NationStates Jolt Archive

*MM is asking for the people who start the unjust wars in our names should at least make equal sacrifice in fighting their wars for the elite by sending their own kids. This way we can be assured that all future wars will be Just

MICHAEL MOORE: We're here today because we're really happy. We're happy that the republicans only have a couple months left. And so we're here to welcome them, show them a good time. We know they're feeling a little depressed, seeing how the end is near for them. I’d feel that way if I were them. So you know, we're going to give them a nice smile and a wave as we go up 7th Avenue here. And this week, while the republicans are in town, whatever we can do, to encourage them to sign up and we're going to have recruiters around, any of them who would like to join our military and go and fight the war that they're willing to send poor people to go and fight, in fact, just to borrow an idea from Congressman Rangle, I really think we need to bring back the draft, but only for the sons of politicians and the sons of executives of Fortune 500 companies. I think if they had to go first, we would find ourselves in a lot less of these situations. Last month at the democratic convention, I asked Bill O'Reilly a question that he could not answer. And that question was, “Would you be willing to sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?” That's our question to these republicans here in town. And I think we know the answer. And so, let's stop sacrificing all the children, both in this country and Iraq. There's a way out of this. And that way is now. That way is now. We want an end to this war. We want the troops home. And it's just not going to work with us there. And we owe a huge apology to the people of Iraq for creating the amount of death and destruction that we've created there. So, very sorry that the city of New York couldn't figure out how to allow us to have a peaceful rally in Central Park. It made absolutely no sense. And in fact, it's made more and more sense to me, that this is exactly what they wanted. Chaos. So we're here to show them that that's not what they're going to get and that we, those of us here, who are speaking and all the people back there, we are the majority of this country. The majority of this country opposes this war. The majority of this country wants the Bush administration out of office. The majority never voted for the Bush administration. And the majority are here to say, it's time to have our country back in our hands. Thank you very much for being here.
www.democracynow.org

Profound indeed. Here's an equally poignant question: do you worship this guy's turds?

Profound indeed. Here's an equally poignant question: do you worship this guy's turds?
Quote
Of
The
Day

I wouldnt want to see the size of one of his turds lol

Do he also apply the same argument to John "supporter of the Iraq War and the Homeland Security Act" Kerry? If not he's a hypocrite.

hmmm im a republican and i serve in the army....but it must just my own imgination because i see other republicans here too. Also others like democrats...but i think we just consider ourselves soldiers.

Moore can say and do what he whats as is his right...but i do not see him signing up at the recruiters office either. SO what right does he have to force that upon others...none i think.

Do he also apply the same argument to John "supporter of the Iraq War and the Homeland Security Act" Kerry? If not he's a hypocrite.
good question-I dont know

The next profound statement Michael "I lie about everything, and these idiot ass-monkeys still buy all of it" Moore makes will be the first.

The next profound statement Michael "I lie about everything, and these idiot ass-monkeys still buy all of it" Moore makes will be the first.

Well played.

I agree with the principle that politicians be able to send their own children to fight wars. The only problem is, here, you might wind up with cowardly or possessive politicians who avoid necessary wars out of personal fear and love. That could be just as bad as one too-willing to fight wars since their children will not die.

*MM is asking for the people who start the unjust wars in our names should at least make equal sacrifice in fighting their wars for the elite by sending their own kids. This way we can be assured that all future wars will be Just

MICHAEL MOORE: We're here today because we're really happy. We're happy that the republicans only have a couple months left. And so we're here to welcome them, show them a good time. We know they're feeling a little depressed, seeing how the end is near for them. I’d feel that way if I were them. So you know, we're going to give them a nice smile and a wave as we go up 7th Avenue here. And this week, while the republicans are in town, whatever we can do, to encourage them to sign up and we're going to have recruiters around, any of them who would like to join our military and go and fight the war that they're willing to send poor people to go and fight, in fact, just to borrow an idea from Congressman Rangle, I really think we need to bring back the draft, but only for the sons of politicians and the sons of executives of Fortune 500 companies. I think if they had to go first, we would find ourselves in a lot less of these situations. Last month at the democratic convention, I asked Bill O'Reilly a question that he could not answer. And that question was, “Would you be willing to sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?” That's our question to these republicans here in town. And I think we know the answer. And so, let's stop sacrificing all the children, both in this country and Iraq. There's a way out of this. And that way is now. That way is now. We want an end to this war. We want the troops home. And it's just not going to work with us there. And we owe a huge apology to the people of Iraq for creating the amount of death and destruction that we've created there. So, very sorry that the city of New York couldn't figure out how to allow us to have a peaceful rally in Central Park. It made absolutely no sense. And in fact, it's made more and more sense to me, that this is exactly what they wanted. Chaos. So we're here to show them that that's not what they're going to get and that we, those of us here, who are speaking and all the people back there, we are the majority of this country. The majority of this country opposes this war. The majority of this country wants the Bush administration out of office. The majority never voted for the Bush administration. And the majority are here to say, it's time to have our country back in our hands. Thank you very much for being here.
www.democracynow.org


Personally I don't think this Michael Moore fellow would fight to defend her if his own mother was attacked. The only thing he would fight for is his own film career.

The next profound statement Michael "I lie about everything, and these idiot ass-monkeys still buy all of it" Moore makes will be the first.

Smartest thing anyone has said in any NS forums.

And just like Bill O' Riley, I support a person's right to choose whether or not they want to go into the military. It is not my right to send my child into war--they must make that choice themselves. Apparently Moore doesn't think so.

Personally I don't think this Michael Moore fellow would fight to defend her if his own mother was attacked. The only thing he would fight for is his own film career.

Ouch, now that's cold. May very well be the truth, but cold.

Smartest thing anyone has said in any NS forums.

