecalling from my side, I am not a moron. (Well, I may be for other reasons, but that's beside the point.)You implied it though.

So if making this simplification makes a person a moron, then Moore is the moron.;)

Moore makes propaganda

O'Reilly makes propaganda

I make propaganda

Propaganda is really useful for swaying people’s opinion

The way I see it is this…

We all are biased, this makes us human. If someone can trick you into believing their point of view they are smarter than you and deserve your support.

Moore attacks Bush, Bush isn’t acting, Bush is stupid, Bush killed my dog.

Bush is a puppet who should not be held responsible, look at him.

I don’t feel anger, I feel pity for him.

Don’t blame Bush, it is the fault of America and the world for being stupid enough to listen to what he is told to say. Anyone who went to the war was stupid for risking their lives, anyone who gets angry at him is stupid because they are mad at an inanimate object and anyone who believes what they are told is stupid.

We are foul, lying beings, scum of the world.

That was the way we were born, it is how we will die.

And that is my humble opinion for now

Don’t read it, it is propaganda

Isaac wrote this

Fahrenheit 911 as compared to a huge number of dimwits that bitch about Moore do WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES.

I strongly disagree.

There's no way I'm going to help finance Moores dishonest propaganda. But still I claim the right to participate in the debate. So what I do is basing my arguments on public knowledge about the movie. If what I say about the movie is wrong, people are free to correct me.

Imagine if in order to criticize Bush, you were first required to buy official campaign material, so that you could have first hand knowledge of what you critized!

You implied it though.
All opinions on a subject will have implications. That is not the same as name calling.

Anyway, since this subject seems to drag on, I will moderate myself. I think resorting to name calling is moronic behaviour. I believe people can act moronic, without being a moron in general. :)


[QUOTE=Buggard]
So if making this simplification makes a person a moron, then Moore is the moron.

;)
I guess you think I'm name calling. I'm not. I'm just stating the logical consequence of an argument made by Opal.

If making the simplication makes a person a moron, and Moore made the simplification, then Moore is a moron.

Simple logic (probably not presented formally correct, but that's another issue).

I strongly disagree.

There's no way I'm going to help finance Moores dishonest propaganda. But still I claim the right to participate in the debate. So what I do is basing my arguments on public knowledge about the movie. If what I say about the movie is wrong, people are free to correct me.

Imagine if in order to criticize Bush, you were first required to buy official campaign material, so that you could have first hand knowledge of what you critized!


So in essence, you wish to make intelligent sounding comments and rip apart, that wich you have no basis of actual knowledge about?
How can you say this kind of thing about Moore, when you havent seen one film of his, or read even one of his books?

This makes you a sheep.
You just believe what any right wing celebrity tells you to, and dont bother actually looking at what it is you criticize.

Your opinion is worthless.

So in essence, you wish to make intelligent sounding comments and rip apart, that wich you have no basis of actual knowledge about?

No.
I believe there's more than one way of obtaining information.
I believe it's possible to make corrections if some fatcs are wrong.
I believe seeing the movie is no guarantee of having the facts rights
I believe seeing the movies is not enough to have a fair oppinion, especially since the movies are so dishonest in its presentation
I believe comments should be based on arguments and not simple 'intelligent sounding comments'.


How can you say this kind of thing about Moore, when you havent seen one film of his, or read even one of his books?

What 'kind of thing' are you refering to?
For answer to your question, see above.


This makes you a sheep.

Can you present an argument for that opinion? What are the general requirements for classifying as a sheep?


You just believe what any right wing celebrity tells you to, and dont bother actually looking at what it is you criticize.

You don't know this about me. You're making statements based on something you have no knowledge about, and still you critize me for making statements about something I have actual knowledge about.


Your opinion is worthless.
You are entitled to your opinions, but please don't confuse them with facts.

I strongly disagree.

There's no way I'm going to help finance Moores dishonest propaganda. But still I claim the right to participate in the debate. So what I do is basing my arguments on public knowledge about the movie. If what I say about the movie is wrong, people are free to correct me.

Imagine if in order to criticize Bush, you were first required to buy official campaign material, so that you could have first hand knowledge of what you critized!
1) you are an oaf
2) buying campagin material to criticise bush is NOT the same as having to WATCH A MOVIE IN ORDER TO CRITICISE THAT MOVIE
you cannot criticise a piece of media without first watching or reading it

While I agree with everything else you said, I disagree with especially since the movies are so dishonest in its presentation

That *is* the sort of comment that is based on heresay. You haven't seen the movies, so you really can't claim they are 'dishonest in their presentation'. Taking people's word on *that* sort of thing is a bad idea. Especially if you want to raise the point in an argument.

