NationStates Jolt Archive

I wouldn't if it kept such disgusting spectacles as the Super Bowl halftime "warbrobe malfunction" from being shown.Yes. Breasts are evil. Ban them now. Won't somebody think of the children?

Yes. Breasts are evil. Ban them now. Won't somebody think of the children?

*covers hers up and one hand grabs a M-16 with the other*

Documentary...

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Neither definition fits...the movie was a whitewashed attempt to bring about a change of leadership in our government. As a member of the Libertarian party...this farce of a movie has actually pushed me closer to voting for Bush. I may not like his policies, but I dislike attempts to sway voters with untruths and deception the way Moore has done.theres more factual truths in Moores movie then ever has been on foxnews or the corporate pablum media--now how scarey is that?

While we might not of forseen the strength it would grow to, I think the nature of the ideology was pretty clear- subtlety isn't it's strong point. To use your analogy, if the penguin overlord states their goals as "enslaving all you humans and making you cater to our every whim" I think funding them is probably a bad idea. :d

Well, in the 1980's they were not saying that, they were thanking us for the help in fighting the Soviets. So to say they were threatening us then is a bit harsh. it was AFTER the Taliban had solidified their power, which they never completed, that they started planning to attack the US

I think it's unlikely. Why are human abuses bad now but acceptable then?"For evil to succeed it needs only good men to do nothing"- Edmund Burke. (I like quoting right wing thinkers at right wing posters as you might have noticed. It makes you take their views more seriously;)). So I think even tolerating it (while trading with them at the same time naturally) is akin to condoning it. I think it definately goes further then that sometimes though. The CIA's involvement with the Contras was undeniably pro-active. And (just so you don't think I'm merely singling out the US:D) the evidence that has come out about MI5s involvement in Loyalist death squads in Northern Ireland is definately way over that border.

Well, human rights abuses happen in a lot of places and I personally do not condone them, however, sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil in order to get things done. Like paying off warlords in Somalia in order to deliver food to starving people. By doing so you are supporting the warlord and rewarding him for his behaviour, but you do so out of necessity.

Anyway, I've said this before, but I really am going now. Fun though arguing with people I'm never going to meet on the internet is, it's not worth losing my job for not doing the preparation over. :( I'll carry this on tommorow.

Thats true...not worth losing a job over.

Oh my God. Saddam rightly invaded Kuwait? Gimme a f****n break! So, now you support Saddam just because it was a Bush who was president during the first Gulf War. Good Lord, the lengths you go to. Supporting Saddam instead of George H. W. Bush.
Kuwait was slamdrilling Iraqi oil wells--Kuwait provoked the invasion and Bush Sr gave Saddam the green light to invade then betrayed Saddam after he did

theres more factual truths in Moores movie then ever has been on foxnews or the corporate pablum media--now how scarey is that?

Oh man...you are already in the hole. Have you found gold yet? ;)

I am not going to start on this again, I suggest you read through the debate and then write a report for me. ;)

theres more factual truths in Moores movie then ever has been on foxnews or the corporate pablum media--now how scarey is that?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!! TFF!!!!!

MKULTRA you really are out to lunch!

*DIES LAUGHING*

it's funny to watch so many ignorant people, like little sheeps, walk into this movie and actually believe the bull shit and propaganda michael moore pulled out of his ass...i can't even even explain it...to describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability...to describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental...to describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious (duh!)...to describe it as a feeble attempt to influence the 2004 elections would be useless because any people with a brain would agree...fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness! It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Oh man...you are already in the hole. Have you found gold yet? ;)

I am not going to start on this again, I suggest you read through the debate and then write a report for me. ;)

Oh God No Biff! It won't be biased. He'll slant it to his side with Half-Truths. In fact, he'll pull a Michael Moore. Oh God NO! ONE IS ENOUGH!

Well, it was democracy, USA, that created the guy in the first place.
I know which is why its hypocritical for republicans to pretend to be scandalized by Saddams human rights record when they been supporting despots just as bad as him the world over for decades

Kuwait was slamdrilling Iraqi oil wells--Kuwait provoked the invasion and Bush Sr gave Saddam the green light to invade then betrayed Saddam after he did

Ok, one last post for my hearing impaired friend.....

Saddam invaded Kuwait because he was hopelessly in debt to the Kuwaiti's AND the Saudi's. You see, he had borrowed heavily from them to pay for his invasion in Iran. Then....after 8 years of war that ended right back at the starting borders he had gained nothing and owed a lot of money.

Then a terrible thing happened....the price of oil started to drop, and OPEC, led by Kuwait, was putting production limits in place. That meant that Saddam would have to cut production which would bring in even LESS money.

So he decided that instead of paying the Kuwaitis back, he would just take over the country and erase the debt. So he comes up with an excuse...Kuwait stealing his oil and invaded. The rest is history....

I know which is why its hypocritical for republicans to pretend to be scandalized by Saddams human rights record when they been supporting despots just as bad as him the world over for decades

*DIES TWICE*

So did the Democratic Party!

Freedom and democracy is reserved for countries that deserve it... like Iraq!


You gotta be really despotic befor you deserve that!


Uh, it's definitely more of a, "You're not a democracy, but you're not being a dumbass country and funding terrorist attacks and killing a few million of your own people every day. So we'll leave you alone 'til you piss us off."

Not a, "You're evil, so we're going to help you. You're not evil, so we're going to let you suffer." type thing. You just picked the wrong angle and ran away with it. If you're a dictatorship or whatever, and you're quasi-decent, we don't mess with you, have fun, don't do anything really bad. If you're an evil little fuck, we take you out, replace you, and rebuild your country. It's a case of aiding nations in the worst trouble from our point of view, not helping the most evil.



The enternal banging of the head against the wall of human stupidity:
:headbang:

Oh? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. proof please?
the CIA supported them against the Soviets who were far more civilized occupiers of Afghanistan then the Talibam were

Jesus christ. I look to these forums for the potential of some intelligent conversation and all we have are left-wing morons with the same typical views. Way to go retards. Why don't you read a book instead of trying to participate in a conversation way above your head.

Careful Biff, he does this all the time. He's been wrong before and if he trots out that we trained bin Ladin line, I can tromp him with the 9/11 report, IF he believes it.
I didnt say we trained Osama-the CIA did

the CIA supported them against the Soviets who were far more civilized occupiers of Afghanistan then the Talibam were

Actually the CIA supported the muhajadeen in their fight against the Soviets. The muhajadeen was a loose group of fighters. The Taliban was just one of those groups and ended up controling most of the country after a civil war caused by the sudden withdrawal of the Soviets and the fall of the communist gov't in kabul. The Taliban came out on top and the Northern Aliiance (all the other groups) controlled a small sector in the north.

The Taliban were so brutal that even Iran thought they were extreme. Of course once the soviets left...the CIA aid stopped...and that was BEFORE the Taliban was in control. So once again..you are off by a few years.

I didnt say we trained Osama-the CIA did

Man, you really need to read a book or something and get off the computer for awhile....

And with that...I am outta here...till next time.

the CIA supported them against the Soviets who were far more civilized occupiers of Afghanistan then the Talibam were

Bullcrap bullcrap! If you believe that....

Here's proof:

9/11 Commission Report Page 56 1st Paragraph:

The international environment for Bin Ladin's efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.

I hope this helps you my friend.

no one seems to get it into thier heads the irony of the american right and semi-right attacking moore's methods.

The american media use the exact same methods of massaging facts and presenting them in an opinionated and leading manner every day - it's normal.

Moore uses these methods too, but his views aren't in line with the nice white, middle class, right wing ruling types. So they attack his methods.

I find it very funny and ironic, I'm sure Mr. Moore does too.

I didnt say we trained Osama-the CIA did

Read my previous post that is above this one! CIA is a US Organization by the way. If they did train'em that means the US Trained him. Since they didn't train him, the US didn't train him.

Oh God No Biff! It won't be biased. He'll slant it to his side with Half-Truths. In fact, he'll pull a Michael Moore. Oh God NO! ONE IS ENOUGH!
the only way democracy has a chance at survival is if our media had 10,000 more Moores in it speaking truth to the lies of our out of control facist govt

the only way democracy has a chance at survival is if our media had 10,000 more Moores in it speaking truth to the lies of our out of control facist govt

Read what I typed from page 56 1st paragraph from the 9/11 Commission Report about bin Ladin.

the only way democracy has a chance at survival is if our media had 10,000 more Moores in it speaking truth to the lies of our out of control facist govt

Ok, I just HAD to reply to this..... This guy is good, he enjoys spewing this stuff out to get a reaction. he is obviously intelligent...but bored.

I can refute all of his arguments, but to what aim? At that point he would be leading me by a leash down a path that he wants me to go.

How do I know this? Because I used to be the same way.

Welcome to your future....LOL

Ok, one last post for my hearing impaired friend.....

Saddam invaded Kuwait because he was hopelessly in debt to the Kuwaiti's AND the Saudi's. You see, he had borrowed heavily from them to pay for his invasion in Iran. Then....after 8 years of war that ended right back at the starting borders he had gained nothing and owed a lot of money.

Then a terrible thing happened....the price of oil started to drop, and OPEC, led by Kuwait, was putting production limits in place. That meant that Saddam would have to cut production which would bring in even LESS money.