And just like Bill O' Riley, I support a person's right to choose whether or not they want to go into the military. It is not my right to send my child into war--they must make that choice themselves. Apparently Moore doesn't think so.



Ouch, now that's cold. May very well be the truth, but cold.
Bush doesnt agree with O'reilly either since he started his backdoor draft

Smartest thing anyone has said in any NS forums.

And just like Bill O' Riley, I support a person's right to choose whether or not they want to go into the military. It is not my right to send my child into war--they must make that choice themselves. Apparently Moore doesn't think so.



Ouch, now that's cold. May very well be the truth, but cold.
o'reilly doesnt support shit, but the gibberish that he spews from his own mouth

Profound indeed. Here's an equally poignant question: do you worship this guy's turds?
clever....like barney gumble

Wow.... yes, a man who spends his life voicing his own dislike and distrust in the U.S. Government is OBVIOUSLY going to enlist to defend it. First on his list...

I think that is more or less a logical statement on his part. Looking back at all those I went to high school with, it was the poor kids that didn't have a choice that ended up in the armed forces fighting overseas. I'm sure there are a few genuinely patriotic "I want to die for my country" people out there, but they are easily the minority in the military. Those who can't afford an over-priced education end up in the well-funded military, so that if they live through the experience they can get an education and make a life for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there are most certainly people who join the military to make money. And that is what they do, they make money. The live on bases in places like Florida and Japan and don't bother with lesser tasks like combat.

If there was an honest and un-biased draft that forced the rich kids into the military to work beside the poor kids, the military would probably be run diferently.

Most of you Uptight Conservative Monkeys just dont see the point the man is trying to make.
Why?

Becuase you are too willing to believe everything that Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh say to you.

The point that he is trying to make is that these politicians are so eager to fight these unneeded wars on foreign soil, but are totally unwilling to send thier own childen off to fight it.

So, instead, they send your children, or mine.

Does that strike you as hippocritical?
It should.

As for Kerry supporting this war, for the last time.....HE DOESNT.
He DID..when congress voted on it with the same information that Bush gave them.

The same information that was wrong.
The same information that Bush openly admitted to "making a mistake".

"America should go to war, when it has to, not when it wants to."
-John Kerry.

So, god forbid that Moore be allowed to voice his opinion, huh?
Afterall, that would be letting him have his First Amendment Rights...
Something to wich most of the NeoCons would rather you not have.

Wow, and it's not as if Moore's point about Congresspeople not sending their children to war is total bunk, am I right? Yeah, he's totally correct about that and fabricates precisely jack shit. No, wait, don't click on this link. You won't find any information under Deceits 53-56 about how Moore is fabricating the truth--as always. (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

Wow, and it's not as if Moore's point about Congresspeople not sending their children to war is total bunk, am I right? Yeah, he's totally correct about that and fabricates precisely jack shit. No, wait, don't click on this link. You won't find any information under Deceits 53-56 about how Moore is fabricating the truth--as always. (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)


Perhaps you'd care, in your "infinite wisdom", to show us what percentage of the lower and middle class make up the bulk of the armed forces?

Oh..is it the poor, and middle class?

Wow.....what a coincidence.

Perhaps you'd care, in your "infinite wisdom", to show us what percentage of the lower and middle class make up the bulk of the armed forces?

Oh..is it the poor, and middle class?

Wow.....what a coincidence.

I don't recall saying anything about infinite wisdom, nor do I recall saying I knew anything about those percentages, because frankly, I don't have them. But isn't it kind of ludicrous to expect the children of 535 people--many of which don't have children--to comprise even a noticeable percentage of the Armed Forces?

I don't recall saying anything about infinite wisdom, nor do I recall saying I knew anything about those percentages, because frankly, I don't have them. But isn't it kind of ludicrous to expect the children of 535 people--many of which don't have children--to comprise even a noticeable percentage of the Armed Forces?


Keep in mind hes aiming his comments at those 535 people, and Fortune 500 companies.

The upper class, basically.

And to me, no, its not ludicrous.
Whats ludicrous is expecting me, or my children, (if I had any) to want to go to war anymore than the children of the upper class.

If I have to fight, why dont they?

Keep in mind hes aiming his comments at those 535 people, and Fortune 500 companies.

The upper class, basically.

So if you're going to demand percentages from me that I don't have, shouldn't I by default request that you provide percentages for this vile and malevolent "upper class" that you deplore so very, very much?

And to me, no, its not ludicrous.

Even if all 535 members of Congress--and yes, those are who Moore harps on the most--had one child in the military, that would still be 535 out of 300,000 in average active rotation in Iraq. That's still a painfully low percentage.

Or are you outright calling for a draft of the rich? Are you suggesting that we send the children of everyone with an income over a certain amount and/or who is employed by the government off to war? Why should they be considered any different?

Whats ludicrous is expecting me, or my children, (if I had any) to want to go to war anymore than the children of the upper class.

If I have to fight, why dont they?

Remind me where in the bi-laws of the US Armed Forces it says, in the hallowed words of the Statue of Liberty, "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, stick helmets on 'em, and ship 'em out." It's said nowhere, and it's implied nowhere.

Which brings me to my next point: why are you dead set on deciding the lives of your children anyway? Won't they have free will of their own once they reach 18? If they want to go off and fight for their country, then that's their decision. You're expected to do nothing; you're not even expected to have children.

We *knew* this was going to turn into Moore-bashing, right?

We *knew* this was going to turn into Moore-bashing, right?

I'm sorry. Would you rather I agree with you all by default and thus violate the nature of debate?

Most of you Uptight Conservative Monkeys just dont see the point the man is trying to make.
Why?

Becuase you are too willing to believe everything that Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh say to you.

I dont believe ive ever listened to Rush Limbaugh and i disliked Fox for focusing on broadcasting bush bashers with nobody arguing with them in the last broadcast i saw of them.

