NationStates Jolt Archive

Sooo…

Does anybody else think this guy is a genius? I mean, ideology aside, the man saw a relatively untapped market in left wing inflammatory media, and exploited the hell out of it. Through book sales, movie sales, newspaper articles and public appearances he has made millions. Entrepreneurship at its best. I give a big capitalist salute to Michael Moore, no matter how much it would irritate him. :D

A poll of some sort is on the way…

Opportunist, but not a genius.

No option for "Good work, it's a shame he has to make a living pointing out so much that is so wrong that could be made right so easily", eh?

Wouldn't have thought so.

Sooo…

Does anybody else think this guy is a genius? I mean, ideology aside, the man saw a relatively untapped market in left wing inflammatory media, and exploited the hell out of it. Through book sales, movie sales, newspaper articles and public appearances he has made millions. Entrepreneurship at its best. I give a big capitalist salute to Michael Moore, no matter how much it would irritate him. :D

A poll of some sort is on the way…

He makes me laugh, but is no more of a genius than say...Jon Stewart and Lewis Black, whom I consider to be superior political analysts, and make me laugh more.

he goes alongside louis theroux

Okay, why the Myrth option?

The true Great One as mods go is Frisbeeteria.

Fris, you rock.

And no, I haven't done anything to upset him, before you ask.

He makes me laugh, but is no more of a genius than say...Jon Stewart and Lewis Black, whom I consider to be superior political analysts, and make me laugh more.
Ah, but do either of them have high grossing award winning documentaries filled with inaccuracies, lies and clever editing techniques that none the less draw big bucks?
Okay, why the Myrth option?
So people that just want to vote on a poll and have no opinion can chuckle to themselves as they vote for myrth, and then immediately go and post something asinine on whatever Paradise Club thread is active.

He's been saying what he has been saying for years os i doubt you could call him opportunist.

Of course i think he guilty of what every person like him does, races for the moral high ground but doesn't hold onto his own morals. At least i believe he is supporting something positive unlike "newscasters" from Fo who just want to spew hate.

Funny about those lies.


[D]istrict court judge Paul Borman ruled the 2002 [Bowling For Columbine's] statements were "factual and substantially true".

No option for "Good work, it's a shame he has to make a living pointing out so much that is so wrong that could be made right so easily", eh?

Wouldn't have thought so.
Yeah, it's a pity he appears to have so obvoiusly profited by his campaigns, though I still think he shouldn't have supported Kerry. Do you think he appreciates the irony of being made rich by the system he's trying to upset?

Yeah, it's a pity he appears to have so obvoiusly profited by his campaigns, though I still think he shouldn't have supported Kerry. Do you think he appreciates the irony of being made rich by the system he's trying to upset?

We're all constrained to fuelling Capitalism under this 'system'. Some of us resent it. Anyway, he's not out to upset Capitalism - hey, he's an American like any other.

He's out to upset the lying, cheating, tightwad fascists, nascent theocrats and robber barons (who all happen to be Capitalists) who are perverting American society and stripping Americans of their freedoms in the names of the Triple-'S' Axis of Homeland Evil - 'Security', 'Shareholders', and 'Sanctimony'.

Funny about those lies.
I admit to knowing very little about “Bowling for Columbine,” but I doubt I would agree with the conclusion he draws from the data. Also, I believe that Columbine survivor guy said something about it,

I have always been indifferant to Micheal Moore, but I will say, all though the movie made some good points, most of his analysist of the boys, school students, and gun control were Grade A bullshit.

No option for "Good work, it's a shame he has to make a living pointing out so much that is so wrong that could be made right so easily", eh?

Wouldn't have thought so.
Such as?

We're all constrained to fuelling Capitalism under this 'system'. Some of us resent it. Anyway, he's not out to upset Capitalism - hey, he's an American like any other.

He's out to upset the lying, cheating, tightwad fascists, nascent theocrats and robber barons (who all happen to be Capitalists) who are perverting American society and stripping Americans of their freedoms in the names of the Triple-'S' Axis of Homeland Evil - 'Security', 'Shareholders', and 'Sanctimony'.
Yeah, true, my bad. I tend to forget that people like Moore, who fight the government are not neccesarily against the system. It just seems to me to be the logical step, and I sometimes forget that other's don't make it. (c.f. Make Poverty History)

EDIT: Such as?Er... The uneven distribution of wealth, the fact that politicians lie, cheat and steal to get what they want (see point one), the message of 'it's their own fault'... I could go on

And Dobbsworld? Sometimes I wonder whether he is infact against the system, but doesn't let on in case it loses him some of his support from the middle ground. Just me speculating.

Michael Moore is a fat lying scumbag.. and not to mention a hypocrite.

Bowling for Columbine was factually wrong, and here is the evidence for it:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Dobbsworld:

He's out to upset the lying, cheating, tightwad fascists, nascent theocrats and robber barons (who all happen to be Capitalists) who are perverting American society and stripping Americans of their freedoms in the names of the Triple-'S' Axis of Homeland Evil - 'Security', 'Shareholders', and 'Sanctimony'.

Don't think so. He's a little tightwad, cheating, lying, immature robber himself. He brags about how much money he has.

And your rhetoric is pretty immature.

Michael Moore is a fat lying scumbag.. and not to mention a hypocrite.

Bowling for Columbine was factually wrong, and here is the evidence for it:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Dobbsworld:



Don't think so. He's a little tightwad, cheating, lying, immature robber himself. He brags about how much money he has.

And your rhetoric is pretty immature.And your's isn't? That website is not exactly unbiased, either.

And your's isn't? That website is not exactly unbiased, either.

Well at least it uses facts, and not unsubstantiated dribble that comes out of Moore's mouth.

Well at least it uses facts, and not unsubstantiated dribble that comes out of Moore's mouth.
Well, it's not unsubstantiated at all. He did not make up any of the scenes in it. Bowling for Columbine is a polemic, true, but if documentaries were only supposed to say precisely what happened, without investigation into the why, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Well, it's not unsubstantiated at all. He did not make up any of the scenes in it. Bowling for Columbine is a polemic, true, but if documentaries were only supposed to say precisely what happened, without investigation into the why, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Incorrect. There has been investigation into the figures Bowling For Columbine produced, and these have been shown to be faulty. He made up plenty. He also made misrepresentations. You will have to read my link. You just denounce it as biased because you have been deluded by Moore. Bowling For columbine is not a documentary, as it is a work of fiction. Go ahead... believe the lies. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Er... The uneven distribution of wealth, the fact that politicians lie, cheat and steal to get what they want (see point one), the message of 'it's their own fault'... I could go on
Ok, here’s the thing. The problems you mentioned are not easily solvable as claimed.
Wealth redistribution has a terrible history, see the USSR.
Politicians will always lie and cheat and steal, no matter what anybody does. That is why they should have as little power as possible, while still maintaining an orderly society.
And the last thing, of course everything isn’t “their own fault” but why does their problem become my problem?

Incorrect. There has been investigation into the figures Bowling For Columbine produced, and these have been shown to be faulty. He made up plenty. He also made misrepresentations. You will have to read my link. You just denounce it as biased because you have been deluded by Moore. Bowling For columbine is not a documentary, as it is a work of fiction. Go ahead... believe the lies. Meh, far as I'm concerned they're pretty near the truth[D]istrict court judge Paul Borman ruled the 2002 [Bowling For Columbine's] statements were "factual and substantially true".