But, like I said, the rest of your points I can agree with ;)

1) you are an oaf
c
Off topic. See previous posts for my oppinion on that.


2) buying campagin material to criticise bush is NOT the same as having to WATCH A MOVIE IN ORDER TO CRITICISE THAT MOVIE

I know. It is an analogy.


you cannot criticise a piece of media without first watching or reading it
The topic has already been adressed. This unsuported claim, based on netiher facts nor arguments, adds nothing.

Off topic. See previous posts for my oppinion on that.


I know. It is an analogy.


The topic has already been adressed. This unsuported claim, based on netiher facts nor arguments, adds nothing.

1) usually in anology you should use things that will ACTUALLY compare, buying bush merchandise to critcise HIM is different from watching a movie to criticise THE MOVIE

2) you attempt to critique and hate the movie based on heresay from obviously other conservatives, thus is it jsut as much if not more bull crap than the movie itself

Why wouldn't they? If the war was to prevent WMDs from being used by a tyrant, simply removing the WMDs would accomplish that.

Because removing WMDs was not the only reason for the war in Iraq, it was one reason. To remove the WMDs and leave Saddam would be like treating an infection and leaving the cause. Eventually the infection will return.

Well, I did hear something awhile back about the possibility of children, 15 & 16 years of age being sent in, but I don't remember where I heard it, from whom, ect. It was a reputable source, but it was only heresay.
Anyway, parents influence their children from day 1, meaning that in the long-run, they are held responsible for what their children do when they grow up. A child can make decisions for themselves, but those decisions are choices influences positively or negatively by the child's parents. Bill O' Reilley, while having a few good points, he is mainly a corrupt person, he probably has no religious background, and he probably puts himself above all others. I went to the link posted a few pages back, the one with the movie, and it seems that Bill is a coward, he deserves nothing he has. It should all be taken away from him, in an argument, a gentlemanly one, where they should be no chance of a fight breaking out, both must bring whatever knowledge they had to the table, they must be fair, polite, courteous, and willing to be patient. It is not as if he doesn't have the time to listen to other people's opinions, this is nothing straight-forward about him. He doesn't yell because he's trying to get a person to answer a direct question with a direct answer, he's merely trying to massage his giant ego and his teetering self-esteem. He is only protected by the people around him. Cutting off Microphones, utilizing the time when a person is away, yelling, slandering a person, and such are things that no one in any war has ever willingly took part in or died for. When people go into wars, they fight for the virtues of their country, yet that in itself is hypocrisy as this country has no virtue left anymore. We use patriotism as a reason for war, our leader lies and hides things from our knowledge, and he's willing to lead the united states in a worse off condition then Iraq. He can not become president for a second term, sure, you'd think of him admirable for following through with his choice, but when it ultimately leads to the death of innocent civilians, there is no honor, there is no admiration. One life is worth the same as a thousand, why? Because, people can only be measured in individuality, but if Al-qaeda continues to assassinate innocent bystanders and Bush plans to continue his battle, he, himself should go onto the battlefield and fight for us.
Kerry changed his mind, he was able to admit he was wrong, that the war on Iraq was fruitless. Seeing how some Iraqis still want Hussein in power is reason enough for us take over Iraq and purge it of such behemoths. KErry was in Vietnam, Bush can dig up as many pictures as he wants, he can throw as much mud, concealing in it stones, but when we see the marks, we know that what he did was wrong. Bill will go with the popular idea and be willing to slander the minority, but a dillusion is a dillusion, some people get out of it, some people don't, Bill will remain in his childish state until it crumbles beneath him. I'm not a conservation, nor a left-wing, Not a democrat, nor a repubican. I just believe that people should be truthful, honorable, and respectable when trying to win people's votes.

While I agree with everything else you said, I disagree with

That *is* the sort of comment that is based on heresay. You haven't seen the movies, so you really can't claim they are 'dishonest in their presentation'. Taking people's word on *that* sort of thing is a bad idea. Especially if you want to raise the point in an argument.

But, like I said, the rest of your points I can agree with ;)
Interesting point. Some people in here could learn form this. Here's a claim based on an argument. And it's not backed up by personal attacks.

I've read the following about Bowling for Columbine: Moore did some cross cutting creating the impression that a certain NRA speech was held at another point of time than it really was.