NPR rawks. MSNBC and CNBC is ok, the latter for finance and the former for politics.

I support Bush for sound security and economic policies i feel Kerry and the far left do not have at the current time.

So if you're going to demand percentages from me that I don't have, shouldn't I by default request that you provide percentages for this vile and malevolent "upper class" that you deplore so very, very much?



Even if all 535 members of Congress--and yes, those are who Moore harps on the most--had one child in the military, that would still be 535 out of 300,000 in average active rotation in Iraq. That's still a painfully low percentage.

Or are you outright calling for a draft of the rich? Are you suggesting that we send the children of everyone with an income over a certain amount and/or who is employed by the government off to war? Why should they be considered any different?



Remind me where in the bi-laws of the US Armed Forces it says, in the hallowed words of the Statue of Liberty, "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, stick helmets on 'em, and ship 'em out." It's said nowhere, and it's implied nowhere.

Which brings me to my next point: why are you dead set on deciding the lives of your children anyway? Won't they have free will of their own once they reach 18? If they want to go off and fight for their country, then that's their decision. You're expected to do nothing; you're not even expected to have children.


Are you denying the fact that the majority of the soldiers currently in the armed forces in Iraq, are comprised of the lower income classes?

Are you further denying that these same upper class, have in the past, and continue to do so in the present, able to keep thier children from being sent onto combat situations?
Ask Bush himself if thats true.

Maybe your missing the point, but the idea is that if these peoples kids were also being sent into the fight, they wouldnt be so eager to start these uneeded wars.

I dont believe ive ever listened to Rush Limbaugh and i disliked Fox for focusing on broadcasting bush bashers with nobody arguing with them in the last broadcast i saw of them.

NPR rawks. MSNBC and CNBC is ok, the latter for finance and the former for politics.

I support Bush for sound security and economic policies i feel Kerry and the far left do not have at the current time.

If your supporting Bush becuase of his economic policies then you are clearly supporting the wrong man for the job.

Are you denying the fact that the majority of the soldiers currently in the armed forces in Iraq, are comprised of the lower income classes?

No. Remind me again where I denied that fact. Also, remind me again where you provided the necessary facts to prove this point if you're so dead set on arguing it.

Are you further denying that these same upper class, have in the past, and continue to do so in the present, able to keep thier children from being sent onto combat situations?
Ask Bush himself if thats true.

Two flawed assumptions here:
1. I've said nothing about the upper class not sending their children into the military. I've implied nothing about these percentages because I don't know them.
2. Just because I don't like Moore doesn't automatically mean I'm licking Bush's teat. There's more than two idealogues out there.

Maybe your missing the point, but the idea is that if these peoples kids were also being sent into the fight, they wouldnt be so eager to start these uneeded wars.

I think you've missed my points several times, and I'm tired of repeating it, so I'll say them just once more.

1. Members of Congress are actually more apt to "send their children to war" than most households in the United States, based on the percentages presented in the website I linked to initially--which, it seems, you didn't read.
2. *NEW POINT!* Percentages can be doctored anyway. You can get statistics to say anything you want, so it's a moot point to argue them to begin with. Thus, I don't know why I even belabored that point.
3. Children of the age of military entrance have free will. If they want to go into the military, they will go into the military, demographics be damned. Why, then, do you insist on deciding the fate of your children before they're even born?
4. The military targets no particular class in its recruiting techniques.

Profound indeed. Here's an equally poignant question: do you worship this guy's turds?

Your wit rivals that or the bard himself. I however must pose my own poignant question: why do you insist on fellatiating George-i ilegally disenfrachised voters to steal the election-Bush.

*MM is asking for the people who start the unjust wars in our names should at least make equal sacrifice in fighting their wars for the elite by sending their own kids. This way we can be assured that all future wars will be Just



maybe that request might make a little sense if we had a draft

but sweetheart, we have a VOLUNTEER ARMY!!!

No. Remind me again where I denied that fact. Also, remind me again where you provided the necessary facts to prove this point if you're so dead set on arguing it.



Two flawed assumptions here:
1. I've said nothing about the upper class not sending their children into the military. I've implied nothing about these percentages because I don't know them.
2. Just because I don't like Moore doesn't automatically mean I'm licking Bush's teat. There's more than two idealogues out there.



I think you've missed my points several times, and I'm tired of repeating it, so I'll say them just once more.

1. Members of Congress are actually more apt to "send their children to war" than most households in the United States, based on the percentages presented in the website I linked to initially--which, it seems, you didn't read.

[
2. *NEW POINT!* Percentages can be doctored anyway. You can get statistics to say anything you want, so it's a moot point to argue them to begin with. Thus, I don't know why I even belabored that point.
3. Children of the age of military entrance have free will. If they want to go into the military, they will go into the military, demographics be damned. Why, then, do you insist on deciding the fate of your children before they're even born?
4. The military targets no particular class in its recruiting techniques.

Once again, we're not just talking about the 535 members of congress, you may be,,but Moore and myself, were not.
Secondly, as you say, percentages can be altered to show anything....so what point was there in reading what you have provided?

Also, I dont feel as I need to show you any evidence proving that the armed forces aere mostly comprised of the lower class, becuase this is common knowledge. If you dont believe me...thats your problem.

However, you are right where you say that children of military age have free will. Thats true.

But, you are incorrect about the military not targeting recruitment drives.
Or have you never heard of the Montgomery , or G.I Bills?
They are for poor kids to earn college money.
Rich kids wouldnt need that, now would they?

Most of you Uptight Conservative Monkeys just dont see the point the man is trying to make.
Why?

Becuase you are too willing to believe everything that Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh say to you.