So he decided that instead of paying the Kuwaitis back, he would just take over the country and erase the debt. So he comes up with an excuse...Kuwait stealing his oil and invaded. The rest is history....
well it was an arab issue that Bush Sr had no right sticking his corrupt oily nose into, he was prolly doin it as a favor to the Saudi Royal Maggots and besides Kuwait isnt a democracy who cares if theyre invaded

well it was an arab issue that Bush Sr had no right sticking his corrupt oily nose into, he was prolly doin it as a favor to the Saudi Royal Maggots and besides Kuwait isnt a democracy who cares if theyre invaded

KuWait has far more oil than Iraq does! His invasion would've had a major effect on the world. As for the Saudis, they invited us in to Protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq because S.A. wouldn't be able to stop them. The world obviously cared otherwise our forces as well as those from many different nations, under a UN Mandate, wouldn't have gone in and knock Hussein out of Kuwait. The 1st Gulf War was truely a war for oil.

*DIES TWICE*

So did the Democratic Party!
true but the reps always do it more

true but the reps always do it more

Can you please respond to what you said about Bin Ladin getting trained by us please? Its on page 18 at the bottom.

Bullcrap bullcrap! If you believe that....

Here's proof:

9/11 Commission Report Page 56 1st Paragraph:

The international environment for Bin Ladin's efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.

I hope this helps you my friend.Osama worked for the CIA under the codename Timmy Osmond

Osama worked for the CIA under the codename Timmy Osmond

Ok, I'm going to ask this! Your proof please since we didn't do anything with Bin Ladin?

Really MKULTRA, if we did train the idiot the report would've stated as such.

no one seems to get it into thier heads the irony of the american right and semi-right attacking moore's methods.

The american media use the exact same methods of massaging facts and presenting them in an opinionated and leading manner every day - it's normal.

Moore uses these methods too, but his views aren't in line with the nice white, middle class, right wing ruling types. So they attack his methods.

I find it very funny and ironic, I'm sure Mr. Moore does too.
thats dead on true--Moore uses the exact same tactics that foxnews uses everyday to brainwash their listeners--guess rightys get enraged when their own tactics are used back against them

fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only...to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. In Moore's version of Iraq nobody was hanging from a meat hook in Saddam Hussein's jails...Baghdad was a happy city where children frolicked in the streets until boom! we blew them away...non-fiction???? i don't think so

Ok, I just HAD to reply to this..... This guy is good, he enjoys spewing this stuff out to get a reaction. he is obviously intelligent...but bored.

I can refute all of his arguments, but to what aim? At that point he would be leading me by a leash down a path that he wants me to go.

How do I know this? Because I used to be the same way.

Welcome to your future....LOL
why did you sell out? :confused:

why did you sell out? :confused:

Because he woke up and saw how the REAL WORLD WORKS! Something I guess you haven't yet.

Formal, I find you either attempt to justify the actions of the Americans to say what they did wasn't so bad.. or out right mislead the facts. Saddam never offered bin Laden any type of sanctuary.. that is the biggest load of crap I've heard from you thus far. Sheesh, stop making shit up. :rolleyes:

sell out??? in the words of churchill, "any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has a heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative; has no brains." Call the right heartless...but atleast we have brains!

Kuwait is not America. Their free-speech policy is not the same as America's and its their choice to show that movie, its not America's or free-speech advocates.

Formal, I find you either attempt to justify the actions of the Americans to say what they did wasn't so bad.. or out right mislead the facts. Saddam never offered bin Laden any type of sanctuary.. that is the biggest load of crap I've heard from you thus far. Sheesh, stop making shit up. :rolleyes:

PROVE IT STEPH! I posted what the 9/11 stated about it. No one is denying the reports. What should that tell me? That it happened. For God's sake Steph, I'm surprised that your ignoring those 2 key facts.

AND I wasn't the only one that said it:

I don't know, but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected. Hell, I would have rejected it too. Osama is a shrewd man. Anyone remember the other terrorist that was in Iraq that was found dead? Shot in the back by someone just before Baghdad fell.

That is on page 15 of this thread! So am I making it up? I don't think so. Thanks for singling me out though.

PROVE IT STEPH! I posted what the 9/11 stated about it. No one is denying the reports. What should that tell me? That it happened. For God's sake Steph, I'm surprised that your ignoring those 2 key facts..

Read the page again Formal, it clearly says it is possible, but no facts to fact it up. Possible doesn't = he did.

I'm done, go away.. you manipulate half truths and what you claim as facts are not. They are speculation, you forget, we have the 9/11 report too!

Better yet, I'll go away.

Can you please respond to what you said about Bin Ladin getting trained by us please? Its on page 18 at the bottom.
ok--in response to what I said, yes it was Osama who was trained by the CIA-I agree with that in full

Read the page again Formal, it clearly says it is possible, but no facts to fact it up. Possible doesn't = he did.

I'm done, go away.. you manipulate half truths and what you claim as facts are not. They are speculation, you forget, we have the 9/11 report too!

Better yet, I'll go away.

Still singled me out! Biff said the samething! Ok so now what? You only single out one person but when 2 said it looks like to me, you attack me! Very brave of you Stephistan. Very brave. I thought you had more class than that.

As for half truths, your the one that is saying it. So far, NO ONE IS DENYING IT. If no one denies it, that normally means its truth Steph.

Are u going to tell Biff the samething or just me?

Ok, I'm going to ask this! Your proof please since we didn't do anything with Bin Ladin?

Really MKULTRA, if we did train the idiot the report would've stated as such.
maybe he doesnt want to incriminate himself

ok--in response to what I said, yes it was Osama who was trained by the CIA-I agree with that in full

Still, proof? You have none or you would've put it up. Back it up with facts MKULTRA.

sell out??? in the words of churchill, "any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has a heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative; has no brains." Call the right heartless...but atleast we have brains!

That quote should be :-

"any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has a NO heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative; has no brains."

Its a good thing Kuwait banned this liberal nonsense. The next step in the right direction is to ban it in America

fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only...to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. In Moore's version of Iraq nobody was hanging from a meat hook in Saddam Hussein's jails...Baghdad was a happy city where children frolicked in the streets until boom! we blew them away...non-fiction???? i don't think so
its not the place of the US to invade every country in the world just because they have a bad govt--thats like another country invading us cause Bush is a liar

Its a good thing Kuwait banned this liberal nonsense. The next step in the right direction is to ban it in America

But alas that would violate our Freedom of Speech though I do agree with banning it! Luckily it can't be shown right now because of Federal Election Laws.

why did you sell out? :confused:

Sell out? I was too busy booting around the world checking out various conflicts. Plus, after awhile you are only posting to yourself because people get tired of it.

But alas that would violate our Freedom of Speech though I do agree with banning it! Luckily it can't be shown right now because of Federal Election Laws.

Oh no, it should not be banned here. I could never stand for that, it has been shown for what it is and if it were banned, that could not happen. The Kuwaiti's saw it for what it was and THEN made the decision, not before seeing what it was about.

sell out??? in the words of churchill, "any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has a heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative; has no brains." Call the right heartless...but atleast we have brains!
well if Winston Churchill was so smart then why he lose re-election right after the war?

Formal, you sound like one of the sheep in the flock that believes all the bull shit poiltics and propaganda feed to you...what are you going to come up with next, since you have been arguing the same thing over and over and not getting anywhere?!?

Still singled me out! Biff said the samething! Ok so now what? You only single out one person but when 2 said it looks like to me, you attack me! Very brave of you Stephistan. Very brave. I thought you had more class than that.FD, you're getting hysterical. You said it was fact. Biff said I don't know, but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected.Do you see the difference?

That quote should be :-

"any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has a NO heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative; has no brains."And anybody, of any political persuaion, who messes up a quote about their opponents intelligence, has no credibility. Well done Ding Dong Doppers. :D

Kuwait is not America. Their free-speech policy is not the same as America's and its their choice to show that movie, its not America's or free-speech advocates.
the people of Kuwait should be allowed to make up their own minds--they should start by rising up and executing their leaders

well if Winston Churchill was so smart then why he lose re-election right after the war?

Yeah, and if those dolphins are so smart, why do they keep getting caught in those nets?

Formal, you sound like one of the sheep in the flock that believes all the bull shit poiltics and propaganda feed to you...what are you going to come up with next, since you have been arguing the same thing over and over and not getting anywhere?!?

Looks whose talking! I could say the samething about you. Difference between you and me is that I'm an Independent and shall remain so. When I register to vote, that will be what I register under, In-de-pend-ent.

well if Winston Churchill was so smart then why he lose re-election right after the war?

Where I live was under military occupation and martial law for 18 months in 1907 thanks to churchill.

I Live in Wales.

Still, proof? You have none or you would've put it up. Back it up with facts MKULTRA.
ok

FD, you're getting hysterical. You said it was fact. Biff said Do you see the difference?

And anybody, of any political persuaion, who messes up a quote about their opponents intelligence, has no credibility. Well done Ding Dong Doppers. :D

Well, it does look like the offer was made. I can't say for certain that it was, or wasn't. However, I think it was and Osama was smart to reject it at the time. Saddam was under more pressure than the taliban.

Its a good thing Kuwait banned this liberal nonsense. The next step in the right direction is to ban it in America
thats nazism

Looks whose talking! I could say the samething about you. Difference between you and me is that I'm an Independent and shall remain so. When I register to vote, that will be what I register under, In-de-pend-ent.


oh so thats why your argument doesn't get anywhere

oh so thats why your argument doesn't get anywhere

why because I'm an independent?

no...you told me you are an independent for no particular reason...republican, democrat, or independent...you are arguing the same thing over and over not getting anywhere

I thought you had more class than that

Oh, so now I have no class because I point out what you said the 9/11 report said didn't exactly say what you said it did. Cry me a river, I have more class in my baby toe then some one who distorts and misleads people with the facts.. I do understand why you like Bush so much now though, you're just like him! You have much in common!