I will say this is dishonest.

Now, this point of view, that I've read, cannot be found in the movie. I could never have gotten across it by just seeing the movie.

Clearly, I can get valuable knowledge about a move by reading about it. Information I could never obtain by just seeing the movie.

Now, if someone who have seen the movie would approach and tell me that no such thing happened in the movie. Then okay, I was misinformed. Someone lied. But if that is not the case, my information was correct. And my oppinion is based on fact.

So I have an opinion based on facts. Personally I think that is a valis opinion.

Seing something first hand is not the only way of obtaining information. That would make the school system really flawed, wouldn't it? Since most of the information you get in school are second hand information.

Things are really simple:
If people makes claims and not backing them up with arguments or facts, just say so. These are not valid claims, unless they're about something everyone agrees uppon. Dismiss the claims.

If people makes claim about something and backs them up with false facts, and you know the correct facts, just say so. Call the truth.

If people claim unbeliveable facts, but cannot document them, just say so. Dismiss the claims.

If someone makes flase claims based on what they've read, just tell them that what they read about the movie is wrong. The NRA speech was not out of context. The infamous golf swing part never gave the impression of being in a situation having to do with 9/11, etc.

Resorting to personal attacks, as many here do, is just plain stupid. Those who do are not making me look bad, they're making themself look bad.

Because removing WMDs was not the only reason for the war in Iraq, it was one reason. To remove the WMDs and leave Saddam would be like treating an infection and leaving the cause. Eventually the infection will return.But other reasons were only significantly brought up after it was clear WMDs wouldn't be found.

1) usually in anology you should use things that will ACTUALLY compare,

Yep!


buying bush merchandise to critcise HIM is different from watching a movie to criticise THE MOVIE

Of course there are differences. If not, it wouldn't be an analogy but the same situation. To see the analogy you need to look for the similarities.

In this case the similaritiy would be having to support the political opposition financially in order to be able to critize them.

So the analogy reflects directly to the problem. The reason I haven't seen Fahrenheit 911 is because I would never support Moore, which represent the political opposition, financially.


2) you attempt to critique and hate the movie based on heresay from obviously other conservatives, thus is it jsut as much if not more bull crap than the movie itself
I have never attemted to hate the movie. When it comes to the validity of second hand information, I've adressed this elsewhere.

Having read the latest Moore book and having watched Bowling for Columbine and F-911, my opinion is that Moore is on a crusade to rid the world of President Bush. To that end he will spin, disguise or cut most of the facts he can get away with. Some of his facts are half-truth.

However, I applaud his crusade as I dislike Bush to no end. Some of his points are good. Also, he listens to the opposition, if only to dispute their facts.

O' Reilly, on the other end is as loud-mouthed, slandering, truth-distorting as Moore but for the Republicans. He get paid to do it and screams "that's America" as soon as the other side is making a good point. I have absolutely no respect for someone like that. Most of his facts are spin, half-truth or even outright lies.

When he called for the boycott of Canadian product because Canada followed the proper procedure and didn't just send back the deserters right away (thus denying their rights for a fair hearing), I came to the conclusion that O' Reilly was a moron and a liar. There's one thing to have an opinion but another thing entirely to get involved in the judiciary process of another country.

Having read the latest Moore book and having watched Bowling for Columbine and F-911, my opinion is that Moore is on a crusade to rid the world of President Bush. To that end he will spin, disguise or cut most of the facts he can get away with. Some of his facts are half-truth.

However, I applaud his crusade as I dislike Bush to no end. Some of his points are good. Also, he listens to the opposition, if only to dispute their facts.

O' Reilly, on the other end is as loud-mouthed, slandering, truth-distorting as Moore but for the Republicans. He get paid to do it and screams "that's America" as soon as the other side is making a good point. I have absolutely no respect for someone like that. Most of his facts are spin, half-truth or even outright lies.

When he called for the boycott of Canadian product because Canada followed the proper procedure and didn't just send back the deserters right away (thus denying their rights for a fair hearing), I came to the conclusion that O' Reilly was a moron and a liar. There's one thing to have an opinion but another thing entirely to get involved in the judiciary process of another country.

Moore is a fat-buddha like personage who needs to be gutted..his "documentaries" exposed as little more then leftist propaganda, and his popularity given entirely to the bubble-gum generation who are just as willing to believe anything wrong bout Bush as you decry bout O'Reilly.