Oh, is that why? Strange, I always thought that the reason I hated Michael Moore is because he is just as much of a liar, if not more so, as any conservative media outlet. He does not, nor has he EVER, embraced a policy of truth. He has embraced a policy of counter-balancing, which is ludicrous and does nothing but create more lies and engender further hostility. If you want to see some valid, factual criticisms of the Bush administration, look around for the people who have half a brain. Noam Chomsky comes to mind. He is not nearly as popular as Moore, and he won't ever be -because he is not a moronic extremist, willing to believe ANYTHING so long as it coincides with his predetermined opinions. He forms his opinions based on facts -Moore presents "facts" based on his opinions. Get off your fucking high horse, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you know why they disagree with you.


The point that he is trying to make is that these politicians are so eager to fight these unneeded wars on foreign soil, but are totally unwilling to send thier own childen off to fight it.

His point, regardless of what it may be, is irrelevant. His conclusions are based on the evidence he presents, on his arguments. If those arguments and that evidence is shown to be lacking in logic, truth, or relevance(as it almost always is), the conclusion itself loses any and all subtsance.


So, instead, they send your children, or mine.

They don't "send" anybody -there is no draft. Everybody in the military is in the military because they chose to be. Moore's pathetic and childish cajoling of how there's a higher proportion of lower class soldiers, of how so many Congressmen don't have children in the military, etc. has absolutely no significance, much like the rest of the contents of his propaganda films. a) Nobody can forcefully send somebody else into the military, not even their own children, b) many Congressmen don't even HAVE children, meaning they're exempt from Moore's insinuations even IF they were relevant, c) most notably, many Congressmen themselves were IN THE MILITARY.


Perhaps you'd care, in your "infinite wisdom", to show us what percentage of the lower and middle class make up the bulk of the armed forces?

Only somebody who thinks Moore is intelligent would be affected by something as stupid as this. OF COURSE more poor people are going to join the military than rich people. This is not, and never has been, a secret. The military appeals to the lower classes because it provides an easy way to get your adult life started. It offers nearly unlimited opportunities in future employment. It pays for your university studies. It provides board, food, and (often) transportation. Why would a rich kid be attracted to any of this? Why SHOULD a rich kid be attracted to any of this? There's no evil conspiracy to wipe out the scum of society, there's no behind-the-scenes sinister plan to protect the beautiful people.

The military does not give a shit who joins, so long as they fulfill their duties -it's just much easier to provide attractive incentives for people who have less. Moore also sets a new low with this tactic by introducing race into the equation, as if it had ANYTHING to do with it. The simple fact is that higher proportions of minorities live in poverty than whites. The military, the government, does not care if you're white, black, whatever(to the military you're just cannon fodder and wheel grease, to the government we're all green).


Perhaps you'd care, in your "infinite wisdom", to show us what percentage of the lower and middle class make up the bulk of the armed forces?

If one votes on the current Presidential election based on economic policy, he may as well vote blind. It won't make much difference either way. Of course, I don't expect somebody who truly believes Kerry is on the far left of the political spectrum to understand this.

Your wit rivals that or the bard himself. I however must pose my own poignant question: why do you insist on fellatiating George-i ilegally disenfrachised voters to steal the election-Bush.

Find ONE single instance in which I have supported anything about Bush. Go ahead motherfucker, I dare you.

Once again, we're not just talking about the 535 members of congress, you may be,,but Moore and myself, were not.
Secondly, as you say, percentages can be altered to show anything....so what point was there in reading what you have provided?

Perhaps it was to prove the point that percentages work both for and against Moore, and as such, his "facts" must be called into question?

Also, I dont feel as I need to show you any evidence proving that the armed forces aere mostly comprised of the lower class, becuase this is common knowledge. If you dont believe me...thats your problem.

I don't recall this line of reasoning working for any argument other than "the sky is blue," "the sun sets in the west," and "Dick Clark is a robot."

But, you are incorrect about the military not targeting recruitment drives.
Or have you never heard of the Montgomery , or G.I Bills?
They are for poor kids to earn college money.
Rich kids wouldnt need that, now would they?

Most scholarships do target people who can't afford to go to college. That's kind of the nature of PROVIDING scholarships. Scholarships are also provided to people who choose to go into engineering majors; should we therefore infer that engineering schools target the lower class?

Oh, is that why? Strange, I always thought that the reason I hated Michael Moore is because he is just as much of a liar, if not more so, as any conservative media outlet. He does not, nor has he EVER, embraced a policy of truth.'[quote]

And you can prove this how?

[quote]. Get off your fucking high horse, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you know why they disagree with you.

Ooooh..touchy arent we?
I could direct that statment right back at you.




His point, regardless of what it may be, is irrelevant. His conclusions are based on the evidence he presents, on his arguments. If those arguments and that evidence is shown to be lacking in logic, truth, or relevance(as it almost always is), the conclusion itself loses any and all subtsance.

So..let me get this straight....no matter what he says....or what his point is..youve already branded him a liar?
What evidence do you have to support such a biased and frankly, despotic disposition?




They don't "send" anybody -there is no draft. Everybody in the military is in the military because they chose to be. Moore's pathetic and childish cajoling of how there's a higher proportion of lower class soldiers, of how so many Congressmen don't have children in the military, etc. has absolutely no significance,

Why? Becuase YOU say so?
We've already seen your kind of objectivity.




If one votes on the current Presidential election based on economic policy, he may as well vote blind. It won't make much difference either way. Of course, I don't expect somebody who truly believes Kerry is on the far left of the political spectrum to understand this.

Since you know nothing about me, or what I believe, Im just gonna chalk that comment up to ignorance.

Find ONE single instance in which I have supported anything about Bush. Go ahead motherfucker, I dare you.


thats over the line.

Perhaps it was to prove the point that percentages work both for and against Moore, and as such, his "facts" must be called into question?

Absolutely. Contrary to what you may think, I do not believe everything that Mooere says as Gospel.
By all means, when watching his movies, a person should check his facts.
The only "lies" Ive noticed that people point out, tend to be his opinions, and not facts and figures that he presents, wich are normally rock solid.