"is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam"
you cannot be serious. we have yet another lover of saddam here! bet you were against this war though! good lord, i cant understand people anymore. ever get a look at the 1.3 million the UN says are in mass graves from your buddy saddam? good lord.

I'm not the type to do the whole message board thing, but I just HAVE to respond to this.

Yes, Saddam was evil, perhaps the most evil man of recent times. Yes, he deserved to be "removed", perhaps he deserves to be killed. BUT....

We didn't enter in this war under the pretense of "liberating" Iraq. We we led into war under the pretense that there were 1. weapons of mass destruction. 2. That these wmd could reach us in 45 minutes. 3. That Iraq was an imminent threat to The United States. And 4. That Saddam and Al Queda were linked in the 9/11 plot in some way.

All of these reasons turned out to be flawed, if not completely false, thus we see the magic "reordering" of priorities that brings us "Saddam was a bad, bad guy so he had to go, look how many people he killed."

True, Saddam killed untold thousands, but we didn't enter into this war for that reason. And to tell you the truth, we would have NEVER entered into this war for that reason. Look at what is happening in the Sudan right now....we are so badly needed there that it is appalling...yet are we there? Are we ever going to send troops there? I think not. Poor Sudan, No oil=No help. Sorry Sudan, looks like you're SOL.

Before you start calling people "Saddam lovers", you need to take a look at the real reason why we are angry, and I'll give you a hint, IT'S BECAUSE BUSH LIED! Period.

I'm not the type to do the whole message board thing, but I just HAVE to respond to this.

Yes, Saddam was evil, perhaps the most evil man of recent times. Yes, he deserved to be "removed", perhaps he deserves to be killed. BUT....

We didn't enter in this war under the pretense of "liberating" Iraq. We we led into war under the pretense that there were 1. weapons of mass destruction. 2. That these wmd could reach us in 45 minutes. 3. That Iraq was an imminent threat to The United States. And 4. That Saddam and Al Queda were linked in the 9/11 plot in some way.

All of these reasons turned out to be flawed, if not completely false, thus we see the magic "reordering" of priorities that brings us "Saddam was a bad, bad guy so he had to go, look how many people he killed."

True, Saddam killed untold thousands, but we didn't enter into this war for that reason. And to tell you the truth, we would have NEVER entered into this war for that reason. Look at what is happening in the Sudan right now....we are so badly needed there that it is appalling...yet are we there? Are we ever going to send troops there? I think not. Poor Sudan, No oil=No help. Sorry Sudan, looks like you're SOL.

Before you start calling people "Saddam lovers", you need to take a look at the real reason why we are angry, and I'll give you a hint, IT'S BECAUSE BUSH LIED! Period.

Since this is one of those 1st post trolls I will only say this once. Bush acted on intelligence reports provided by the British, French, German, Russian and CIA. He had information from each that compelled him to act.

If he had done nothing and something had happened...he would be blamed for not acting on that same information. It is very lonely at the top. ;)

I may get slapped down by Stephistan for this but Formal Dances, Stephistan seems pretty pissed with you at the moment and I'm going to offer you some genuine advice that I think might ease the situation.

FD, read people's posts properly. You're not at the moment. You're skimming and jumping to the wrong conclusions about what's been said.

Secondly, you having a go at Zeppistan about Steph's opinions earlier was bang out of order. Think about it. I don't know if you have a boyfriend or not, and I don't care, it's none of my business. But if you do/did how would you feel if someone had a go at him on here about your views. You're an independent woman after all, and your opinions are your own. That's precisely what you did to Steph and I think you owe her an apology. Just for that, not for your views or disagreeing with her.




Not a mod- just an interfering busybody







Sorry Steph. Please don't Deat me ;)

Formal, you sound like one of the sheep in the flock that believes all the bull shit poiltics and propaganda feed to you...what are you going to come up with next, since you have been arguing the same thing over and over and not getting anywhere?!?
LOL

Still singled me out! Biff said the samething! Ok so now what? You only single out one person but when 2 said it looks like to me, you attack me! Very brave of you Stephistan. Very brave. I thought you had more class than that.

As for half truths, your the one that is saying it. So far, NO ONE IS DENYING IT. If no one denies it, that normally means its truth Steph.

Are u going to tell Biff the samething or just me?


When you sink to the level of personal attacks - you have lost the argument, not to mention any possible sliver of respect of your peers here.

As to half truths - you claim something as fact that the report itself clearly states is supposition by using terms like "similar meeting may have occurred" and "according to the reporting".

Bear in mind that this "reporting" came from the same people who stated that Saddam having huge stockpiles of WMD was a "slam dunk", so prehaps the 911 commission - unlike you - has a better understanding of the reliability of the underlying intelligence and a healthy respect for the fact that the Intelligence Community has not, in fact, proven to be very well connected in the Islamic world.

So your stating it as a "fact that is undisputed" is very much disputed by the very people that are presenting it to you.

I know, I know - your usual argument is that if it is noted as possible it must have been based in truth. Once again: think WMD before you try to pass that off as a valid argument.
-Z-

-Edit-

Oh yes - and I'd take my wifes open mind to view news from diferent sources, process what she sees and reads, and come to her own conclusions way above your dedication to Fox and asinine statements like having an opinion on a movie you haven't seen because you've "investigated" it... :rolleyes:

Maybe you'll grow up to truly have an independant political opinion, but my hopes fade faster and faster with every argument you try and make.

Looks whose talking! I could say the samething about you. Difference between you and me is that I'm an Independent and shall remain so. When I register to vote, that will be what I register under, In-de-pend-ent.
theres no such thing as an independant republican. Bull Clinton said that democrats looks for leaders they can fall in love with and republicans looks for leaders they can fall in line behind

Since this is one of those 1st post trolls I will only say this once. Bush acted on intelligence reports provided by the British, French, German, Russian and CIA. He had information from each that compelled him to act.

If he had done nothing and something had happened...he would be blamed for not acting on that same information. It is very lonely at the top. ;)

Even if you buy that - since when was it neccessary to rush to war? Bush had a hard-on for Iraq from day one. From the week after 9-11 when he asked for a battle plan to attack Iraq even though it was understood that al qaeda had perpetrated that abomination.

Why did he not give the inspections time? It was, after all, well understood that the CIA had zero current intel since the inspectors were pulled out in 98?

Before the attack, Saddam rolled over and gave up when he offered complete and unfettered access by US military personel to complete the inspections. GW ignored him and went to war.

And what a cost so many have paid.

Oh, so now I have no class because I point out what you said the 9/11 report said didn't exactly say what you said it did. Cry me a river, I have more class in my baby toe then some one who distorts and misleads people with the facts.. I do understand why you like Bush so much now though, you're just like him! You have much in common!

Biff said the same thing I did Steph and yet you singled me out! That is so rich.

Since this is one of those 1st post trolls I will only say this once. Bush acted on intelligence reports provided by the British, French, German, Russian and CIA. He had information from each that compelled him to act.

If he had done nothing and something had happened...he would be blamed for not acting on that same information. It is very lonely at the top. ;)

You are absolutely right Biff!

hmmm… what to say first…
let's start with the evil dictators part. Saddam Hussein was on the top 5 cruelest dictators list. He was #2. If we were going on a quest called Project: Remove Evil Dictators, wouldn't we have started with #1? Oh, wait. We have much to lose and nothing to gain (except international love) from taking on Kim Jong Il. And it would be really hard to get out of North Korea. And he brags about his WMDs. We probably don't want to take on someone who actually has a program.
Let's examine the intelligence now. Why would Saddam risk harboring terrorists when he was running a secular state? And wasn't he on Al-Qaeda's enemies list?
Oh, and most people forget that Winston Churchill was talking about true conservatives. True conservatives are skeptics. Their philosophy is, "Everything has a downside." They didn't believe in deficit spending. They wanted small government. Which is why true conservatives would not like the government to start banning things, as that is the communist dictator way (*cough* china *cough*). In the 40's, they didn't have these fake born-again "conservatives." So Winston Churchill was absolutely right.
And returning to the original topic, people should be allowed to see information, be they truth or lies. And if a government bans something, it just goes to show that the government doesn't trust its own people. Sad, in my opinion. :(

Since this is one of those 1st post trolls I will only say this once. Bush acted on intelligence reports provided by the British, French, German, Russian and CIA. He had information from each that compelled him to act.

If he had done nothing and something had happened...he would be blamed for not acting on that same information. It is very lonely at the top. ;)

Well, first off, I'm not a troll, but people like you who can't stand that others have a different opinion will always think people like me are trolls. This is why I don't do the whole message board thing, too many overblown egos crashing into each other like mini planets adrift on a cosmic sea of "Look at me, I'm going to dis this one, talk smack to that one....look at me, I'm a big man now."

Anyway, last post. Bush's intelligence? Yeah, like Laurie Mylroie's infamous crackpot theory that Cheney can't stop repeating for some reason...like a trained parrot on crack.....you mean THAT kind of intelligence? HAHAHAHA excuse me while I pick myself up off the ground so that I can die laughing in my chair instead. Man, I'll tell you one thing, if that's the kind of "intelligence" this admin is operating under, it makes the bloody Keystone Kops look like a bunch of friggin ace detectives!

Lastly, I will try once more to explain my point, seeing as it went right over your head:

We are not mad so much at the fact that Saddam is gone, that Iraq may, in reality, be better off because of this in the years ahead, or that something, no matter how harsh it was, has been done to remedy a terrible situation.