Ok, here’s the thing. The problems you mentioned are not easily solvable as claimed.
Wealth redistribution has a terrible history, see the USSR.
Politicians will always lie and cheat and steal, no matter what anybody does. That is why they should have as little power as possible, while still maintaining an orderly society.
And the last thing, of course everything isn’t “their own fault” but why does their problem become my problem?Ok, fair enough, not neccessarily easilty solvable, but solvable none the less. And to your last comment: sometime's it's our fault, and others, well, I just think it's the right thing to do. Sorry to duck out of an debate like this, but as my head just hit the keyboard for the second time, adios.

Meh, far as I'm concerned they're pretty near the truth

No they aren't. And the judge is wrong. As far as I'm concerned I presented a website. Not just a stupid sentence about some liberal judge. I presented a mountain load of facts.

So please get over yourself.

We're all constrained to fuelling Capitalism under this 'system'. Some of us resent it. Anyway, he's not out to upset Capitalism - hey, he's an American like any other.

He's out to upset the lying, cheating, tightwad fascists, nascent theocrats and robber barons (who all happen to be Capitalists) who are perverting American society and stripping Americans of their freedoms in the names of the Triple-'S' Axis of Homeland Evil - 'Security', 'Shareholders', and 'Sanctimony'.

Youre a good little sheep! Repeating exactly word for word the propaganda shoved down your throat. *claps*

A smarter person would go...hey wait...he says there is right wing propaganda out there....couldnt that mean there is left wing propaganda too?!

lol youre a tool just like the tools you hate..just on the other side of the stick.

Youre a good little sheep! Repeating exactly word for word the propaganda shoved down your throat. *claps*

A smarter person would go...hey wait...he says there is right wing propaganda out there....couldnt that mean there is left wing propaganda too?!

lol youre a tool just like the tools you hate..just on the other side of the stick.
As, I have said before, your perspective is always welcome Gulf Republics (hey I just thought about your nation’s name for the first time, it’s a great dream, isn’t it? :D )

I reckon that the success he enjoyed is a good thing.
Many of the "educated" people already knew much of the stuff he published, but the majority of the populace, in the US and in other places, had no idea about much of the stuff he wrote/filmed.
I don't think he's so much inflammatory as just outraged by some of the really crook crap that is happening out there. I mean, it's not like he's just inventing stuff (and if you say he is, then prove it), he just takes what is out there and writes about it, sometimes in a funny way.

So while you might not want to read it, it is at least a good thing that he tells ordinary people some of the stuff that is going on.

I used to be a big fan of Moore.
What you have to realize is that Moore doesn't really come up with anything new; virutally everything in F 9/11 had already been exposed in another place...internet chatrooms... :p

I reckon that the success he enjoyed is a good thing.
Many of the "educated" people already knew much of the stuff he published, but the majority of the populace, in the US and in other places, had no idea about much of the stuff he wrote/filmed.
I don't think he's so much inflammatory as just outraged by some of the really crook crap that is happening out there. I mean, it's not like he's just inventing stuff (and if you say he is, then prove it), he just takes what is out there and writes about it, sometimes in a funny way.

So while you might not want to read it, it is at least a good thing that he tells ordinary people some of the stuff that is going on.

No, he is simply not a source of information. I find him more of a comedian sometimes.. sometimes he's just plain stupid. And he makes up much of the stuff he claims is fact.. and he also is more crooked then you want to believe.

No, he is simply not a source of information.
You know what? I don't care about Guns. Or Columbine.
I don't need statistics to feel better without everyone having a gun.
So to me, Columbine made interesting viewing no more.

What I mean is things like "Dead Peasants Insurance", the scene in Columbine when he goes through all the wars the US started (I don't know how many average Americans care enough to actually know about them), or in Fahrenheit when he looks at the connections of the Bushs and all the money the Saudis have invested in the US.
That is the important stuff that I was talking about.

And if anything, he makes people think about stuff, even if it is only because they try to refute him.
A modern day Socrates? ;)

I don't know if he spents that profit privately or uses it to fund some future communist revolution in America. We can all agree that he knows how to make a buck, it's where that buck will end up that should be questioned.

He's perfected the art of franchising the commuist ideology in a capitalist world in order for it to survive.

And if anything, he makes people think about stuff, even if it is only because they try to refute him.
That’s what I said, and he makes a darn good living doing it.

And if anything, he makes people think about stuff, even if it is only because they try to refute him.
A modern day Socrates? ;)

He gets you to think about them, the strong ones will refute his radical claims, it's the weakers (gullible) ones that he picks on to become his followers.

Half truths, half facts, reworded, then quoted out off context; such a method is as old as propaganda itself.

If this is the Cold War and it went hot, Mike Moore would be a suitable candidate for heading to Soviet puppet government of occupied America, since he spreads communism and makes a profit from doing so. LOL!

He gets you to think about them, the strong ones will refute his radical claims, it's the weakers (gullible) ones that he picks on to become his followers.
What radical claims though? What political agenda?
In all his stuff I have seen and read, he has not once made any hints at communism or at an alternative system.
He doesn't like Corporatism, and thus he doesn't like Politicians who go out of their way to help corporations. That's it. If that is enough to make you a Communist, then fair enough.

As for his political involvement, he tried to help Nader the first time round, but got kicked out when he suggested working together with the Democrats to stop Bush from getting there, and so influence some of the Democrats' policies.
Second time round, I don't know, he seemed to do what many celebrities did - make comments about which candidate he liked and why.

Probably because of his loud mouth involvements that Kerry lost.

Here's a Moore detailed thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433590

You know what? I don't care about Guns. Or Columbine.
I don't need statistics to feel better without everyone having a gun.
So to me, Columbine made interesting viewing no more.

What I mean is things like "Dead Peasants Insurance", the scene in Columbine when he goes through all the wars the US started (I don't know how many average Americans care enough to actually know about them), or in Fahrenheit when he looks at the connections of the Bushs and all the money the Saudis have invested in the US.
That is the important stuff that I was talking about.

And if anything, he makes people think about stuff, even if it is only because they try to refute him.
A modern day Socrates? ;)

Look the idiot is a master of irrelevance. He is no Socrates. Socrates was a genius. Moore is a fat coward who hides behind his wealth. He is very rich. He's not an average american.

And Fahrenheit 9/11 was the biggest pile of BS there ever has been. You are the perfect puppet for the man. It was Moore's lying in F9/11 that helped Kerry lose the election.

He's not eloquent either. And many people don't even give a damn about him... he only provokes a little dull-witted reaction from the radical left wing (thanks for showing me an example, yourself).

-snip-
What's with the ad hominems again?

Do you know what Socrates did? He asked questions, he challenged people in their thinking and he criticised other's views to make them think about them.

Different method now, same effect.

Ah, Michael Moore. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to sum up their thoughts on the man in just a few words, whatever their take on him, but I shall endeavour to do so with just one.

And that word is "dick".

Everybody loves a bit of the ad hominem. :p

Both F9/11 and Bowling for Columbine are filled with inaccuracies. A documentary is nothing but facts. These two movies are not documentaries because there aren't any facts in them, just opinions.