I don't recall this line of reasoning working for any argument other than "the sky is blue," "the sun sets in the west," and "Dick Clark is a robot."

The sky IS blue.
The sun DOES set in the west.
Dick Clark IS a robot.

and there is a vast majority of lower income people in the armed forces.



Most scholarships do target people who can't afford to go to college. That's kind of the nature of PROVIDING scholarships. Scholarships are also provided to people who choose to go into engineering majors; should we therefore infer that engineering schools target the lower class?

No, but then again, your chances of getting killed in combat in Engineering schools are significantly lower, arent they?

Wow.... yes, a man who spends his life voicing his own dislike and distrust in the U.S. Government is OBVIOUSLY going to enlist to defend it. First on his list...

I think that is more or less a logical statement on his part. Looking back at all those I went to high school with, it was the poor kids that didn't have a choice that ended up in the armed forces fighting overseas. I'm sure there are a few genuinely patriotic "I want to die for my country" people out there, but they are easily the minority in the military. Those who can't afford an over-priced education end up in the well-funded military, so that if they live through the experience they can get an education and make a life for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there are most certainly people who join the military to make money. And that is what they do, they make money. The live on bases in places like Florida and Japan and don't bother with lesser tasks like combat.

If there was an honest and un-biased draft that forced the rich kids into the military to work beside the poor kids, the military would probably be run diferently.
Im not sure whether Moore would enlist or not but we all can see how Bush weasled his way out of serving cant we? I agree with the second half of your post tho

Most of you Uptight Conservative Monkeys just dont see the point the man is trying to make.
Why?

Becuase you are too willing to believe everything that Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh say to you.

The point that he is trying to make is that these politicians are so eager to fight these unneeded wars on foreign soil, but are totally unwilling to send thier own childen off to fight it.

So, instead, they send your children, or mine.

Does that strike you as hippocritical?
It should.

As for Kerry supporting this war, for the last time.....HE DOESNT.
He DID..when congress voted on it with the same information that Bush gave them.

The same information that was wrong.
The same information that Bush openly admitted to "making a mistake".

"America should go to war, when it has to, not when it wants to."
-John Kerry.

So, god forbid that Moore be allowed to voice his opinion, huh?
Afterall, that would be letting him have his First Amendment Rights...
Something to wich most of the NeoCons would rather you not have.
Moore was VERY brave going into the GOP concoction tonite--that itself is braver then anything Bush has ever done in his entire life, while the self serving politician McCain sold out his own values hoping Bush will appoint him to be the next Defense Sec

I dont believe ive ever listened to Rush Limbaugh and i disliked Fox for focusing on broadcasting bush bashers with nobody arguing with them in the last broadcast i saw of them.

NPR rawks. MSNBC and CNBC is ok, the latter for finance and the former for politics.

I support Bush for sound security and economic policies i feel Kerry and the far left do not have at the current time.
yeah Bushs sound security policies which made the world a far less safe place and Bushs sound economic FAILURE with a third straight year of rising unemployment and poverty rates

Your wit rivals that or the bard himself. I however must pose my own poignant question: why do you insist on fellatiating George-i ilegally disenfrachised voters to steal the election-Bush.Bush fellated Victor Ashe

Bush fellated Victor Ashe

Not to mention the CEOs of every one of the fortune 500.

Got Chapstick?

Um, just to add in a tidbit here. Many recuiters DO use techniques to target middle-low class kids. Very, very rarely have I seen a recuiter talk about serving the country or doing something good. It's mostly all "free college" over and over again.

Absolutely. Contrary to what you may think, I do not believe everything that Mooere says as Gospel.
By all means, when watching his movies, a person should check his facts.
The only "lies" Ive noticed that people point out, tend to be his opinions, and not facts and figures that he presents, wich are normally rock solid.

That's rich. Take a look at that deceits argument I linked to earlier to see how "rock solid" his arguments are. It's an entire page devoted to the fact that they're NOT, and I'd hardly even call it comprehensive.

The sky IS blue.
The sun DOES set in the west.
Dick Clark IS a robot.

and there is a vast majority of lower income people in the armed forces.

Thank you for proving nothing. No, really. It's been fun.

No, but then again, your chances of getting killed in combat in Engineering schools are significantly lower, arent they?

I think people who sign up for military scholarships are well aware of the fact that they are indeed going into the military and may indeed die for their country. There's no deception here.

Incidentally, I believe it was General George Patton who said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." ;)

Not to mention the CEOs of every one of the fortune 500.

Got Chapstick?
"laura" Bush does look a bit suspisciously like Georgie in a wig and dress

Moore was VERY brave going into the GOP concoction tonite--that itself is braver then anything Bush has ever done in his entire life, while the self serving politician McCain sold out his own values hoping Bush will appoint him to be the next Defense Sec


I dunno bout that.

McCain has even stood up to the whitehouse over the Swiftboat veterans slander about Kerry's service record.

That doesnt seem self-serving to me.

And you can prove this how?

Are you serious? You honestly believe that Michael Moore reveals the truth? You really think that the fact that Bush plays golf has ANYTHING to do with global politics? You truly believe that the American crime rates are due to access to firearms(despite the fact that Canada's own crime rates are drastically lower, wheres its gun ownership is not)? Did you think the claim that "the government flew out prominent Arabs right after 9/11" was a revealing surprise -dsepite the fact that everybody who so much as looks at daily newspapers heard about this right after said attacks? You actually fall for the idea that Bush is seedy because he gave aid to and received aid from the Bin Ladens -who have ostracized Osama, and have aboslutely no ties with him? Have you ever even tried to find out IF Moore is lying, or do you just take everything he says at face value?


I could direct that statment right back at you.