We are mad that we were lied to. And we are mad that upon realization that the intelligence was flawed, we were not apologized to, or even explained to. Suddenly we jump from WMD to Saddam was a real bad dude? Am I alone in saying WTF? Remember these were YOUR tax dollars spent to do this. If my tax dollars have gone to fight a war that didn't need to be fought, you bet I'm going to be pissed about that. And lets not forget that Iraq has been on the drawing board for these Neo-cons for years. Check out PNAC if you don't believe me.

This whole situation reeks of ulterior motives, and with over 900 American servicemen dead, and countless Iraqi civilans dead, I know I'm not the only one who wants to know what's really goin' on!

Now feel free to tear into me. I know you will. It will make your widdle ego feel all nice and stroked. I'm done here. Made my point, and now I have other stuff to do. There was my 00.02. Take it or leave it, I couldn't care less. Bite me.

Can I ban Micheal Moore(on) for chatting utter bollocks and being the worlds most boring fat guy?

Come on fat guys are supposed to be fun and jolly like Santa and The Fat Controler.

No Micheal Moore(on), is fat and boring and talks in one tone never been happy or excited, instead of making films about shit you don't like why not go get a life and a girlfriend Micheal?

Biff said the same thing I did Steph and yet you singled me out! That is so rich.

Funny, I don't remember Biff stooping to low blows and personal insults. Sometimes people pick and choose the post they respond to Formal, and whether it would have made you feel better that she had said "Formal and Biff" is besides the point.

your response was out of line and unworthy of you. The fact that you fail to acknowledge that might just be seen as an indication of your class - but I won't stoop to your level and I'll just let others make up their own minds.

-Z-

Can I ban Micheal Moore(on) for chatting utter bollocks and being the worlds most boring fat guy?

Come on fat guys are supposed to be fun and jolly like Santa and The Fat Controler.

No Micheal Moore(on), is fat and boring and talks in one tone never been happy or excited, instead of making films about shit you don't like why not go get a life and a girlfriend Micheal?

When you sink to the level of personal attacks - you have lost the argument, not to mention any possible sliver of respect of your peers here.

'nuff said..

Funny, I don't remember Biff stooping to low blows and personal insults. Sometimes people pick and choose the post they respond to Formal, and whether it would have made you feel better that she had said "Formal and Biff" is besides the point.

Funny, I didn't either.

your response was out of line and unworthy of you. The fact that you fail to acknowledge that might just be seen as an indication of your class - but I won't stoop to your level and I'll just let others make up their own minds.

-Z-

I made an observation that she signaled me out when I wasn't the only that believes that Hussein offered Bin Ladin Sanctuary.

Biff said the same thing I did Steph and yet you singled me out! That is so rich.No he didn't. He said he didn't know. You stated it as fact. That is two entirely seperate fucking things. You're being a fucking dumbass. Go make yourself a drink, take several deep breaths and return when you're calm enough to read people's posts properly.

No he didn't. He said he didn't know. You stated it as fact. That is two entirely seperate fucking things. You're being a fucking dumbass. Go make yourself a drink, take several deep breaths and return when you're calm enough to read people's posts properly.

I don't know, but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected. Hell, I would have rejected it too. Osama is a shrewd man. Anyone remember the other terrorist that was in Iraq that was found dead? Shot in the back by someone just before Baghdad fell.

I did dude! He believes it too so what I said was essential correct! I wasnt the only one that believes this happened.

We are mad that we were lied to. And we are mad that upon realization that the intelligence was flawed, we were not apologized to, or even explained to. Suddenly we jump from WMD to Saddam was a real bad dude? Am I alone in saying WTF? Remember these were YOUR tax dollars spent to do this. If my tax dollars have gone to fight a war that didn't need to be fought, you bet I'm going to be pissed about that. And lets not forget that Iraq has been on the drawing board for these Neo-cons for years. Check out PNAC if you don't believe me.

Ok, you had your say but I am going to ask this one question. Why should the president apologize for going along with his advisers? Had he wanted to and not done so and something HAD happened would the country apologize to him and admit he was right all along? Face it, no president is going to apologize for anything. Is Clinton ever going to apologize for the USS Cole or the first WTC bombing that he could have prevented? No, I don't think so either. Since it is obviously not your tax dollars going toward it, then you really have no complaints, mine are and I could not care less.

Can I ban Micheal Moore(on) for chatting utter bollocks and being the worlds most boring fat guy?

Come on fat guys are supposed to be fun and jolly like Santa and The Fat Controler.

No Micheal Moore(on), is fat and boring and talks in one tone never been happy or excited, instead of making films about shit you don't like why not go get a life and a girlfriend Micheal?
if Moore is as "boring" as you claim then why does he always make neocons foam at the mouth? wouldnt he put them to sleep insted?

I did dude! He believes it too so what I said was essential correct! I wasnt the only one that believes this happened.
He said it appeared like that to him but he didn't know. He also did not accuse anybody of lacking class for disagreeing with him. You obviously respect Biff's opinions (as do I, he's a good debater). Look at his posts and then see if you can tell why people are getting pissed off with you and not him. Fuck this shit. For the first time ever I'm dangerously near to losing my temper on here. I'm going to bed and will repost in the morning. I would strongly fucking suggest you do the same.

He said it appeared like that to him but he didn't know. He also did not accuse anybody of lacking class for disagreeing with him. You obviously respect Biff's opinions (as do I, he's a good debater). Look at his posts and then see if you can tell why people are getting pissed off with you and not him. Fuck this shit. For the first time ever I'm dangerously near to losing my temper on here. I'm going to bed and will repost in the morning. I would strongly fucking suggest you do the same.

Once again you missed the rest of the post but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected

Ok, you had your say but I am going to ask this one question. Why should the president apologize for going along with his advisers? Had he wanted to and not done so and something HAD happened would the country apologize to him and admit he was right all along? Face it, no president is going to apologize for anything. Is Clinton ever going to apologize for the USS Cole or the first WTC bombing that he could have prevented? No, I don't think so either. Since it is obviously not your tax dollars going toward it, then you really have no complaints, mine are and I could not care less.
Bush could care less about what anyone had to say on the issue--he had his plans to invade Iraq even before he was appointed as President--911 was just the kinda event Bush needed as his excuse to attack

Even if you buy that - since when was it neccessary to rush to war? Bush had a hard-on for Iraq from day one. From the week after 9-11 when he asked for a battle plan to attack Iraq even though it was understood that al qaeda had perpetrated that abomination.

Why did he not give the inspections time? It was, after all, well understood that the CIA had zero current intel since the inspectors were pulled out in 98?

Before the attack, Saddam rolled over and gave up when he offered complete and unfettered access by US military personel to complete the inspections. GW ignored him and went to war.

And what a cost so many have paid.

Rush to war? Lets take a look shall we? 1991 Iraq surrenders and agrees to abide by the cease fire aggreement. Cease fire meaning just that, NOT an end to hostilities. Iraq immediately violates cease fire agreement. That alone was justification to resume the fighting, but we did not. 1991 to 2003....12 years. I personally spent 2 1/2 of those 12 years booting around the middle east while we were enforcing the no-fly zones. Each sortie was fired on by iraqi gunners. Saddam put a bounty on US pilots, (a violation of the Geneva Convention) but not one aircraft was ever hit. Each time an aircraft was fired on was another violation of the cease fire agreement and would have justified military action. None was taken. UN resolution after UN resolution was aimed at Iraq...all ignored. FINALLY it was decided that the situation could not continue forever, and leaving Saddam in power with his record of attacking his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait and Isreal) was just not an option. The UN being the paper tiger that it is (impotent, corrupt and toothless) had authorized the use of force to any member state to enforce the resolutions. That the US COULD have finished Saddam off at any time during the preceding 12 years and did not is hardly a "rush to war." Saddam was given how many chances? Plus 12 years to act right and he failed. The US would have rather kept a secular gov't in place, but Saddam was a loose cannon and violated every agreement almost immediately. So before you call it a "rush" to war...read the cease fire agreement signed between Iraq and the US. It had NOTHING to do with the UN.

Right. One last fucking try.Once again you missed the rest of the post but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejectedNo I didn't.He said it appeared like that to him but he didn't know.I'll take it bit by bit.

He said: Biff said

It appeared like that to him: That was what he thought had happened.

But he didn't know: But he was uncertain so was not presenting it as fact.



Is that fucking clear enough for you?

One thing: If you do something wrong you SHOULD apologize.

Clinton had nothing to apologize about, how did he cause the Cole?
Did he cause the first Trade tower attack?

Bush did cause the War in Iraq, no? YOU can't dispute that congress gave him the call and he CHOSE to attack Iraq.

He said it appeared like that to him but he didn't know. He also did not accuse anybody of lacking class for disagreeing with him. You obviously respect Biff's opinions (as do I, he's a good debater). Look at his posts and then see if you can tell why people are getting pissed off with you and not him. Fuck this shit. For the first time ever I'm dangerously near to losing my temper on here. I'm going to bed and will repost in the morning. I would strongly fucking suggest you do the same.



Once again you missed the rest of the post but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected

Guys....I do not know, I do not know anyone who does, but I believe it to be true. It is known that meetings did take place and it is also true that terrorist training grounds were in Iraq as well (they found that aircraft cabin they used to train hijackers in baghdad).

Right. One last fucking try.No I didn't.I'll take it bit by bit.

He said: Biff said

It appeared like that to him: That was what he thought had happened.

But he didn't know: But he was uncertain so was not presenting it as fact.