As for Moore himself, he should stick to making comedy movies. I love Canadian Bacon. Great piece of Comedy I've ever seen.

Socrates had a wife who complained about how he stands in the street and rants without pay. She wanted him to take up private teaching positions and actually get some money into the household. Socrates was the philosophers' version of the free street hooker. LOL!

Socrates was the philosophers' version of the free street hooker.
And yet he is one of the most highly regarded people of antiquity, and indeed human history.
Never underestimate the worth of a change agent.

Both F9/11 and Bowling for Columbine are filled with inaccuracies. A documentary is nothing but facts. These two movies are not documentaries because there aren't any facts in them, just opinions.

As for Moore himself, he should stick to making comedy movies. I love Canadian Bacon. Great piece of Comedy I've ever seen.

Actually, all documentaries are opinions, sometimes backed up with facts that support the opinion while silencing the facs that do not.

I can't comment on Canadian Bacon, haven't seen it. Is it any good? What's the plot?

Actually, all documentaries are opinions, sometimes backed up with facts that support the opinion while silencing the facs that do not.

Actually, all the documentaries I've seen are nothing but facts. Everything is properly documented with interviews from those that were there. I have many such documentaries that are nothing but facts.

I can't comment on Canadian Bacon, haven't seen it. Is it any good? What's the plot?

I love it. As for the plot, lets just say that it involves a cold war between the US and Canada. It is funny as hell. I couldn't stop laughing it was that funny.

Probably because of his loud mouth involvements that Kerry lost.

Nope, Kerry lost becase he failed to be little more than Bush-lite, like all of the New Democrats.

Nope, Kerry lost becase he failed to be little more than Bush-lite, like all of the New Democrats.

Nope! Kerry lost because he only ran on his war record and not his senate record. He lost because he ran a very crappy campaign and was probably one of the worst candidates the Democrats could put up.

Actually, all the documentaries I've seen are nothing but facts. Everything is properly documented with interviews from those that were there. I have many such documentaries that are nothing but facts.



I love it. As for the plot, lets just say that it involves a cold war between the US and Canada. It is funny as hell. I couldn't stop laughing it was that funny.

Please name 1 of those documentaries that do not try to presuade a viewpoint on the subject the doc is about.

And yet he is one of the most highly regarded people of antiquity, and indeed human history.
Never underestimate the worth of a change agent.

I know that. It's just that you called Moore a modern Socrates despite his failure to make a profit from similar work.

Nope! Kerry lost because he only ran on his war record and not his senate record. He lost because he ran a very crappy campaign and was probably one of the worst candidates the Democrats could put up.

Yeah, a bit of that AS WELL...

Please name 1 of those documentaries that do not try to presuade a viewpoint on the subject the doc is about.

Tora Tora Tora
Midway
My tornado documentaries that I have
my World War II documentaries that I have

my World War II documentaries that I have
You wanna bet that I could find bias in those too?
If you want to see a good WWII docu series, check out "Germany's War" by Guido Knopp. It's dozens and dozens of hours, but it is really worth it.

You wanna bet that I could find bias in those too?
If you want to see a good WWII docu series, check out "Germany's War" by Guido Knopp. It's dozens and dozens of hours, but it is really worth it.

Considering that my documentaries are told from both sides of the conflict and have been historically proven to be correct, kinda hard to be bias.

What's with the ad hominems again?

Do you know what Socrates did? He asked questions, he challenged people in their thinking and he criticised other's views to make them think about them.

Different method now, same effect.

Wake up. Please. Wake up, and smell the coffee.

Michael Moore does not ask valid questions. Socrates did. To compare that fat moron to Socrates is a disgrace. How could you do such a thing to such a scholarly individual?

I know that. It's just that you called Moore a modern Socrates despite his failure to make a profit from similar work.
I guess things were different then. And Socrates never wrote a word - and his fellow citizens killed him...
Anyways, I don't think Moore ever really intended to become rich with his work. For a long time he made little films and TV Stuff without being rich.

He's not anticapitalist, he's anticorporatist, as I said before. So to think it is stupid to call it ironic that he made money with his work.

Would you rather have that nobody knew about some of the things Moore mentioned in his work? Like the involvement of the Bush's with the Al Saud's and the Bin Laden's, the Taliban visit to Texas etc.

Considering that my documentaries are told from both sides of the conflict and have been historically proven to be correct, kinda hard to be bias.
:D
Nothing is completely neutral. You'll find characters from both sides who'll cry foul.

-snip-
Is it morning yet?

Did I or did I not say: "Different Method, same effect?"

Does your need to discredit everything that man says, does or eats not make you research more and inform yourself more?

Is that not a positive thing?

I guess things were different then. And Socrates never wrote a word - and his fellow citizens killed him...
Anyways, I don't think Moore ever really intended to become rich with his work. For a long time he made little films and TV Stuff without being rich.

Michael moore has wrote plenty of books.. so your comparsions are automatically invalid. I think he very well wanted to get rich, and I don't think he is anti-corporatist. Remember Michael moore is the same guy who said he thought Enron was a good investment.

You are just like those Lyndon Larouche cult people that harass moderates like me at my campus.

Would you rather have that nobody knew about some of the things Moore mentioned in his work? Like the involvement of the Bush's with the Al Saud's and the Bin Laden's, the Taliban visit to Texas etc.

The Bin Laden family severed ties to Osama. The Bin Laden family is involved in the construction business in Saudi Arabia. And the US has had ties with the House of Saud for decades. This isn't new with Bush. So please the straw mans don't work. And what taliban visit? Sounds like some stuff moore has been spewing out of his rear end.

Is it morning yet?

Did I or did I not say: "Different Method, same effect?"

Does your need to discredit everything that man says, does or eats not make you research more and inform yourself more?

Is that not a positive thing?

Um, the facts already discredit Moore. I don't have to do that myself. I presented the facts. No, he doesn't make me research more. He makes me laugh more at him, since he's terribly misinformed.

No, it is negative.

:D
Nothing is completely neutral. You'll find characters from both sides who'll cry foul.

I'm just saying from most of my Pacific Theater studies, the docs I have on it were historically accurate.

And what taliban visit? Sounds like some stuff moore has been spewing out of his rear end.
:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

Oh yes, a meeting.. this isn't with the President himself. Funny the BBC link seems to show that Argentina was moreso involved in it. Also, there was hope that the taliban in the early stages would not turn to extremism, but it did.

I don't have to do that myself. I presented the facts. No, he doesn't make me research more.
And where did you get those facts?
Please, sometimes people from different sides can agree on something. You won't weaken your stance with it.

And where did you get those facts?
Please, sometimes people from different sides can agree on something. You won't weaken your stance with it.

I'm not going to agree on anything with you. That's my prerogative. I'm never going to agree with someone who praises an stooge for the left.

Oh yes, a meeting..
Was it a visit or not? Bloody Hell.

I'm not going to agree on anything with you.
:rolleyes: Fair enough. But to think you once told me "Your biases cloud your judgement"...seems like a stupid thing to say now.

Was it a visit or not? Bloody Hell.