No, you couldn't, because I have not presumed as to why you hold your opinions. You, on the other hand, have done exactly that.


So..let me get this straight....no matter what he says....or what his point is..youve already branded him a liar?
What evidence do you have to support such a biased and frankly, despotic disposition?

You've got it entirely backwards. It is BECAUSE OF what he has said, and continues TO say, that I -and anybody else with a discerning ear- have branded him a liar. I was hoping he might break the pattern with F9/11, but sadly he just rooted himself even deeper into his own self-serving mire of filth. Since you seem too lazy to find out for yourself just what this tool is capable of, here's something to get you started, only one such criticism out of many: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/


Why? Becuase YOU say so?
We've already seen your kind of objectivity.

First off, even if there IS such a thing as objective truth, there is no way you or I would be to perceive it as such. That accusation doesn't mean a thing.

As for why: is that all you do in an argument? Say "Oh yeah, why?" I already explained why, rather explicitly at that. The way you're avoiding addressing my statements does not prove you are right -it only proves that you are either unwilling or unable to refute the precedents upon which that statement is based. If that is the extent of your mental capacity, stop wasting my time.


Since you know nothing about me, or what I believe, Im just gonna chalk that comment up to ignorance.

Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about when I accuse somebody of something.
In the thread titled "Kerry and Bush - '2 Sides of the same Corporate Coin'":

Tourkophagos: "Both[Kerry and Bush] are incredibly far right in the political spectrum..."

You, in the first post immediately after Tourkophagos said that: "Everything youve just said is very wrong. The two people, politically, are very near the extreme opposite poles."

Care to try again?


thats over the line.

That may or may not be the case, but it is no business of yours as the comment was not directed at you.

That's rich. Take a look at that deceits argument I linked to earlier to see how "rock solid" his arguments are. It's an entire page devoted to the fact that they're NOT, and I'd hardly even call it comprehensive.

Hmm...maybe you can tell me why so many people claim his arguements are false, in his movies, but no one seems to complain about his books?
Wich by the way, have nearly thirty pages of sources, and quotes.



Thank you for proving nothing. No, really. It's been fun.

Wow....that works both ways doesnt it?



I think people who sign up for military scholarships are well aware of the fact that they are indeed going into the military and may indeed die for their country. There's no deception here.

Incidentally, I believe it was General George Patton who said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." ;)

Yes, most people who sign up for military service do realize that that is always a risk.
But..how many rich peoples kids do you think have to worry about the same thing?

Far, far less, I would imagine.

"All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

the self serving politician McCain sold out his own values hoping Bush will appoint him to be the next Defense Sec

If anybody SHOULD be Secretary of Defense, it's McCain. He's one of the less insane prominent politicians right now.

Are you serious? You honestly believe that Michael Moore reveals the truth? You really think that the fact that Bush plays golf has ANYTHING to do with global politics? You truly believe that the American crime rates are due to access to firearms(despite the fact that Canada's own crime rates are drastically lower, wheres its gun ownership is not)? Did you think the claim that "the government flew out prominent Arabs right after 9/11" was a revealing surprise -dsepite the fact that everybody who so much as looks at daily newspapers heard about this right after said attacks? You actually fall for the idea that Bush is seedy because he gave aid to and received aid from the Bin Ladens -who have ostracized Osama, and have aboslutely no ties with him? Have you ever even tried to find out IF Moore is lying, or do you just take everything he says at face value?




No, you couldn't, because I have not presumed as to why you hold your opinions. You, on the other hand, have done exactly that.




You've got it entirely backwards. It is BECAUSE OF what he has said, and continues TO say, that I -and anybody else with a discerning ear- have branded him a liar. I was hoping he might break the pattern with F9/11, but sadly he just rooted himself even deeper into his own self-serving mire of filth. Since you seem too lazy to find out for yourself just what this tool is capable of, here's something to get you started, only one such criticism out of many: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/




First off, even if there IS such a thing as objective truth, there is no way you or I would be to perceive it as such. That accusation doesn't mean a thing.

As for why: is that all you do in an argument? Say "Oh yeah, why?" I already explained why, rather explicitly at that. The way you're avoiding addressing my statements does not prove you are right -it only proves that you are either unwilling or unable to refute the precedents upon which that statement is based. If that is the extent of your mental capacity, stop wasting my time.




Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about when I accuse somebody of something.
In the thread titled "Kerry and Bush - '2 Sides of the same Corporate Coin'":

Tourkophagos: "Both[Kerry and Bush] are incredibly far right in the political spectrum..."

You, in the first post immediately after Tourkophagos said that: "Everything youve just said is very wrong. The two people, politically, are very near the extreme opposite poles."

Care to try again?




That may or may not be the case, but it is no business of yours as the comment was not directed at you.

You really seem to relish in your own assholish-ness dont you?

Hmm...maybe you can tell me why so many people claim his arguements are false, in his movies, but no one seems to complain about his books?
Wich by the way, have nearly thirty pages of sources, and quotes.

David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke did... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060763957/qid=1093925645/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4690298-8732751)

David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke did... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060763957/qid=1093925645/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4690298-8732751)


I see that.

and since the tag-line for the book is "Unite with the Right"....

Im sure its completely unbiased, too.

Um, just to add in a tidbit here. Many recuiters DO use techniques to target middle-low class kids. Very, very rarely have I seen a recuiter talk about serving the country or doing something good. It's mostly all "free college" over and over again.

Can you blame them? It's a strategy with a high success ratio. But it doesn't change the fact that military service in this country is still voluntary.

There are times and places where courtesy can be legitimately demanded. A political discussion is not one of them. If somebody is right, being rude or polite is not going to change that. If your only retort to what I am saying is that I'm an asshole, perhaps it is a sign that you have nothing more substantial to contribute.

I see that.

and since the tag-line for the book is "Unite with the Right"....