Is that fucking clear enough for you?

Well you just invalidated your arguement with a cuss word. Good Job!

If he didn't, then why isn't there any politicians saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't there a news report saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't al Qaeda denying these reports? Remember, it was directed at bin Ladin, why isn't he out there saying that this didn't take place?

One thing: If you do something wrong you SHOULD apologize.

Clinton had nothing to apologize about, how did he cause the Cole?
Did he cause the first Trade tower attack?

Bush did cause the War in Iraq, no? YOU can't dispute that congress gave him the call and he CHOSE to attack Iraq.

Right, Clinton could have done a lot to stop all of the terrorist attacks while on his watch. Where did he fail? By treating them as criminal acts instead of acts of war. Apologize? he was clearly wrong...but he will not, nor should he really. He made the decision on how to deal with them, it was just the wrong decision.

Well you just invalidated your arguement with a cuss word. Good Job!

If he didn't, then why isn't there any politicians saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't there a news report saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't al Qaeda denying these reports? Remember, it was directed at bin Ladin, why isn't he out there saying that this didn't take place?

Bin Laden is on the run, its not like he's out having a party and hears the news. You don't get good info in a cave.

Plus would anyone belive Mr. Laden?

Bush could care less about what anyone had to say on the issue--he had his plans to invade Iraq even before he was appointed as President--911 was just the kinda event Bush needed as his excuse to attack

When you are ready to stop playing games, you might get a serious response. Until that time I will take your posts in the spirit they are posted.

Bin Laden is on the run, its not like he's out having a party and hears the news. You don't get good info in a cave.

Plus would anyone belive Mr. Laden?

Well you do have a little point there but I can think of a few people that would believe him as well as some nations.

Bin Laden is on the run, its not like he's out having a party and hears the news. You don't get good info in a cave.

Plus would anyone belive Mr. Laden?

Right... bin Laden is in a cave (with a kidney dialysis machine and a recording studio)

Right... bin Laden is in a cave (with a kidney dialysis machine and a recording studio)

I think he could possibly be in Iran.

Well you do have a little point there but I can think of a few people that would believe him as well as some nations.

Who are you thinking of? Saddam is believable not Mr. Laden

Well you just invalidated your arguement with a cuss word. Good Job!

If he didn't, then why isn't there any politicians saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't there a news report saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't al Qaeda denying these reports? Remember, it was directed at bin Ladin, why isn't he out there saying that this didn't take place?

You as I see it have trouble with the simple grasp of the English language. I didn't center out Biff because he freely admitted he didn't know, but "believed" it could be true. Where as you took speculation, clearly stated as speculation on the 9/11 report and turned it to assert it as fact. That little girl is the difference. I actually respect Biff's opinion as he clearly states what he believes but doesn't know. You make it sound like you were at the fucking meetings! That's the difference! So, I respect Biff's opinion and not yours, because at least he debates honestly, you do not!

I might take the advice of Holy Word.. they seem to be offering some pretty sound advice. But then again, when have you ever listened to logic!

i've dropped this along time ago steph so I won't even bother disecting your post.

i've dropped this along time ago steph so I won't even bother disecting your post.

Hahaha, as if you could without distorting the facts... the longer you remain on the forum, the more transparent you become!

Hahaha, as if you could without distorting the facts... the longer you remain on the forum, the more transparent you become!

I've dropped it thus I won't respond to it and your not going to get me to respond to it even with this childish tactic you just used.

Girls, girls, girls.....quit all this bickering. ;)

I've dropped it thus I won't respond to it and your not going to get me to respond to it even with this childish tactic you just used.


Yes, because pointing out you distorts facts is so childish.. :eek: :sniper:

Yes, because pointing out you distorts facts is so childish.. :eek: :sniper:

Sorry steph but alas I'm not responding because it really isn't an issue.

Sorry steph but alas I'm not responding because it really isn't an issue.

Yet you responded, it's nice to see you have such self control..LMAO! :D

:rolleyes: You guys really need to stop already....

arguing online is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.

Yet again I feel compelled to say... linking Michael Moore's personally owned and operated website to prove a point about his fake-u-mentary, means absolutely NOTHING. It'd be like linking Adolf Hitlers personally owned and operated website to defend the Nazi Party :rolleyes:

If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth....

http://www.moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com)


...
Yes, just one look at the advertisements for "the premeir conservative superstore", "the greatest Bush-Cheney T-Shirt ever made", a link to thank Tony Blair for his support of the US war against Iraq, "magnetic Bush-Cheney bumper stickers" (for easy removal when they lose?), or claims that "You know in your heart that things are going much better in Iraq than the media would have you believe", or for clothing that will "annoy your liberal neighbors", or for buses to charter for conservative events, or for a website that provides "Daily news updates and cometary [sic] with a conservative and funny bent", how could anyone possibly consider that site as anything but unbiased... well, at least as unbiased as Faux News.

arguing online is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.

Thats a good one!! LOL

arguing online is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.

Wow, how original, did you think that up all on your own? LOL :p

arguing online is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.

LOL Definitely a good one.

Actually Mr. Moore has called the people of the US "stupid" and calls our government a "terrorist" organisation.

We may not agree with our government on many things, but to go to other countries and say such things is just wrong. Mr. moore is a socialist and if he had his way you and i would be living our lives in very different circumstances than we are now.
Out of curiousity, do you know anything about the events leading up to the American Revolutionary War?

Out of curiousity, do you know anything about the events leading up to the American Revolutionary War?

Sure, the British called the colonists who were resisting their rule "terrorists." However....what is seldom reported is that these same colonists had appealed time and time again to George III for representation in Parliament. Thats all they wanted...a voice in Parliament in exchange for their taxes. Imagine that...just to have their voices heard. Now, imagine it from the other side...colonists defying the will of their sovereign, chosen by god himself to rule over all of Britannia! The gall of those simple colonists!! Well, we know how that ended for George don't we. Now, what if George HAD given them the voice they wanted.....now THAT is a huge WHAT IF.

Sure, the British called the colonists who were resisting their rule "terrorists." However....what is seldom reported is that these same colonists had appealed time and time again to George III for representation in Parliament. Thats all they wanted...a voice in Parliament in exchange for their taxes. Imagine that...just to have their voices heard. Now, imagine it from the other side...colonists defying the will of their sovereign, chosen by god himself to rule over all of Britannia! The gall of those simple colonists!! Well, we know how that ended for George don't we. Now, what if George HAD given them the voice they wanted.....now THAT is a huge WHAT IF.

If this happened, I don't think there would've been a revolutionary war.

Sure, the British called the colonists who were resisting their rule "terrorists." However....what is seldom reported is that these same colonists had appealed time and time again to George III for representation in Parliament. Thats all they wanted...a voice in Parliament in exchange for their taxes. Imagine that...just to have their voices heard. Now, imagine it from the other side...colonists defying the will of their sovereign, chosen by god himself to rule over all of Britannia! The gall of those simple colonists!! Well, we know how that ended for George don't we. Now, what if George HAD given them the voice they wanted.....now THAT is a huge WHAT IF.
good point--George Bushs ancestor (King George) was just as oppressive as his desecendents are now

good point--George Bushs ancestor (King George) was just as oppressive as his desecendents are now

Do you make this stuff up as you go along...or do you think about it for awhile? LOL

Do you make this stuff up as you go along...or do you think about it for awhile? LOL

I swear he finds conspiracies in everything.

I swear he finds conspiracies in everything.

Yeah...he's just having fun. When he grows up he had better hope he keeps that sense of humor...it works well with the ladies...trust me. ;)

Yeah...he's just having fun. When he grows up he had better hope he keeps that sense of humor...it works well with the ladies...trust me. ;)

I know my bf has a sense of humor! A good one too I might add :)

Right, Clinton could have done a lot to stop all of the terrorist attacks while on his watch. Where did he fail? <snip>

The fact is that the terrorist attack was initiated by the FBI, and since Clinton was the leader of the Executive Branch that implicates him.

*note: This is a reprinting of the front page of the October 31st issue of the New York Times, IF you doubt the source (or even if you don't) I encourage you to go to your local library and view it on microfilm for yourself (as I did).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

THE NEW YORK TIMES

* * * * *

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people
injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars.
Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court
[on charges of involvement] in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used
by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle
of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy
the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other
New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the
second bombing case, but his work for the Government was
erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I.

Supervisor `Messed It Up'

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an
undated transcript of a conversation from that period,
Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent
about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said,

"came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel,"

Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.

"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't
push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with
a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was
involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to
complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the
Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by
an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,

"He said, I don't think that the New York people would
like the things out of the New York Office to go to
Washington, D.C."

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute
Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it,
saying of the `New York people':

"Well, of course not, because they don't want to
get their butts chewed."

Sure, the British called the colonists who were resisting their rule "terrorists." However....what is seldom reported is that these same colonists had appealed time and time again to George III for representation in Parliament. Thats all they wanted...a voice in Parliament in exchange for their taxes. Imagine that...just to have their voices heard. Now, imagine it from the other side...colonists defying the will of their sovereign, chosen by god himself to rule over all of Britannia! The gall of those simple colonists!! Well, we know how that ended for George don't we. Now, what if George HAD given them the voice they wanted.....now THAT is a huge WHAT IF.
Eh...close-ish

For one, the Sons of Liberty wanted America to be ruled by Americas since they were formed. That's why they were formed...they were griping about things like not having representation in parliament in order to get more Americans over to their side to fight the Brits. The Sons of Liberty knew from the very beginning that they would never get any seats in Parliament. Parliament kept putting tons of taxes on Americans and the Sons of Liberty did things like throw tea in the sea and terrorize would-be stamp sellers to insure the Brits would get no taxes. Heck, remember that newspaper picture that was made for the Boston Massacre? It showed British soldiers shooting American civilians (which kind of like F9/11, is only a half truth). Why was it okay back then when a change was needed but not now when a change is needed?