It doesn't prove a god damn thing really. It just shows that Argentina and Unocal were trying to build an oil pipeline. I also pointed out that there was some hope the taliban would not turn extremist in the time that article was published. But it was too late.

It doesn't prove a god damn thing really. It just shows that Argentina and Unocal were trying to build an oil pipeline. I also pointed out that there was some hope the taliban would not turn extremist in the time that article was published. But it was too late.
You must be careful. It was Bridas, an Argentinian Firm. Not Argentina.
Think of what would have happened had I alleged it was the US and not Unocal.
About the whole extremism business, I doubt that people could have been that naive then.

PS: Who's todays President of Afghanistan? I think we agree that it is Hamed Karzai. A former Unocal consultant (as well as former friend of the Taliban....).
And now a big pipeling is being built afterall (the earlier deal didn't go through), although I don't know who owns it. It seems likely that Unocal is a candidate for help, but I can't say.
http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=48566&query=Pipeline#query

You must be careful. It was Bridas, an Argentinian Firm. Not Argentina.
Think of what would have happened had I alleged it was the US and not Unocal.
About the whole extremism business, I doubt that people could have been that naive then.

PS: Who's todays President of Afghanistan? I think we agree that it is Hamed Karzai. A former Unocal consultant (as well as former friend of the Taliban....).
And now a big pipeling is being built afterall (the earlier deal didn't go through), although I don't know who owns it. It seems likely that Unocal is a candidate for help, but I can't say.
http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=48566&query=Pipeline#query

Well using Moore's logic, if a taliban official went to the US, it means he met the entire US government, and colluded. No, people actually were hoping that the taliban were going to bring moderatism and even elections. The previous government in Afghanistan was horrid.

Hamid Karzai, even though he is a former Unocal consultant, is a very good person. This pipeline will bring stability to the country and economic help.

There is nothing wrong with this pipeline being built, unlike what the idiot Moore wants you to think.

Well using Moore's logic, if a taliban official went to the US, it means he met the entire US government, and colluded.
He never said anything of the sort.
Although it is interesting to note that the US Government did help Enron on its work to build another pipeline, so it's not like it would be impossible that US Government officials were helping Unocal along then.

No, people actually were hoping that the taliban were going to bring moderatism and even elections. The previous government in Afghanistan was horrid.
Was there a previous Government? There was a communist government from 1978 after a coup. The Americans did the usual and funded the opposition (which in this case was various Mudjahedin), so the Soviets invaded to save the communists.
Then an Iraq-style battle went on for years until 1989, when the Russians had enough and left.
Then everyone fought everyone until 1996 (the communists officially stayed in power until 1992), when the Taliban took over.
They were still fighting by the way in 1997 when those talks happened, and in 1998 Clinton fired missiles at them...
I really find it impossible to believe that anyone in the US or Argentina could have thought the Taliban were nice people.

He never said anything of the sort.
Although it is interesting to note that the US Government did help Enron on its work to build another pipeline, so it's not like it would be impossible that US Government officials were helping Unocal along then.

It is funny Michael Moore once said that Enron was a good investment. And it is funny that the US government now is going after corporate criminals, and didn't under the Clinton adminstration in any great lengths.

Was there a previous Government? There was a communist government from 1978 after a coup. The Americans did the usual and funded the opposition (which in this case was various Mudjahedin), so the Soviets invaded to save the communists.

Well a very unstable government... the communist regime was the one I was talking about. It collapsed in 1992. Ironically just a year after the Soviet Union collapsed, and three years after soviet pull out.

Then an Iraq-style battle went on for years until 1989, when the Russians had enough and left.

The Russians had way more serious losses then we will have, and unlike them we are giving the Iraqi people a say. So saying it is an "Iraq style battle" is a horrid misnomer.

They were still fighting by the way in 1997 when those talks happened, and in 1998 Clinton fired missiles at them...
I really find it impossible to believe that anyone in the US or Argentina could have thought the Taliban were nice people.

Oh yes, Clinton fired missiles at them... he fired missiles at empty tents.

There was still hope the taliban would not turn to extremist ways. Some people saw this later then others that they were in fact doing so. Pakistan even supported the taliban initially.

Well a very unstable government... the communist regime was the one I was talking about. It collapsed in 1992. Ironically just a year after the Soviet Union collapsed, and three years after soviet pull out.
Why ironically? Wasn't it obvious that would happen?

The Russians had way more serious losses then we will have, and unlike them we are giving the Iraqi people a say. So saying it is an "Iraq style battle" is a horrid misnomer.
The USSR invaded in 1979. And left in 1989. That's about ten years. And 15,000 dead and 53,000 wounded.
The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and now there are 1,968 dead and 13,189 wounded. That was about two years (a bit more) - make that ten and you get 9,480 dead and 65,945 wounded.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

It's not that different.

I bet Michael Moore just loves all the attention that he gets, and most of it is well deserved because he does help expose the dirty laundry.

I can well imagine that these lyrics would suit him:

"I don't give a hoot about what people have to say
I'm laughin' as I'm analyzed
Lunatics Anonymous that's where I belong
Sure cause I am one till my strength is gone
Yeah This Beat Goes On
I have lots of friends that I can ding at any time
Can mobilize some laughs with just one call
Like a bunch of lunatics we'll act till way past dawn
Sure we'll be rockin' till our strength is gone
Yeah This Beat Goes On"

Rock on Michael :)

Why ironically? Wasn't it obvious that would happen?


The USSR invaded in 1979. And left in 1989. That's about ten years. And 15,000 dead and 53,000 wounded.
The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and now there are 1,968 dead and 13,189 wounded. That was about two years (a bit more) - make that ten and you get 9,480 dead and 65,945 wounded.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

It's not that different.

What the heck is your problem anyways? You want more US soldiers to die for your filthy political agenda?

The soviet casualities are grossly underestimated. It is said many more were killed. Possibly up to a hundred thousand. So you can't compare really.

You want more US soldiers to die for your filthy political agenda?
I thought Iraq was Bush's "filthy political agenda", not Leonstein's?

I thought Iraq was Bush's "filthy political agenda", not Leonstein's?

NO! NO NO NO NO NO!

Bush wants less soldiers to die. Leftists want more soldiers to die.

NO! NO NO NO NO NO!

Bush wants less soldiers to die. Leftists want more soldiers to die.
NO........................leftists didn't want a war against Iraq.

The way I figure it, there has been over 15,000 unecessary US casualties in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi casualties.

Iraq is Bush's war.

NO........................leftists didn't want a war against Iraq.

The way I figure it, there has been over 15,000 unecessary US casualties in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi casualties.

Iraq is Bush's war.

Congrats on overstating casualities. Also, the anti-war agenda of leftists is disgusting. Since you are against the war, you essentially supported Saddam Hussein.

Congrats on overstating casualities. Also, the anti-war agenda of leftists is disgusting. Since you are against the war, you essentially supported Saddam Hussein.
lol, if only my eyes saw black and white like you. Ignorace is strength isn't it? It's not like we're going around waving Saddam posters and shouting "death to America" (well, maybe the latter :D ) You know what's even more disgusting that the anti-war agenda of the left? The manipulative warmongering agenda of the neocons. That is what we're opposing, not the ousting of Saddam, I couldn't care less if he was gone or still in power because he was in no way shape or form a threat to me or my family. If you don't like my "selfish" thinking, then why are many pro-war conservatives against Social Security? Maybe you should do a little reading on the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and find out what this war is all about.