Between you and me and whomever else is listening...O'Reilly's debate with Moore...O'Reilly won hand's down...I read the transcript and saw the show. Moore is an abject moron if he can't tell the difference between a lie, and a statement made with information considered truthful at the time.

Moore is a fat-buddha like personage who needs to be gutted..his "documentaries" exposed as little more then leftist propaganda, and his popularity given entirely to the bubble-gum generation who are just as willing to believe anything wrong bout Bush as you decry bout O'Reilly.

Between you and me and whomever else is listening...O'Reilly's debate with Moore...O'Reilly won hand's down...I read the transcript and saw the show. Moore is an abject moron if he can't tell the difference between a lie, and a statement made with information considered truthful at the time.

You, sir are a conservative. I am a liberal. We see the propaganda of the other side as utter bullshit and the propaganda of our side as making sense.
Such is human nature.

I didn't see the show but I read the transcript. It was like two preacher trying to convert the other. I just think that you can see what kind of person is O' Reilly by the cheap shot he threw at the end of his show. Despicable!

I like Bill O'Reilly. He's an Independent, so am I. What people find irritating, his yelling at people, is often misunderstood. I get it. When I am discussing something with someone and they continue to change the topic, elude a topic, or creep in illogical ideas or unsubstantiated statements as fact (what Bill calls Spinning), that gets me pissed off. And trying to communicate with some folks that don't want to answer a direct question with a direct answer is annoying. That is why Bill gets upset. He doesn't push people to see things and agree with his opinion. If you think that, you haven't watched or listened to his shows often enough.

He talks to high level government people, never gives names because of security issues, and only checks reputable polls to give statistics. That's the kind of straight forward person I like in a JOURNALIST.

Now compare him to Michael Moore, well there isn't a lot to say. Bill wins the debates because Moore doesn't have the FACTS to substantiate what he spews. He shows images of things going on or being said, but out of context, you can make Mother Teresa look like a Nazi. So his idea of documentary is a farce. Bill on the other hand, tells it like it is.

BUSH in 2004!!!!

Exactly what hes said. I watch Bill every chnace I get and I can tell when some one is trying to "spin"

But other reasons were only significantly brought up after it was clear WMDs wouldn't be found.

So what? The point I am making is that if there were/are WMDs you would still have to get rid of Saddam. Whether that be before or after the WMDs (if there are any) are found.
To say the US would have left Saddam in power after finding any WMDs is crazy. If they did do that it would be a massive mistake and Saddam would come back to haunt them again in the future.
The way the war has progressed, Saddam is no longer casting a shadow over Iraq or the world. That can only be a good thing.

Exactly what hes said. I watch Bill every chnace I get and I can tell when some one is trying to "spin"


But you cant tell when Bill himself is doing it.
Becuase, really, thats what his show is all about.
His whole gameplan is to bully the guest speaker, and spinning any topic towards the good of the President.
This is what Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-rich very Conservative lunatic, pays Bill very handsomely to do.

Why do you suppose that Moore only agreed to do the show if it were presented in a debate style platform.

So that neither person could interrupt the other by yelling louder than the other.

But you cant tell when Bill himself is doing it.
Becuase, really, thats what his show is all about.
His whole gameplan is to bully the guest speaker, and spinning any topic towards the good of the President.
This is what Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-rich very Conservative lunatic, pays Bill very handsomely to do.

Why do you suppose that Moore only agreed to do the show if it were presented in a debate style platform.

So that neither person could interrupt the other by yelling louder than the other.

C'mon..bully?..or merely press for a damn answer Moore is a better dancer then any woman I've been on floor with....I especially liked it when Bill slammed Moore for not apologizing for calling Bush a liar....Bill was saying that how can it be a lie if the President believed it to be true at the time he said it?...Moore never came back with a rational answer, he just kept up his mantra "he lied"..as if that would make it right..lol..

C'mon..bully?..or merely press for a damn answer Moore is a better dancer then any woman I've been on floor with....I especially liked it when Bill slammed Moore for not apologizing for calling Bush a liar....Bill was saying that how can it be a lie if the President believed it to be true at the time he said it?...Moore never came back with a rational answer, he just kept up his mantra "he lied"..as if that would make it right..lol..

How do you know that he believed it to be true at the time that he said it? Of course, there's no way of knowing whether or not he did, as we can't read his mind, but at the very least he could acknowledge that he made a mistake.

How do you know that he believed it to be true at the time that he said it? Of course, there's no way of knowing whether or not he did, as we can't read his mind, but at the very least he could acknowledge that he made a mistake.