Im sure its completely unbiased, too.
Christ. You like moving the line, don't you? First you say that nobody has challenged Moore's books. I show you that people have, but aparently that's not good enough. Maybe you should reserve judgement until you've at least read part of the book.

Of course, I'm sure that's asking too much. After all, earlier you magically knew the demographics for the Unites States military. I'll just take your word for it, oh wise sage.

Can you blame them? It's a strategy with a high success ratio. But it doesn't change the fact that military service in this country is still voluntary.


It IS voluntary, thats very true.
BUT...part of what Moore and others are attempting to point out to anyone who will stop ranting at them long enough is, that in many urban areas, like Flint Michigan, for example, where there are NO jobs to be had, and no future, that military service is made to look as "the only alternative".

Christ. You like moving the line, don't you? First you say that nobody has challenged Moore's books. I show you that people have, but aparently that's not good enough. Maybe you should reserve judgement until you've at least read part of the book.

Of course, I'm sure that's asking too much. After all, earlier you magically knew the demographics for the Unites States military. I'll just take your word for it, oh wise sage.


So, you would rather that I just say "oh.well..looky there! a book with all I ever need to know about Michael Moore!"

The book was written with the express purposes of attempting to discredit him.
How unbiased and honest do you think it could possibly be?

What makes this book any different from Moore himself?

Never stop BackwoodsSquatches, I love your opinions! Go BackwoodsSquatches!

There are times and places where courtesy can be legitimately demanded. A political discussion is not one of them. If somebody is right, being rude or polite is not going to change that. If your only retort to what I am saying is that I'm an asshole, perhaps it is a sign that you have nothing more substantial to contribute.


My forthcoming silence on your part is not due to any lack of knowledge or rebuttals on my part.
It is entirely due to your hostility, and your arrogance, and yes....becuase your being an asshole.

Never stop BackwoodsSquatches, I love your opinions! Go BackwoodsSquatches!


High Praise indeed!
I thank thee...

Hey..wanna buy my book?

Eh, I've said my piece. Let those who will listen, listen well. Let those who won't listen fail to listen.

Eh, I've said my piece. Let those who will listen, listen well. Let those who won't listen fail to listen.


Thank you for the debate.
and you did it without namecalling, or badgering, or open hostility.

If only the many would follow the few.....

As for me....I have a movie to watch, starring that Ashton Kutcher guy.
and while I hate that bozo, I hear that "the Butterfly Effect" is nontheless a good movie.

We shall see.

It IS voluntary, thats very true.
BUT...part of what Moore and others are attempting to point out to anyone who will stop ranting at them long enough is, that in many urban areas, like Flint Michigan, for example, where there are NO jobs to be had, and no future, that military service is made to look as "the only alternative".

If that's the case, it would seem that the military is being a little dishonest in their recruiting tactics, and I won't defend dishonesty. I'm a white middle-class American, and I have trouble envisioning a situation in which military service would look like the only alternative, but I'll accept for now that such situations exist. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to blame the wealthy for such an economic situation, or for the military's disingenuous recruiting.

Thank you for the debate.
and you did it without namecalling, or badgering, or open hostility.

We tend to shy away from that once we get that little "Moderator" tag attached to our names, aye...

thanks guys on both sides, I enjoyed reading this debate but still find it hard to believe either side in my opinion both are bias, I find anything bush or moore say difficult to believe. They have both attempted to deceive and manipulate not only the American public but pretty much the western world. The "truth" seems to be somewhere in the middle

thanks guys on both sides, I enjoyed reading this debate but still find it hard to believe either side in my opinion both are bias, I find anything bush or moore say difficult to believe. They have both attempted to deceive and manipulate not only the American public but pretty much the western world. The "truth" seems to be somewhere in the middle

Please, please, please, please, PLEASE...

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, THIS GOES OUT TO YOU:

THERE ARE MORE IDEALOGUES IN THE WORLD THAN PRO-BUSH AND PRO-MOORE.

Since I was one of the more active participants in this happy lil' debate, I'll assume at least in part that you're talking about me, since I'm on the anti-Moore side of this. I dislike Bush, but I don't feel strongly enough about disliking him to raise a holy stink about it. I dislike Moore quite a bit more, mostly because he's the more annoying of the two. Let it also be known that I dislike Kerry, because his views are so terrifyingly similar to Bush's that this election has basically come down to whether or not you like Bush.

I'm a moderate, and a big-time one. But I shan't steer the debate that way. ;)

so this is why you are so respected Slaggy?!..... you have earnt mine

so this is why you are so respected Slaggy?!..... you have earnt mine

No, I'm so respected because I'm damn handsome and have a kick-ass goattee that looks roughly like a rabid chipmunk tearing my face asunder. There's also the fact that I practically bleed charisma; hell, I'd imagine by reading this message, you yourself are becoming more charming.

Yup, my ways are mysterious, but I do indeed rock the hizzle.

No, I'm so respected because I'm damn handsome and have a kick-ass goattee that looks roughly like a rabid chipmunk tearing my face asunder. There's also the fact that I practically bleed charisma; hell, I'd imagine by reading this message, you yourself are becoming more charming.

Yup, my ways are mysterious, but I do indeed rock the hizzle.
well I would imagine you would have to actually possess some of those qualitys since you managed to catch that little hottie of yours ;)

My forthcoming silence on your part is not due to any lack of knowledge or rebuttals on my part.

Your entire basis of argument lies in rephrasing already-posed questions, and conveniently ignoring those retorts which show Moore for what he is. I'd say your silence is very much due to a lack of knowledge(or, at the very least, a lack of determination), and that your cited excuse of my hostility is just that -an excuse. If you were at all interested in disseminating truth(and not just protecting your already-set beliefs), you would not be willing to back down just because somebody was a jerk. Truth is infinitely more important than your own selfish little sense of comfort. My hostility was deliberate, not natural -I'm actually as docile as a cow. If you're not sure what that means, let's just say you sadly lived down to all of my expectations...