After some thinking, I conclude that Moore is the liberal's version of the TV evangelist. LOL!

lol, if only my eyes saw black and white like you. Ignorace is strength isn't it? It's not like we're going around waving Saddam posters and shouting "death to America" (well, maybe the latter :D ) You know what's even more disgusting that the anti-war agenda of the left? The manipulative warmongering agenda of the neocons. That is what we're opposing, not the ousting of Saddam, I couldn't care less if he was gone or still in power because he was in no way shape or form a threat to me or my family. If you don't like my "selfish" thinking, then why are many pro-war conservatives against Social Security? Maybe you should do a little reading on the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and find out what this war is all about.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not going to buy into that biased link. But thanks anyways. I also don't think I'm the one being ignorant... I think it is the anti-war fanatics that are being ignorant. Then you go use logical fallacies to support your weak position. I think your position is isolationist, selfish, and disgusting. I don't care if Saddam was a threat to you or even me, he had to go.

Congrats on overstating casualities.
Could you please provide the correct amount of casualties?

Also, the anti-war agenda of leftists is disgusting.
What is disgusting about not wanting to see unnecessary death and destruction?

Since you are against the war, you essentially supported Saddam Hussein.
The US supported Saddam Hussein, even when he was gassing the Iranians, or did you forget that fact?

Suggesting that ALL people who are against the war are supporters of Saddam is just wrong thinking. The amount of casualties to get ONE man is totally unacceptable, never mind stealing their economy and destroying their country.

Could you please provide the correct amount of casualties?

As of right now, there has been 1,400 casualities caused by combat related incidents.

What is disgusting about not wanting to see unnecessary death and destruction?

The disgusting part is your beliefs actually would cause more death and destruction by allowing Saddam to stay in power.

The US supported Saddam Hussein, even when he was gassing the Iranians, or did you forget that fact?

Why is the entire Iraqi military russian or chinese in origin? It seems like the support you talk about was more wishy washy then anything.

Suggesting that ALL people who are against the war are supporters of Saddam is just wrong thinking. The amount of casualties to get ONE man is totally unacceptable, never mind stealing their economy and destroying their country.

I'm not changing my way of thinking because I think you people are dead wrong. You are so wrong I don't think I want to even say anything more about this. Get off the filthy rhetoric.. we aren't stealing their economy or destroying their country. They are going to have a chance to have elections for once in a long time. To hell with the people in this world who were against this war and therefore against elections for the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not going to buy into that biased link. But thanks anyways. I also don't think I'm the one being ignorant... I think it is the anti-war fanatics that are being ignorant. Then you go use logical fallacies to support your weak position. I think your position is isolationist, selfish, and disgusting. I don't care if Saddam was a threat to you or even me, he had to go.
lol what do you mean biased? It's not biased towards the left, it's simply stating a far right wing agenda. You didn't even look at it! What about Kim Jong Crazy and North Korea? He is a real threat to America and we're just sitting on our asses farting into our hands. Whatever you think is whatever you think, all I can do is ask that you read the PNAC agenda, WHICH IS NOT LIBERAL PROPAGANDA, WHICH YOU SEEM TO IMPLY EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT! If you seriously find nothing wrong with its agenda, we are screwed. I'll explain later if you want me to, but somehow I don't think you'll listen.

lol what do you mean biased? It's not biased towards the left, it's simply stating a far right wing agenda. You didn't even look at it! What about Kim Jong Crazy and North Korea? He is a real threat to America and we're just sitting on our asses farting into our hands. Whatever you think is whatever you think, all I can do is ask that you read the PNAC agenda, WHICH IS NOT LIBERAL PROPAGANDA, WHICH YOU SEEM TO IMPLY EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT! If you seriously find nothing wrong with its agenda, we are screwed. I'll explain later if you want me to, but somehow I don't think you'll listen.

How about the far-left wing agenda that persists in your arguments, on that website and in this forum? You are hysterical. Look at your rantings. Very hysterical. it shows you are falling down a very bad slope. Otherwise intelligence person going down the wrong path.. in my mind. that's really too bad. No, you people are screwed. We are not. We are just fine. The hysteria coming out of your mouth doesn't surprise me.

After some thinking, I conclude that Moore is the liberal's version of the TV evangelist. LOL!
I agree.

I like his rants no matter how inacurate they may be.

I enjoyed his Documentry against GM.

As of right now, there has been 1,400 casualities caused by combat related incidents.Not counting the ~25,000 Iraqi dead and ~100,000 Iraqi wounded. (of course) And it's more than 1,400 casualties. 1774 U.S. casualties to be precise--1968 Coalition casualties.

http://icasualties.org/oif/
^^^not liberal propaganda^^^



The disgusting part is your beliefs actually would cause more death and destruction by allowing Saddam to stay in power.

So lemme get this straight...by killing people we are stopping the possible killing of an unknown amount of people?

How about the far-left wing agenda that persists in your arguments, on that website and in this forum? You are hysterical. Look at your rantings. Very hysterical. it shows you are falling down a very bad slope. Otherwise intelligence person going down the wrong path.. in my mind. that's really too bad. No, you people are screwed. We are not. We are just fine. The hysteria coming out of your mouth doesn't surprise me.
lol what the hell are you talking about!? Did you still not look at the site? I'm not lying...IT'S NOT LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!!! Are you just shrugging off my "hysterical rantings" because it makes sense? Or do you not want to deal with the truth? Living in lies is easier than fighting for the truth, and it looks to me as you chose the former.

Not counting the ~25,000 Iraqi dead and ~100,000 Iraqi wounded. (of course) And it's more than 1,400 casualties. 1774 U.S. casualties to be precise--1968 Coalition casualties.

Again more hysteria...

The numbers for Iraqi dead are very loosely based on the facts and are usually done by organizations influenced by liberal activists.

Also it has been 1,400 casualities related to combat. 1,700 includes accidents and such.

So lemme get this straight...by killing people we are stopping the possible killing of an unknown amount of people?

We are saving millions. Shame on you for being against that.

lol what the hell are you talking about!? Did you still not look at the site? I'm not lying...IT'S NOT LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!!!

Yes it is. Just like what is coming out of your mouth. You are lying. You are a lying liar (thanks Al Franken for that one, he may be on the left but at least he has some humor).

We are saving millions. Shame on you for being against that.
Just a random number? How do you know? Did you time travel? Sweet! We have time machines now! OMG!

Just a random number? How do you know? Did you time travel? Sweet! We have time machines now! OMG!

And the general hysteria continues... the left wing delusions.. :rolleyes:

Yes it is. Just like what is coming out of your mouth. You are lying. You are a lying liar (thanks Al Franken for that one, he may be on the left but at least he has some humor).
What the fuck are you talking about? You didn't even click on the link did you? If you did you'd know it's not liberal propaganda. It's neocon propaganda justifying the very thing you're arguing for! Why are you doing this to yourself? I am a lying liar. If I'm a liar and I lie, what does that make it? The truth! Follow, my sheep, follow your shepherd, Big Brother. Follow him off the edge of a cliff. Follow him into battle. Follow him till you die!