And I repeat...how can he apologize for something he believed to be correct at the time he said it...Face it...Moore was an ass..he should have apologized and everyone should realize that...If I'm told that my house is burning down by a fireman, I am going to call my insurance company and inform them of that, now if the fireman made a mistake in informing me that it wasn't my house by the neighbors..did I lie when I called my insurance company?

And I repeat...how can he apologize for something he believed to be correct at the time he said it...Face it...Moore was an ass..he should have apologized and everyone should realize that...If I'm told that my house is burning down by a fireman, I am going to call my insurance company and inform them of that, now if the fireman made a mistake in informing me that it wasn't my house by the neighbors..did I lie when I called my insurance company?

No, you didn't lie when you called your insurance company. But you could call them back and tell them you made a mistake, right?

imagine a liberal is like a pitbull. once they latch on they just cant let go no matter what is shown them :)

No, you didn't lie when you called your insurance company. But you could call them back and tell them you made a mistake, right?

Perhaps, but that isn't the point..Moore specifically said Bush lied to the American people...and that flat out isn't so...He went by intelligence that EVERYONE, the CIA, MI-6, the Russian intelligence services, even the own friggin UN's records all were telling Bush the same thing...so Moore should apologize...it's very simple...Bush didn't lie..so Moore should apologize and O'Reilly was right in calling the fat buddha on it.

Perhaps, but that isn't the point..Moore specifically said Bush lied to the American people...and that flat out isn't so...He went by intelligence that EVERYONE, the CIA, MI-6, the Russian intelligence services, even the own friggin UN's records all were telling Bush the same thing...so Moore should apologize...it's very simple...Bush didn't lie..so Moore should apologize and O'Reilly was right in calling the fat buddha on it.

It's part of the point I'm trying to make. Why wouldn't you wouldn't tell the insurance company you made a mistake?

It's part of the point I'm trying to make. Why wouldn't you wouldn't tell the insurance company you made a mistake?

You...see...now here is where I have to see it from my view..I'm still not convinced that at some point we wont' find them..mebbe Saddam has hidden them...Iraq is a pretty big country after all...mebbe they're in Syria..or Lebanon...but that's moot..while Bush may believe he lied bout WoMD's, I am under no delusion that Saddam is telling the truth bout getting rid of them. But for some reason there are people who believe that a man capable of gassing his own people, allowing his sons to rape Iraqi women, and a may whose secret security forces indiscriminately murdered hundreds of thousands of people...is capable of telling the truth?...now explain that to me...like I'm a 4 yr old.

You...see...now here is where I have to see it from my view..I'm still not convinced that at some point we wont' find them..mebbe Saddam has hidden them...Iraq is a pretty big country after all...mebbe they're in Syria..or Lebanon...but that's moot..while Bush may believe he lied bout WoMD's, I am under no delusion that Saddam is telling the truth bout getting rid of them. But for some reason there are people who believe that a man capable of gassing his own people, allowing his sons to rape Iraqi women, and a may whose secret security forces indiscriminately murdered hundreds of thousands of people...is capable of telling the truth?...now explain that to me...like I'm a 4 yr old.It's not a matter of believing Saddam. It's a matter of looking at the evidence available. If anything I think he's likely to have played up the possibility of having WMDs once he realised war was inevitable. But if he did have them, once it was obvious the game was over, why not use them?

It's not a matter of believing Saddam. It's a matter of looking at the evidence available. If anything I think he's likely to have played up the possibility of having WMDs once he realised war was inevitable. But if he did have them, once it was obvious the game was over, why not use them?

Of course it's a matter of believing Saddam, if the Anti-Bush/Anti-War crowd can bring in character and belief into this as far as saying Bush lied...I can do the same and say Saddam isn't telling the truth in my opinion...

As far as not using them...who knows..a spark of actual concern for his people?..Because he would have to had known that if he did use them, not only would it have confirmed the entire war, we would have unleased all hell on him for doing it.or more likely the possibility any gas or bioweapon might have just reach his pathetic ass if he did use them.

It's not a matter of believing Saddam. It's a matter of looking at the evidence available. If anything I think he's likely to have played up the possibility of having WMDs once he realised war was inevitable. But if he did have them, once it was obvious the game was over, why not use them?
he may have hidden them in a way to keep them from being found that he could not get to them easly after the war broke out. rember we hit them hard and fast.