If this happened, I don't think there would've been a revolutionary war.
The Sons of Liberty were there to make sure there was a revolution.

Eh...close-ish

For one, the Sons of Liberty wanted America to be ruled by Americas since they were formed. That's why they were formed...they were griping about things like not having representation in parliament in order to get more Americans over to their side to fight the Brits. The Sons of Liberty knew from the very beginning that they would never get any seats in Parliament. Parliament kept putting tons of taxes on Americans and the Sons of Liberty did things like throw tea in the sea and terrorize would-be stamp sellers to insure the Brits would get no taxes. Heck, remember that newspaper picture that was made for the Boston Massacre? It showed British soldiers shooting American civilians (which kind of like F9/11, is only a half truth). Why was it okay back then when a change was needed but not now when a change is needed?

The british soldiers DID FIRE on the Bostonians. That is actually fact. Sorry Opal but they did fire on them.

The Sons of Liberty were there to make sure there was a revolution.

No because of what you stated that they knew they weren't going to get it. If they got the seats they would've been ignored. That was how it occured back then.

The british soldiers DID FIRE on the Bostonians. That is actually fact. Sorry Opal but they did fire on them.
I know they did, but that newspaper image never showed that it was the Bostonians that enticed them to fire. The image was a half-truth like all of Michael Moore's movie.

The fact is that the terrorist attack was initiated by the FBI, and since Clinton was the leader of the Executive Branch that implicates him.

*note: This is a reprinting of the front page of the October 31st issue of the New York Times, IF you doubt the source (or even if you don't) I encourage you to go to your local library and view it on microfilm for yourself (as I did).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

THE NEW YORK TIMES

* * * * *

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people
injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars.
Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court
[on charges of involvement] in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used
by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle
of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy
the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other
New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the
second bombing case, but his work for the Government was
erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I.

Supervisor `Messed It Up'

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an
undated transcript of a conversation from that period,
Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent
about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said,

"came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel,"

Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.

"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't
push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with
a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was
involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to
complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the
Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by
an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,

"He said, I don't think that the New York people would
like the things out of the New York Office to go to
Washington, D.C."

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute
Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it,
saying of the `New York people':

"Well, of course not, because they don't want to
get their butts chewed."


I remember that story...it was later debunked because the "informant" had not reported the true nature of the attack to the FBI. In the end nothing became of it and Clinton still goofed up by treating the attack as a criminal case instead as an act of war, which it was.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along...or do you think about it for awhile? LOL
I was agreed with you tho :D

No because of what you stated that they knew they weren't going to get it. If they got the seats they would've been ignored. That was how it occured back then.
...I didn't say it would have happened when it did and as it did, but the Sons of Liberty did not want the Brits to rule them and would have eventually sparked a revolution.

Sure, the British called the colonists who were resisting their rule "terrorists." However....what is seldom reported is that these same colonists had appealed time and time again to George III for representation in Parliament. Thats all they wanted...a voice in Parliament in exchange for their taxes. Imagine that...just to have their voices heard.

Sounds a lot like the RNC's plan for Oregon:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html

Senate Bill 742

Sponsored by Senator MINNIS


SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Creates crime of terrorism. Punishes by life imprisonment.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending
section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if
the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any
act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to
disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the
State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of
Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State
of Oregon or its inhabitants.
(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person
conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1)
of this section.
(3) A person may not be convicted of terrorism except upon the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon
confession in open court.
(4)(a) A person convicted of terrorism shall be punished by
imprisonment for life.
(b) When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section,
the court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum
of 25 years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison
supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary
leave or employment at a forest or work camp.

I know they did, but that newspaper image never showed that it was the Bostonians that enticed them to fire. The image was a half-truth like all of Michael Moore's movie.

WHat you think a snowball was reason to fire on them? They threw snowballs and they fired with muskets! Who was wrong?

I swear he finds conspiracies in everything.
I find no reason to accept the govt version of reality :headbang:

Eh...close-ish

For one, the Sons of Liberty wanted America to be ruled by Americas since they were formed. That's why they were formed...they were griping about things like not having representation in parliament in order to get more Americans over to their side to fight the Brits. The Sons of Liberty knew from the very beginning that they would never get any seats in Parliament. Parliament kept putting tons of taxes on Americans and the Sons of Liberty did things like throw tea in the sea and terrorize would-be stamp sellers to insure the Brits would get no taxes. Heck, remember that newspaper picture that was made for the Boston Massacre? It showed British soldiers shooting American civilians (which kind of like F9/11, is only a half truth). Why was it okay back then when a change was needed but not now when a change is needed?

Ok, I see where you are going with this...the British fired first...the first man killed that day was Crispis Attuks (sp) a black man. All it took at that tiome to entice the British to fire was get more than 3 people to meet at once. They needed no excuses, they had the kings decree to restore order.

Sounds a lot like the RNC's plan for Oregon:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html

Senate Bill 742

Well, that is a state law, enacted by the people of Oregon...it has nothing to do with the other 49 states...states rights.

Yeah...he's just having fun. When he grows up he had better hope he keeps that sense of humor...it works well with the ladies...trust me. ;)
these are the kinda arguments that woulda happened at the Reagan dinner table if only the Reagans kids were allowed to speak to their parents :(
:D

Well, that is a state law, enacted by the people of Oregon...it has nothing to do with the other 49 states...states rights.

Sounds like an arguement I'm having in another thread. State rights. LOL

Welcome to Gulag Amerika! Ain't it great? Homeland Security was never more secure. Kuwait will probably join as the 51st State, and we could use all that oil.

WHat you think a snowball was reason to fire on them? They threw snowballs and they fired with muskets! Who was wrong?
...uh, from what I understand, it started a snowballs, then snowballs with rocks in them, and then one Brit dropped his musket or accidentily fired it or something (they were under orders to not fire), and in the confusion, the soldiers opened fire.

Is this the story presented by the newspaper of that time? Not quite.

I know they did, but that newspaper image never showed that it was the Bostonians that enticed them to fire. The image was a half-truth like all of Michael Moore's movie.

Ok, now THIS is a huge stretch....comparing Moore's film with a newspaper image that was seen by only a few hundred people at most? Sorry, but your analogy is flawed...mainly because there is no comparison to what George III did and the events of today. Noone could vote against the King...he was appointed by god! ;)

I remember that story...it was later debunked because the "informant" had not reported the true nature of the attack to the FBI.

That's a great leap of misconception: where was his story "debunked" ? I find that hard to swallow, considering he audio-taped every conversation he ever had with the FBI... Not to mention the fact that he won his case against them!


In the end nothing became of it <snip>

Nothing ever does... the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy Assassination, Watergate Tapes, Tonkin Gulf, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, Mt. Carmel, OKC-Alfred P. Murrah bombing, and the 9/11 attacks -- and the truth behind the first WTC attack will be whitewashed away and the truth flushed into the memmory hole...

these are the kinda arguments that woulda happened at the Reagan dinner table if only the Reagans kids were allowed to speak to their parents :(
:D

Ya think? I doubt it. Ron would probably beat the crap out of his ballerina son....LOL

Ok, now THIS is a huge stretch....comparing Moore's film with a newspaper image that was seen by only a few hundred people at most? Sorry, but your analogy is flawed...mainly because there is no comparison to what George III did and the events of today. Noone could vote against the King...he was appointed by god! ;)
>@!>!>!>$!@#$%@#$^%?!

THE SONS OF LIBERTY WERE USING PROPAGANDIST HALF-TRUTHS TO FURTHER THEIR CAUSE AND YOU JUSTIFY THAT BUT YOU THINK THAT MOORE'S PROPAGANDIST HALF-TRUTHS ARE THE EPITOMY OF EVILNESS?!

Do you hear what you are saying?

Ya think? I doubt it. Ron would probably beat the crap out of his ballerina son....LOL

LMFAO

That's a great leap of misconception: where was his story "debunked" ? I find that hard to swallow, considering he audio-taped every conversation he ever had with the FBI... Not to mention the fact that he won his case against them!

Well, the FBI was unable to admit much of their evidence due to it being "classified." So we will never really know I guess.


Nothing ever does... the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy Assassination, Watergate Tapes, Tonkin Gulf, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, Mt. Carmel, OKC-Alfred P. Murrah bombing, and the 9/11 attacks -- and the truth behind the first WTC attack will be whitewashed away and the truth flushed into the memmory hole...

Well, there are always conspiracy theories...Pearl Harbor is still being investigated. There is never an end to the speculation.

Ya think? I doubt it. Ron would probably beat the crap out of his ballerina son....LOL
LOL :D

Well, that is a state law, enacted by the people of Oregon...it has nothing to do with the other 49 states...states rights.

In case you missed the last fifty years Stom Thurmond, I'm pretty sure that State's have no legal right to curcumvent the US CONSTITUTION!! Ain't the supremacy clause a bitch!

>@!>!>!>$!@#$%@#$^%?!

THE SONS OF LIBERTY WERE USING PROPAGANDIST HALF-TRUTHS TO FURTHER THEIR CAUSE AND YOU JUSTIFY THAT BUT YOU THINK THAT MOORE'S PROPAGANDIST HALF-TRUTHS ARE THE EPITOMY OF EVILNESS?!