Answer me, did you go to www.newamericancentury.org (http://www.newamericancentury.org)? yes or no?

What the fuck are you talking about? You didn't even click on the link did you? If you did you'd know it's not liberal propaganda. It's neocon propaganda justifying the very thing you're arguing for! Why are you doing this to yourself? I am a lying liar. If I'm a liar and I lie, what does that make it? The truth! Follow, my sheep, follow your shepherd, Big Brother. Follow him off the edge of a cliff. Follow him into battle. Follow him till you die!

Answer me, did you go to www.newamericancentury.org (http://www.newamericancentury.org)? yes or no?

The hysteria continues.. tell me are you a bot? Because you seem to keep regenerating the same old rhetoric over and over again in the same paragraph. I'm tired of it. You are a little pawn for your own political games and left wing political machine. You are nothing more then a pawn and a slave. I think on my own.

And the general hysteria continues... the left wing delusions.. :rolleyes:
lol speak for yourself, man! I've had it with you. Either you're deeply serious in what you say and no matter what factual evidence and logical reasoning I give you will change your mind, or you're just a war protester pulling my leg here.

And I think I know how you're going to respond here, "what logical reasoning? you're just a pussy left wing crazo." mmmm rationalization.

lol speak for yourself, man! I've had it with you. Either you're deeply serious in what you say and no matter what factual evidence and logical reasoning I give you will change your mind, or you're just a war protester pulling my leg here.

And I think I know how you're going to respond here, "what logical reasoning? you're just a pussy left wing crazo." mmmm rationalization.

You got issues. You are the one speaking with not factual evidence or logical reasoning. You got serious issues. Get some actual proof. Not some delusions.

The hysteria continues.. tell me are you a bot? Because you seem to keep regenerating the same old rhetoric over and over again in the same paragraph. I'm tired of it. You are a little pawn for your own political games and left wing political machine. You are nothing more then a pawn and a slave. I think on my own.
Alright, I've never used the ignore function before, but I think this may be a first.

YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Alright, I've never used the ignore function before, but I think this may be a first.

YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Can anybody say "pawn"?

Yeah you are going on my ignore list too. I don't debate with someone who has severe cases of hysteria.

You got issues. You are the one speaking with not factual evidence or logical reasoning. You got serious issues. Get some actual proof. Not some delusions.
lol was I right or was I right? Alright, your hypocrisy has made me ignore you. Congratulations! You're the first to go on my ignore list!

*hands Mesatecala a cookie*

Well, I'll give you one more chance...maybe

Can anybody say "pawn"?

Yeah you are going on my ignore list too. I don't debate with someone who has severe cases of hysteria.

thank you for repeatedly flaming me and STILL not answering my question. It was fun. :rolleyes:

lol was I right or was I right? Alright, your hypocrisy has made me ignore you. Congratulations! You're the first to go on my ignore list!

*hands Mesatecala a cookie*

Well, I'll give you one more chance...maybe

You're a total hypocrite. Not only that you are total dead wrong. And you are also the first person to go on my ignore list. Wow, congrats.

*hands achtung a middle finger*

As of right now, there has been 1,400 casualities caused by combat related incidents.
You should update your news servers? The US casualties (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm) alone are 1,772 dead and 12,762 injured.

There have been 1,963 coalition troop deaths, 1,771 Americans, 93 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of July 22, 2005.

This web site (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) suggests 25,915 Iraqi deaths.

This web site says:

Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1122350400&en=f5eebc4ffd2b5205&ei=5070&oref=login)

Either way, you figures are grossly understated.

The disgusting part is your beliefs actually would cause more death and destruction by allowing Saddam to stay in power.
You have no way of proving such a comment, as it is based purely on speculation on your part.

Why is the entire Iraqi military russian or chinese in origin?
The Iraqi military is Russian or Chinese in origin? Yeah and I am Ho Chi Minh :rolleyes:

It seems like the support you talk about was more wishy washy then anything.
You really should read more history, because it was anything but "wishy washy". Maybe it is because YOU "wish" to "wash" it away?

I'm not changing my way of thinking because I think you people are dead wrong. You are so wrong I don't think I want to even say anything more about this.
You don't want to say anymore because the facts are starting to catch up to you?

Get off the filthy rhetoric.. we aren't stealing their economy or destroying their country.
It is not rhetoric. Check out Bremer's Orders, and then look at some pictures from Iraq. It is all true.

They are going to have a chance to have elections for once in a long time. To hell with the people in this world who were against this war and therefore against elections for the Iraqi people.
Why should I go to hell, I have done no wrong. On the other hand, those who supported this immoral war......

BTW, I have nothing against Iraqi elections, other than they were forced on the people, that the elections took place during a time of considerable political upheavel, that US troops guarded the polling stations, and that many Sunni Iraqis boycotted the election.

You should update your news servers? The US casualties (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm) alone are 1,772 dead and 12,762 injured.

There have been 1,963 coalition troop deaths, 1,771 Americans, 93 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of July 22, 2005.

This web site (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) suggests 25,915 Iraqi deaths.

No it happens to be I'm actually right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths;_ylt=AsCGWbhgEALr3DRmue5RcUBvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"As of Saturday, July 23, 2005, at least 1,775 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,365 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians."

Re-read what I said.



Either way, you figures are grossly understated.

100,000 is grossly overstated.


The Iraqi military is Russian or Chinese in origin? Yeah and I am Ho Chi Minh :rolleyes:

It is. Only a fool would dispute that. First off, the main battle tank in Saddam's military was the T-72, and the majority of fighters were MiGs.

You really should read more history, because it was anything but "wishy washy". Maybe it is because YOU "wish" to "wash" it away?

It is wishy washy. Learn some english. You cannot twist my words around because you feel like it.

You don't want to say anymore because the facts are starting to catch up to you?

The facts are catching up on you.. in fact they hit you in the head so hard you have been knocked down. Keep digging the hole you are in, leftist.


Why should I go to hell, I have done no wrong. On the other hand, those who supported this immoral war......

The war was very moral. You are immoral because you are against liberation.

BTW, I have nothing against Iraqi elections, other than they were forced on the people, that the elections took place during a time of considerable political upheavel, that US troops guarded the polling stations, and that many Sunni Iraqis boycotted the election.

they weren't forced on anyone. Voting wasn't compulsory. You are full of delusions.

lol what the hell are you talking about!? Did you still not look at the site? I'm not lying...IT'S NOT LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!!! Are you just shrugging off my "hysterical rantings" because it makes sense? Or do you not want to deal with the truth? Living in lies is easier than fighting for the truth, and it looks to me as you chose the former.
Mesatecala is right you know.....the Project for a New American Century is definitely a "far-left wing agenda". :rolleyes:

Michael Moore is a fat lying scumbag.. and not to mention a hypocrite.

Bowling for Columbine was factually wrong, and here is the evidence for it:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Dobbsworld:



Don't think so. He's a little tightwad, cheating, lying, immature robber himself. He brags about how much money he has.

And your rhetoric is pretty immature.



funny how those who don't like his ideology go searching for reasons to discredit him, instead of seeing holes in his arguments and judging from there. always must refute the person, not the arguments... good example is Fahrenhype 9/11.