18-25 year olds are the children of people who are the age of or younger than the politicians. Moore isn't asking anyone to send a child to Iraq; he is asking people if they would send their child to Iraq. My grandma refers to my dad as her child even though my dad is getting close to being fifty years old. Is he a child? No. Is he her child? Yes.

Yes, however your grandmother alone cannot decide whether your father goes to war. It is his choice alone and always should be that way. A mother may not approve if her son goes to war but if he is of the age of 18 or older she has no real say in if he can or cannot. I find it interesting that Moore refers to people in the army, who are participating in the war as of now, as children. It is a ridiculous notion, being that anyone who goes to war is obviously making the ultimate sacrafice by fighting for his or her country. If going to war, risking yourself for the good of the country does not make you an adult, then i can only wonder when the distinction comes in to place. By law you are an adult by 18(other than the ridiculous over 21 drinking laws). If you are 18 you can vote and go to war, in essence you are adult, and only you have the ability to choose to go join the military, not your parents. So Moore's question is ridiclous and it highlights how he views the military, not as men and women sarcraficing themselves for his and others freedom, instead he sees them as mindless people forced into war by either their parents, politcians, or their ignorance. Moore by viewing them as children further shows his elitists views in how he believes he is better than everyone and his opinion is the only correct one. His question is ridiculus and is just another tatic he uses in order to make his opinion seem supreror.

Yes, however your grandmother alone cannot decide whether your father goes to war. It is his choice alone and always should be that way. A mother may not approve if her son goes to war but if he is of the age of 18 or older she has no real say in if he can or cannot. I find it interesting that Moore refers to people in the army, who are participating in the war as of now, as children. It is a ridiculous notion, being that anyone who goes to war is obviously making the ultimate sacrafice by fighting for his or her country. If going to war, risking yourself for the good of the country does not make you an adult, then i can only wonder when the distinction comes in to place. By law you are an adult by 18(other than the ridiculous over 21 drinking laws). If you are 18 you can vote and go to war, in essence you are adult, and only you have the ability to choose to go join the military, not your parents. So Moore's question is ridiclous and it highlights how he views the military, not as men and women sarcraficing themselves for his and others freedom, instead he sees them as mindless people forced into war by either their parents, politcians, or their ignorance. Moore by viewing them as children further shows his elitists views in how he believes he is better than everyone and his opinion is the only correct one. His question is ridiculus and is just another tatic he uses in order to make his opinion seem supreror.

You caught that too eh?...Moore's reference to our military personnel as "children" I find grossly insulting...let him be on the receiving end of a soldier firing that M16A2 rifle and you'll find quick enough, they are not "children"..as if we are trying to please daddy and just dont' know any better.

Bill is Independent?

He is ultra right conservative.

Umm... sorry to disappoint, but no. Bill is conservative, definitely, but he's not *ultra right*... maybe only in comparison to Moore. A fairer comparison would be to compare Moore to Rush Limbaugh. Not that I care what either extremist has to say. I'm waiting for an ultra conservative documentary "Catch 9-11" to come out (I wouldn't see this either) and put everything back into perspective.

Of course it's a matter of believing Saddam, if the Anti-Bush/Anti-War crowd can bring in character and belief into this as far as saying Bush lied...I can do the same and say Saddam isn't telling the truth in my opinion...
But I'm saying both Saddam and Bush were lying. (Or in Bush's case possibly grossly negligent instead).
As far as not using them...who knows..a spark of actual concern for his people?..Because he would have to had known that if he did use them, not only would it have confirmed the entire war, we would have unleased all hell on him for doing it.or more likely the possibility any gas or bioweapon might have just reach his pathetic ass if he did use them.He's never been put off using things on his own people before. And what did he have to lose?he may have hidden them in a way to keep them from being found that he could not get to them easly after the war broke out. rember we hit them hard and fast.But the claim before the war was that they were instantly deployable. And he certainly knew the war was coming.

Well....I'm gonna head off the inevitable Bush/War angle here...let's stick to the debate shall we..I got off-tangent myself here...but I'd think that anyone with a modest amount of integrity might agree that O'Reilly did bring up some very valid points and that Moore did a jig around them and began spouting his various mantras.

But the claim before the war was that they were instantly deployable. And he certainly knew the war was coming.

They may have been instantly deployable at first... but Saddam had months to get rid of them while everything was debated in the UN. I don't argue for either side because given the time he had, we'll never know. Maybe he never had them.... or maybe he shipped everything over to Syria or something.