Do you hear what you are saying?

Absolutely...because I see one as a broader fight for liberty by thousands and the other as one mans crusade.

LMFAO
LOL I would pay to see that myself--but Im sure ballerina Ron could bodyslam that pudgey crybaby Michael Reagan

In case you missed the last fifty years Stom Thurmond, I'm pretty sure that State's[i] have no legal [i]right to curcumvent the US CONSTITUTION!! Ain't the supremacy clause a bitch!

Well, then the law will be challenged in the states supreme court...if it is found to be unconstitutional..it will be dropped. Relax...the checks and bounds are in place.

Absolutely...because I see one as a broader fight for liberty by thousands and the other as one mans crusade.
1) So long as you admit you're holding a double standard...
2) ...and understand that the Sons of Liberty never was anywhere near the size of thousands...
3) ...and recognize that in Moore's eyes, he's trying to make the world a better place...(just like the SoL...who you'd probably be opposed to if you lived in that time...)

LOL I would pay to see that myself--but Im sure ballerina Ron could bodyslam that pudgey crybaby Michael Reagan

I take Michael over Jr any day.

1) So long as you admit you're holding a double standard...
2) ...and understand that the Sons of Liberty never was anywhere near the size of thousands...
3) ...and recognize that in Moore's eyes, he's trying to make the world a better place...(just like the SoL...who you'd probably be opposed to if you lived in that time...)

Well...lets see...thousands of men fought for liberty. So it was a cast of thousands fighting for liberty.

No double standard at all...Moore is a demigogue who thinks he knows what people need and want. I would compare Moore to George III, both rotund, both think they know what America should be and both wrong.

Moore is not a patriot, he is a socialist who believes the absolute opposite as the SOL who believed in INDIVIDUAL liberty. Moore wants a HUGE central gov't that will take all our worries away.... :rolleyes:

Well, then the law will be challenged in the states supreme court...if it is found to be unconstitutional..it will be dropped. Relax...the checks and bounds are in place.

You mean, if the court decides to hear the case? Sorry, but I don't care about legality when it comes to STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM, and that is what this bill is -- an attack on the people, designed to frighten them into submission.

You can wrap yourself in checks and balances, all you want -- BUT that doesn't mean that the system is working!! There were checks and balances during the age of Slavery -- during the Interment of Japanes Americans -- during the Red Scare -- during the age of J. Edgar Hoover -- and you know what? If people had just sat back like slack-jawed-yokels and said "well, if the government is doing it then there's nothing to be worried about," then we would still have all of those things...

So no! I'm not going to relax while the RNC promotes a bill that would classify protestors as terrorist! Because, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!"

*is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam for slamdrilling Iraqs oilwells? The same Kuwait which STILL isnt a democracy even tho Bush the First "liberated" it?

Kuwait Bans Fahrenheit 9/11
And Kuwait has banned Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 Sunday because it violates a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations. One Kuwaiti official said that the film "insulted the Saudi royal family by saying they had common interests with the Bush family and that those interests contradicted with the interests of the American people."

www.democracynow.org
Well, I have to say that even though I don't agree with it, it's Kuwaiti law.

Well...lets see...thousands of men fought for liberty. So it was a cast of thousands fighting for liberty.

No double standard at all...Moore is a demigogue who thinks he knows what people need and want. I would compare Moore to George III, both rotund, both think they know what America should be and both wrong.

Moore is not a patriot, he is a socialist who believes the absolute opposite as the SOL who believed in INDIVIDUAL liberty. Moore wants a HUGE central gov't that will take all our worries away.... :rolleyes:
I'm done arguing with you. This isn't going anywhere. Go on making Moore-esque arguments against Farenheit 9/11...

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

w00t

good post

micheal moore's movies are not 'documentaries'

they are movies curved to make viewers see the world the way he does.

I'm done arguing with you. This isn't going anywhere. Go on making Moore-esque arguments against Farenheit 9/11...

Though these Moore-esque arguements happen to be true? Please, the movie was a lie and it has been proven as such.

You mean, if the court decides to hear the case? Sorry, but I don't care about legality when it comes to STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM, and that is what this bill is -- an attack on the people, designed to frighten them into submission.

You can wrap yourself in checks and balances, all you want -- BUT that doesn't mean that the system is working!! There were checks and balances during the age of Slavery -- during the Interment of Japanes Americans -- during the Red Scare -- during the age of J. Edgar Hoover -- and you know what? If people had just sat back like slack-jawed-yokels and said "well, if the government is doing it then there's nothing to be worried about," then we would still have all of those things...

So no! I'm not going to relax while the RNC promotes a bill that would classify protestors as terrorist! Because, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!"


Ok, now I HAVE to ask....how is the RNC sponsoring a bill in the state of Oregon? is it the chairman or some secretary doing it? Or is this more likely the case....

A Republican Senator or Representative is sponsoring the bill and has you all worked up over it?

First the bill has to be passed by both houses? If it is as dire as you seem to think (I live in Florida so Oregon law will not apply to me) then what are the odds of it being passed into law. IF it is...then it goes before the review board and THEN the state supreme court before it can be enacted...it might be a year before that happens.

I'm done arguing with you. This isn't going anywhere. Go on making Moore-esque arguments against Farenheit 9/11...

Well, thats too bad. I was enjoying it. However, it is getting late and I have a couple of meetings in the morning. Moore can make bad propaganda and I can shoot it down just as easily. The fact that you seem to have that hook in your cheek may be the reason for your vociferous arguments in favor of what is obviously a flawed film.

Enjoy.... :)

Well, thats too bad. I was enjoying it. However, it is getting late and I have a couple of meetings in the morning. Moore can make bad propaganda and I can shoot it down just as easily. The fact that you seem to have that hook in your cheek may be the reason for your vociferous arguments in favor of what is obviously a flawed film.

Enjoy.... :)

bye Biff cause I'm gone too!

Though these Moore-esque arguements happen to be true? Please, the movie was a lie and it has been proven as such.
Most of Moore's arguments have some truth to them to. You guys have me all wrong. I consider his movies propagandistic half-truths, but I absolutely do not deny that there is some truth in all of his movies. You guys are claiming that Moore's movies are 100% lie. This simply isn't true. Please, make a post in which you explain how every second of every Moore movie is a lie...

Well, first off, I'm not a troll, but people like you who can't stand that others have a different opinion will always think people like me are trolls. This is why I don't do the whole message board thing, too many overblown egos crashing into each other like mini planets adrift on a cosmic sea of "Look at me, I'm going to dis this one, talk smack to that one....look at me, I'm a big man now."

Anyway, last post. Bush's intelligence? Yeah, like Laurie Mylroie's infamous crackpot theory that Cheney can't stop repeating for some reason...like a trained parrot on crack.....you mean THAT kind of intelligence? HAHAHAHA excuse me while I pick myself up off the ground so that I can die laughing in my chair instead. Man, I'll tell you one thing, if that's the kind of "intelligence" this admin is operating under, it makes the bloody Keystone Kops look like a bunch of friggin ace detectives!

Lastly, I will try once more to explain my point, seeing as it went right over your head:

We are not mad so much at the fact that Saddam is gone, that Iraq may, in reality, be better off because of this in the years ahead, or that something, no matter how harsh it was, has been done to remedy a terrible situation.

We are mad that we were lied to. And we are mad that upon realization that the intelligence was flawed, we were not apologized to, or even explained to. Suddenly we jump from WMD to Saddam was a real bad dude? Am I alone in saying WTF? Remember these were YOUR tax dollars spent to do this. If my tax dollars have gone to fight a war that didn't need to be fought, you bet I'm going to be pissed about that. And lets not forget that Iraq has been on the drawing board for these Neo-cons for years. Check out PNAC if you don't believe me.

This whole situation reeks of ulterior motives, and with over 900 American servicemen dead, and countless Iraqi civilans dead, I know I'm not the only one who wants to know what's really goin' on!

Now feel free to tear into me. I know you will. It will make your widdle ego feel all nice and stroked. I'm done here. Made my point, and now I have other stuff to do. There was my 00.02. Take it or leave it, I couldn't care less. Bite me.
Excellent post!!

When people can stop long enough to peel away the layers of deceit that has covered up this travesty of justice, the naked truth is there for all to see.

Some people want to cover their eyes so they don't have to see the perversity underneath. Some will cover their ears so they can't hear the obvious truths. Yet these same people that will not see the truth, nor hear the facts, for what they are, will do their utmost to shout from the highest peaks that everyone who tries to expose the truth are liars.

They will invent there own "history" of the "facts" and do their level best to shove it down others throats. They "have" to be right, even though they are dead wrong. In all honesty, I feel somewhat sorry for them, because someday down the road, the truth will smack them upside the head and they will be in shock.

These forums are not about winning an argument. They are about gaining an understanding of our fellow human beings, at least to me they are. And I have learned so much, and have so much more to learn. We can make this old earth a better place!!

Most of Moore's arguments have some truth to them to. You guys have me all wrong. I consider his movies propagandistic half-truths, but I absolutely do not deny that there is some truth in all of his movies. You guys are claiming that Moore's movies are 100% lie. This simply isn't true. Please, make a post in which you explain how every second of every Moore movie is a lie...
For what it is worth Opal, I saw the film and the documentary by Moore was brilliant. It did expose some very serious matters for people to consider, especially the human cost of the Iraq war and that mental picture of Bush sitting there emotionless, in that classroom for minutes after being informed that America was under attack, gave me a very eerie feeling to say the least.

It certainly makes one think!!

It certainly makes one think!!
Only if by "one" you mean "some."