Another person itching to get on my ignore list...

I didn't vote because the best option isn't there.

"I like him, I love his message, and the only thing that sucks is that this country and world are so screwed up that a guy like him is needed to point out all the screwed-up, wrong, evil things in it."

I'm going to bed... let the peanut gallery have their rants... :p

Another person itching to get on my ignore list...

Oooh, oooh, can I please be on your ignore list, too?? Please?? I would consider it a great honor if you put me on your ignore list...especially seeing as you're already on mine....

Another person itching to get on my ignore list...
Just from reading your tirades and utter disregard for any logic whatsoever, I hope to God you put me on your ignore list so I never have to correspond with your mouthbreathing, drooling ass ever again, douchebag.

But I digress. Here's a site you may enjoy: http://www.gdnctr.com/list2.htm

He enjoys spewing out piles of bullshit and blatantly illogical fallacies almost as much as your retarded excuse of a mouth does.

Have a nice life, fucktard.

This is really sad...

Canuck and Achtung, do not bother with arguing with Mesatecala. You know that he will not change his mind anytime soon so really, dont bother. Dont bother with Bush lovers like Mesa because they are stubborn as hell and their word overrides everyone else's words for some odd, inexplicable reason. You give him a site and he refuses to look at it and calls it bias instantly and then he calls you both biased people. Can you see the hypocrisy of this guy? This guy is so full of sh1t, its not cureable. Just dont bother with this retard. He gives no respect to anyone therefore he is the hypocrite and immoral idiot in this conversation.

I respect people from the right like Corneliu who actually listen what you have to say and reply with a well thought out response no matter how much I may disagree with him. But Mesa, he is a stupid, close-minded, idiotic, piece of turd that gives no respect to anyone. Now, what I am saying has NOTHING to do with Bush or the War. All I am talking about is moral decency within an argument. In the end, dont bother with faggots like Mesatecala

Just from reading your tirades and utter disregard for any logic whatsoever, I hope to God you put me on your ignore list so I never have to correspond with your mouthbreathing, drooling ass ever again, douchebag.

But I digress. Here's a site you may enjoy: http://www.gdnctr.com/list2.htm

He enjoys spewing out piles of bullshit and blatantly illogical fallacies almost as much as your retarded excuse of a mouth does.

Have a nice life, fucktard.

Damn you...I'll thank you to know I had a mouthful of soda when I was reading that!! :D

You rock!!

Just from reading your tirades and utter disregard for any logic whatsoever, I hope to God you put me on your ignore list so I never have to correspond with your mouthbreathing, drooling ass ever again, douchebag.

But I digress. Here's a site you may enjoy: http://www.gdnctr.com/list2.htm

He enjoys spewing out piles of bullshit and blatantly illogical fallacies almost as much as your retarded excuse of a mouth does.

Have a nice life, fucktard.

I love how you right wing faggots (this goes to people like Mesa and Soviet, not to people like Corneliu etc.) flame everyone here and then complain about how we flame you guys.

This is really sad...

Canuck and Achtung, do not bother with arguing with Mesatecala. You know that he will not change his mind anytime soon so really, dont bother. Dont bother with Bush lovers like Mesa because they are stubborn as hell and their word overrides everyone else's words for some odd, inexplicable reason. You give him a site and he refuses to look at it and calls it bias instantly and then he calls you both biased people. Can you see the hypocrisy of this guy? This guy is so full of sh1t, its not cureable. Just dont bother with this retard. He gives no respect to anyone therefore he is the hypocrite and immoral idiot in this conversation.

Why don't you look into your own views? Why don't you people even bother? You will notice I'm not the one full of it. I mean come on. Get over yourself and admit you can be wrong sometimes.

I respect people from the right like Corneliu who actually listen what you have to say and reply with a well thought out response no matter how much I may disagree with him. But Mesa, he is a stupid, close-minded, idiotic, piece of turd that gives no respect to anyone. Now, what I am saying has NOTHING to do with Bush or the War. All I am talking about is moral decency within an argument. In the end, dont bother with faggots like Mesatecala

Post reported. You use an excessive amount of ad hominems, and I hope you get suspended from here. And don't ever call me a faggot again.

Damn you...I'll thank you to know I had a mouthful of soda when I was reading that!! :D

You rock!!
Haha, thanks. It's late and I don't feel like dealing with ignorant prats at the moment. Honestly, I love getting compliments on my flames. I know I'm doing something right! :D

Take it easy, man, and just contact me whenever some retard needs a swift roundhouse to the head. I'll be happy to oblige.

Haha, thanks. It's late and I don't feel like dealing with ignorant prats at the moment. Honestly, I love getting compliments on my flames. I know I'm doing something right! :D

Take it easy, man, and just contact me whenever some retard needs a swift roundhouse to the head. I'll be happy to oblige.

The only person who needs a swift in the head is you.

I'm through with this. I'm going to bed.

This is really sad...

Canuck and Achtung, do not bother with arguing with Mesatecala. You know that he will not change his mind anytime soon so really, dont bother.
I figured that after he failed to even say if he went to the PNAC website, and after I ignored him. And after I reported him for debating horribly and repeatedly flaming/flamebaiting. It might not be worthy, but whatever.

I love how you right wing faggots (this goes to people like Mesa and Soviet, not to people like Corneliu etc.) flame everyone here and then complain about how we flame you guys.
Guess what?

IGNORE!!!! SO PWNED!!!!111 I'll never have to listen to blokes like yourself ever again!

By the way, dingus, since when were socialists right-wing? Retard.

I love how you right wing faggots (this goes to people like Mesa and Soviet, not to people like Corneliu etc.) flame everyone here and then complain about how we flame you guys.

Worse are the people who flameBAIT others, and sit back and wait for the target person to flame them...and then they go and report them for flaming...and the BAITER gets off scott-free while the BAITED gets punished! That really pisses me off.

You have to give him one pat on the back for at least making everyone think about what he is saying and whether what we are told by the general media and government is true or not.
It may be a left-wing look at things, but then, shouldn't you see all points of view before making up you mind on things?????????????

No it happens to be I'm actually right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths;_ylt=AsCGWbhgEALr3DRmue5RcUBvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"As of Saturday, July 23, 2005, at least 1,775 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,365 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians."

Re-read what I said.
Actually you are wrong and I invite you to re-read my statement. I stated casualties, and all you were doing was citing the number of "battle related deaths".

Casualties includes the wounded, but of course you knew that didn't you? :rolleyes:

It is also interesting that you totally ignored the Iraqi casualties in your 1,400 figure, since you are the one so concerned about saving those people from Saddam?

100,000 is grossly overstated.
That is research done by an American University, Johns Hopkins University, and I guess your calculator is better than theirs?

It is. Only a fool would dispute that. First off, the main battle tank in Saddam's military was the T-72, and the majority of fighters were MiGs.
I thought you were talking about the members of the military not their equipment, but nonetheless, you really should read more on US involvement in supplying Iraq with biological and chemical agents, intel, helicopters, etc.

It is wishy washy. Learn some english. You cannot twist my words around because you feel like it.
You set yourself up for the twisting, and your reply was "wishy washy" to me, because you obviously have not done enough research to respond with a factual rebuttal.