Your entire basis of argument lies in rephrasing already-posed questions, and conveniently ignoring those retorts which show Moore for what he is. I'd say your silence is very much due to a lack of knowledge(or, at the very least, a lack of determination), and that your cited excuse of my hostility is just that -an excuse. If you were at all interested in disseminating truth(and not just protecting your already-set beliefs), you would not be willing to back down just because somebody was a jerk. Truth is infinitely more important than your own selfish little sense of comfort. My hostility was deliberate, not natural -I'm actually as docile as a cow. If you're not sure what that means, let's just say you sadly lived down to all of my expectations...

*sigh*

I really dont know why I bother.

Ordinarily, I would ignore such an obvious attempt at baiting, but in your case, I make an exception, just so you can clearly understand why it is I refuse to debate you.

This was a good start:

Get off your fucking high-horse....

This certainly didnt endear you to anyone....

Find ONE single instance in which I have supported anything about Bush. Go ahead motherfucker, I dare you.

When I did respond to you, you immediately took to insults, thus proving your maturity.

If that is the extent of your mental capacity, stop wasting my time.

Now theres the pot calling the kettle black aint it?

I don't need to be endearing. If that's all it takes to get you to back off, then I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

As for the second bit: again, if it offends you, stop sticking your nose in other peoples' business.

I don't need to be endearing. If that's all it takes to get you to back off, then I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

As for the second bit: again, if it offends you, stop sticking your nose in other peoples' business.


Im not done yet .....just getting some classic quotes..

Heres the last one:

Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about when I accuse somebody of something.


The whole point of these last few posts, is to show you that even from the first, you came in hostile, and basically, an asshole.
I dont debate with children, and your behaviour proved you are a child.

If I were so inclined I could provide you with all we would need to carry on this little discussion of Moore, but once again, becuase you couldnt keep civil,
I see no point in doing you any favors.

In the future, if you think you can handle your attitude problem, please feel free to try this again, without the flaming, wich by the way, is against the rules of this site.

Actually your responses to me were just as informative as your responses to the people who posted before me. Apparently, you're still not getting it. As for collecting classic quotes: go right ahead. I'm not going to say, later on, that I did not utter them(unlike some people).

Oh, and so long as we're going to be bitching about hostility, you're no angel yourself. In fact, in your very first post in this thread, you call all of your ideological opponents "Uptight Conservative Monkeys," speak down to them("you... just dont see the point"), and accuse them of a stereotypical character flaw("...you are too willing to believe everything that Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh say to you.") -for which you had absolutely no evidence, BTW. All of this in one fell swoop. In your second post, you sarcastically deride someone, accusing them of being arrogant("Perhaps you'd care, in your 'infinite wisdom', to show us ...") when all they had done was disagree with you.

Also worth noting is the fact that nowhere in that first post of yours did you make mention of any of my comments. Worth noting is the fact that my only response before I started talking to you was one in which I derided Michael Moore's putatively profound quip. So the idea that my hostility preceded yours is simple not true. You, my dear, were the first to openly insult another board member. Cheers.

I agree with the principle that politicians be able to send their own children to fight wars. The only problem is, here, you might wind up with cowardly or possessive politicians who avoid necessary wars out of personal fear and love. That could be just as bad as one too-willing to fight wars since their children will not die.

Good point! I hate oppression. But if givin the choice I would rather be the oppressor than the oppressed.

If that's the case, it would seem that the military is being a little dishonest in their recruiting tactics, and I won't defend dishonesty. I'm a white middle-class American, and I have trouble envisioning a situation in which military service would look like the only alternative, but I'll accept for now that such situations exist. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to blame the wealthy for such an economic situation, or for the military's disingenuous recruiting.


"Middle-class" is such a broad term... I would consider myself middle-class, as I'm not exactly impoverished, nor am I at all wealthy- but I get a strong feeling that your version and my version are quite different. Growing up in a rural west coast town much like Flint, except replace factories with lumber mills and reduce its size to a 4,000 population, and living in a house where things like the water bill were too often lesser priorities than buying food- this situation absolutely and 100% exists.

In this situation there are very few options, because these kids simply cannot afford to go to college. They cannot afford to stay around working at the gas station either... after all, there are only 3 gas stations in that town, so you do the math. If they envision a life that does not include dealing meth as a career plan, they honestly don't have a choice. I shutter to think of the number of kids that come out of that school and go into the military as the only means they have to get out of that town. Not many of them are holding cushy office jobs, I assure you. .

The best thing about this thread is that someone quoted Bill O'Reilly to support their position. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. :D

Since I was one of the more active participants in this happy lil' debate, I'll assume at least in part that you're talking about me, since I'm on the anti-Moore side of this. I dislike Bush, but I don't feel strongly enough about disliking him to raise a holy stink about it. I dislike Moore quite a bit more, mostly because he's the more annoying of the two.But isn't Bush in more of a position to affect your life then Moore? Let it also be known that I dislike Kerry, because his views are so terrifyingly similar to Bush's that this election has basically come down to whether or not you like Bush.Exactly. One of the main criticisms that can be thrown at Moore is his running back to the Democrats.

In your second post, you sarcastically deride someone, accusing them of being arrogant("Perhaps you'd care, in your 'infinite wisdom', to show us ...") when all they had done was disagree with you.

HE had done, not THEY. I know I'm a big guy, but geez, you don't have to accuse me of being more than one person... :P

I just try not to assume gender is all. I'm not very good at it, but I do try.

I just try not to assume gender is all. I'm not very good at it, but I do try.

...hence the Colon Pee at the end of my post. I try to keep my tongue firmly stapled to my cheek at all times. It bleeds a bit, but that's the price you pay, I suppose...