-For extreme liberals, they come out with the attitude "DOWN WITH BUSH!! THREE MORE MONTHS!!"

-For extreme conservatives, they come out with the attitude "MOORE IS FAT!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!"

-For people like you and I, we come out like "Meh. It was funny."

There are definitely things that need to be thought about in this movie, and we're not dumb enough to think any of this is 100% fact, but we're also not naive enough to call it all myth.

Only if by "one" you mean "some."

-For extreme liberals, they come out with the attitude "DOWN WITH BUSH!! THREE MORE MONTHS!!"

-For extreme conservatives, they come out with the attitude "MOORE IS FAT!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!"

-For people like you and I, we come out like "Meh. It was funny."

There are definitely things that need to be thought about in this movie, and we're not dumb enough to think any of this is 100% fact, but we're also not naive enough to call it all myth.
I believe there are a lot of facts there and that is why so many people are trying their level best to insult Moore. The truth hurts sometimes?

I take Michael over Jr any day.
Michael is a bitter castaway--he was so mad at Reagan for witholding his love from him that he opposes stem cell research that coulda saved Reagans life

Ok, now I HAVE to ask....how is the RNC sponsoring a bill in the state of Oregon? is it the chairman or some secretary doing it? Or is this more likely the case....

A Republican Senator or Representative is sponsoring the bill and has you all worked up over it?

Well "Biff," I'm glad you did ask that question because I'd hate for anyone to go around misinformed -- so, without any further ado -- I give you the Leaders of the Republican Party in Oregon:

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/Legislature/legislator.cfm?i=73

Senator John Minnis
Party Affiliation: Republican
Year Entered Legislature: 1985
Chair of Committee(s):
Judiciary
Vice-Chair of Committee(s):
General Government
Member of Committee(s):
Health Policy

Not to mention the fact that his wife is the House Majority Leader:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/majoritybio.htm



First the bill has to be passed by both houses? If it is as dire as you seem to think (I live in Florida so Oregon law will not apply to me) then what are the odds of it being passed into law. IF it is...then it goes before the review board and THEN the state supreme court before it can be enacted... it might be a year before that happens.

"Biff," you seem to think that I shouldn't worry about what the future holds...

Here I'm telling you that the British are coming and your response is "well, it'll probably take them awile to get here, I might as well go back to sleep." No "Biff," NOW is the time to WAKE UP!

Well you just invalidated your arguement with a cuss word. Good Job!How precisely does using the word "fuck" invalidate my premise?

If he didn't, then why isn't there any politicians saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't there a news report saying that this didn't happen? Why isn't al Qaeda denying these reports? Remember, it was directed at bin Ladin, why isn't he out there saying that this didn't take place? Why aren't there any politicans denying that Bin Laden and George Bush went out on fishing trips together? And what possible motivation would Bin Laden have to deny it.

The fact that you seem to have that hook in your cheek may be the reason for your vociferous arguments in favor of what is obviously a flawed film.That's an obvious misrepresentation of Opal Isle's position. He/She's arguing that by claiming that no truth whatsoever is contained in Moore's movies who are guilty of precisely the same crimes as Moore. Namely hyperbole and the twisting of facts to suit your political agenda.

Well "Biff," I'm glad you did ask that question because I'd hate for anyone to go around misinformed -- so, without any further ado -- I give you the Leaders of the Republican Party in Oregon:

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/Legislature/legislator.cfm?i=73

Senator John Minnis
Party Affiliation: Republican
Year Entered Legislature: 1985
Chair of Committee(s):
Judiciary
Vice-Chair of Committee(s):
General Government
Member of Committee(s):
Health Policy

Not to mention the fact that his wife is the House Majority Leader:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/majoritybio.htm





"Biff," you seem to think that I shouldn't worry about what the future holds...

Here I'm telling you that the British are coming and your response is "well, it'll probably take them awile to get here, I might as well go back to sleep." No "Biff," NOW is the time to WAKE UP!

Ok, lets get this straight...the RNC is NOT advocating this law as the RNC is a national organization concerned with big picture, just as the DNC does not sponsor other state bills. Further, the bill has only been proposed and has yet to be passed into law. IF it is, it will be reviewed and challenged. There have been MANY laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the past and tossed out in the past. This one may well be too. I am not getting worked up about it because 1. it has not been passed into law and 2. even if it is it will only affect people who live in Oregon.

Most of Moore's arguments have some truth to them to. You guys have me all wrong. I consider his movies propagandistic half-truths, but I absolutely do not deny that there is some truth in all of his movies. You guys are claiming that Moore's movies are 100% lie. This simply isn't true. Please, make a post in which you explain how every second of every Moore movie is a lie...

Yes, there is "some" truth to the movie, but there is also a large part that is not. The movie is a tool to try and sway an election. I doubt it will have much of an effect really.

That's an obvious misrepresentation of Opal Isle's position. He/She's arguing that by claiming that no truth whatsoever is contained in Moore's movies who are guilty of precisely the same crimes as Moore. Namely hyperbole and the twisting of facts to suit your political agenda.

Has anyone claimed that there is NO truth in the movie? Not me...however, there is so much that is untrue in it that it is not an objective piece but just a propaganda piece. In time it will just pass into history as just another diatribe.

Ok, lets get this straight...the RNC is NOT advocating this law as the RNC is a national organization concerned with big picture, just as the DNC does not sponsor other state bills.

This law is being sponsored by the highest ranking officials of the Republican Party in Oregon, and as such -- the RNC supports their in-state efforts. If this were proposed by some lowly state-congressman then you might have a point, but I've already shown you who's behind this scheme.

This law is being sponsored by the highest ranking officials of the Republican Party in Oregon, and as such -- the RNC supports their in-state efforts. If this were proposed by some lowly state-congressman then you might have a point, but I've already shown you who's behind this scheme.

Ok, I will concede that, even though I do not know it to be factual since I do not follow these things as closely as you obviously do....however, it is not a law yet and still has to go through the process. IF it is found to be unconstitutional it will be discarded.

Michael is a bitter castaway--he was so mad at Reagan for witholding his love from him that he opposes stem cell research that coulda saved Reagans life

I just had to respond to this! Excuse me while I laugh for a second!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ok I'm better now. NEWS FLASH MKULTRA: Even if there were stem cell research, President Reagan would've died before a cure was found. Everyone pretty much agrees on that!

Has anyone claimed that there is NO truth in the movie? Not me...however, there is so much that is untrue in it that it is not an objective piece but just a propaganda piece. In time it will just pass into history as just another diatribe.
Now you've taken my stance on the movie. The fact of the matter is, that newspaper headline he used really did exist. Did it come from the front page? No. Did it come from the same date? No. Was it the same size and typeface? No. Did it really exist in that very newspaper? Yes.
You said there was absolutely no truth to that headline, despite the fact that the article you cited said there was and then you proceeded to argue against me about it.

Now you've taken my stance on the movie. The fact of the matter is, that newspaper headline he used really did exist. Did it come from the front page? No. Did it come from the same date? No. Was it the same size and typeface? No. Did it really exist in that very newspaper? Yes.
You said there was absolutely no truth to that headline, despite the fact that the article you cited said there was and then you proceeded to argue against me about it.

Ok, lets see....the HEADLINE did NOT exist as a NEWS headline. It was a headline on a "Letters to the Editor" page dated Dec 5th 2000. What Moore did was take THAT headline, change the font and make it bigger and place it on the newspaper and purport it to be a NEWS headline. He created this and passed it off as an example of why he was right when in effect he lied. Thus, there is no truth to the headline and Moore's credibility is blown, not that he really had much to begin with. These guys self-destruct in time and Moore will too eventually. It is already starting, just give it a few more months and he will be insignificant.

Ok, I will concede that, even though I do not know it to be factual since I do not follow these things as closely as you obviously do....
I don't go around making crazy theories up... everyting I say I easily verifiable, if you doubt anything I say, I encourage you to do the research yourself.


however, it is not a law yet and still has to go through the process.
Yeah... I've already said that: this doesn't change the fact that it is being pushed by the leadership of the Republican Party in Oregon. Everyone should be outraged by this draconion legislation and anyone that supports it should be flogged in public.

IF it is found to be unconstitutional it will be discarded.
And if it isn't found unconstitutional then it will be enforced. No matter how it "is found," the law is an abomination. Slavery wasn't considered unconstitutional for one hundred years in the United States, that didn't make it okay.

Ok, lets see....the HEADLINE did NOT exist as a NEWS headline. It was a headline on a "Letters to the Editor" page dated Dec 5th 2000. What Moore did was take THAT headline, change the font and make it bigger and place it on the newspaper and purport it to be a NEWS headline. He created this and passed it off as an example of why he was right when in effect he lied. Thus, there is no truth to the headline and Moore's credibility is blown, not that he really had much to begin with. These guys self-destruct in time and Moore will too eventually. It is already starting, just give it a few more months and he will be insignificant.

Because you've NEVER embellished or over-exagerated on anything before in your life :rolleyes::

Because you've NEVER embellished or over-exagerated on anything before in your life :rolleyes::

I have never made a movie and publicly said to was factual. :rolleyes:

*is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam for slamdrilling Iraqs oilwells? The same Kuwait which STILL isnt a democracy even tho Bush the First "liberated" it?

Kuwait Bans Fahrenheit 9/11
And Kuwait has banned Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 Sunday because it violates a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations. One Kuwaiti official said that the film "insulted the Saudi royal family by saying they had common interests with the Bush family and that those interests contradicted with the interests of the American people."

www.democracynow.org

Interesting...