The facts are catching up on you.. in fact they hit you in the head so hard you have been knocked down. Keep digging the hole you are in, leftist.
At least I present some facts, and all I get in response is rhetoric, and propaganda. I am still standing and waiting for a reasoned response.

The war was very moral. You are immoral because you are against liberation.
I am against FORCED liberation, absolutely. The people of Iraq are less free now then they were under Saddam. They are under occupation by a foreign power and they don't like it. Some may be thankful that Saddam is gone, but they certainly don't like the replacement. Yeah, they want the US off THEIR soil.

They weren't forced on anyone. Voting wasn't compulsory. You are full of delusions.
The US picked the timing of the elections, and they took place during a time of extreme upheavel, making them less than adequate.

No delusions here.

Why don't you look into your own views? Why don't you people even bother? You will notice I'm not the one full of it. I mean come on. Get over yourself and admit you can be wrong sometimes.


Post reported. You use an excessive amount of ad hominems, and I hope you get suspended from here. And don't ever call me a faggot again.

If you noticed, that was my first post on this thread. Its true, I havent really bothered with you people. I am looking forward to the future to see whether we will be laughing and pointing fingers saying "WE TOLD YOU SO" or vice versa.

OOO SCARY!! IVE BEEN REPORTED!!!!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!! I read your posts and how you blatently flamed everyone who did not support the War. Basically, you are being the hypocrite YET AGAIN and yes you are a faggot.

You have to give him one pat on the back for at least making everyone think about what he is saying and whether what we are told by the general media and government is true or not.
It may be a left-wing look at things, but then, shouldn't you see all points of view before making up you mind on things?????????????
I tried but gave up after he failed to answer my simple question after the second or third or fourth or fifth time of asking it.

Canuck, I was talking about combat related deaths. Please re-read what I posted.

If you noticed, that was my first post on this thread. Its true, I havent really bothered with you people. I am looking forward to the future to see whether we will be laughing and pointing fingers saying "WE TOLD YOU SO" or vice versa.

You won't be laughing. You will be putting your head down in disgrace. I look towards the future.

OOO SCARY!! IVE BEEN REPORTED!!!!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!! I read your posts and how you blatently flamed everyone who did not support the War. Basically, you are being the hypocrite YET AGAIN and yes you are a faggot.

Don't ever call me a faggot again because I'm not one (look at the definition of the word).

No, I did not flame everyone. People had the issue of losing their tempers when they come under flak.

I'm now really tired of this..

My only question is...if we were REALLY there to "liberate Iraq," then why will we not let them have the kind of Government the majority there have stated that they want...which is a Constitution based upon Islamic Law?

Why will we only allow them to have a government WE approve of...if our goal was to liberate them...rather than to exploit them for their resources (oil) and use them as a staging area for further empire-building?

The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they know what we are really about, and they have made it clear that they want us gone in short order, and they want their country back.

If we truly wanted to liberate them, rather than enslave them ourselves...we would allow them to form any sort of government they wanted...whether or not we approved of the government they set up for themselves.

They are not stupid, they know we want to enslave them, not liberate them.

Canuck, I was talking about combat related deaths. Please re-read what I posted.



You won't be laughing. You will be putting your head down in disgrace. I look towards the future.



Don't ever call me a faggot again because I'm not one (look at the definition of the word).

No, I did not flame everyone. People had the issue of losing their tempers when they come under flak.

I'm now really tired of this..

Prove that I will not be laughing and putting my head down in disgrace.

Nevertheless, you STILL FLAMED, YOU CANNOT DODGE THAT FACT. Do I need to find proof that you flamed?

Prove that I will not be laughing and putting my head down in disgrace.

Nevertheless, you STILL FLAMED, YOU CANNOT DODGE THAT FACT. Do I need to find proof that you flamed?

Time will tell.

I did not flame. My words are proof enough. You cannot disprove my words.

I agree.

I like his rants no matter how inacurate they may be.

I enjoyed his Documentry against GM.

To further the claims of comparison, the TV evangelist sells his views to fundamentalist Christians through entertainment and profits. Mike Moore sells his views towards liberals and communists with his lame comedy and also profits. The common denominator can be the large, personality cult followings.


Oh come on! Genetic modification is the way of the future. Imagine extremely high yields and locust resistent crops that can solve world hunger. Those hippies and eco-terrorists are just holding back progress.

Don't ever call me a faggot again because I'm not one (look at the definition of the word).

No, I did not flame everyone. People had the issue of losing their tempers when they come under flak.

I'm now really tired of this..

faggot

n 1: offensive terms for an openly homosexual man [syn: fagot, fag, fairy, nance, pansy, queen, queer, poof, poove, pouf] 2: a bundle of sticks and branches bound together [syn: fagot] v 1: ornament or join (fabric) by faggot stitch; "He fagotted the blouse for his wife" [syn: fagot] 2: fasten together rods of iron in order to heat or weld them [syn: fagot] 3: bind or tie up in or as if in a faggot; "faggot up the sticks" [syn: fagot, faggot up]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Couldn't resist....it's from dictionary.com

faggot

n 1: offensive terms for an openly homosexual man [syn: fagot, fag, fairy, nance, pansy, queen, queer, poof, poove, pouf] 2: a bundle of sticks and branches bound together [syn: fagot] v 1: ornament or join (fabric) by faggot stitch; "He fagotted the blouse for his wife" [syn: fagot] 2: fasten together rods of iron in order to heat or weld them [syn: fagot] 3: bind or tie up in or as if in a faggot; "faggot up the sticks" [syn: fagot, faggot up]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Couldn't resist....it's from dictionary.com

How is this relevant to anything? I use it to describe a bundle of sticks.. not homosexual.

Time will tell.

I did not flame. My words are proof enough. You cannot disprove my words.

Once again he has proven my theory. Whatever mesa says is the absolute truth and if anyone else disagrees, they are automatically wrong; that is, in his eyes. What does this tell you...

You are still a faggot.

You are still a faggot.

I'm not a bundle of sticks.. so please clarify yourself.

I'm not a bundle of sticks.. so please clarify yourself.

Prove that you are not a bundle of sticks. For all we know, you could be a bundle of living and talking sticks with a computer.

Prove that you are not a bundle of sticks. For all we know, you could be a bundle of living and talking sticks with a computer.

A bundle of sticks is not a living thing, therefore cannot type.

Therefore you are now on my ignore list. Congrats. Third person today.

Good night.

A bundle of sticks is not a living thing, therefore cannot type.

Therefore you are now on my ignore list. Congrats. Third person today.

Good night.

Congrats! You have once again proven that you are an idiot! Here is a brownie! Like I said, for all we know, you could be a living faggot! For all we know, there could be some strange magic that makes inanimate objects alive.

Canuck, I was talking about combat related deaths. Please re-read what I posted.
I re-read your post. However, you consistently ignore the point I first raised about casualties in Iraq. You state 1,400, when in fact, it is over 100,000.

The sad part, is that you apparently can only see the number of US deaths in the Iraq war, and appear to be totally oblivious to the death and destruction that has happened to the Iraqis. This leads me to the belief that your feigned caring for the Iraqi people is disengenuous, and I find that, to quote your words, "disgusting".

I did not flame.
Actually, you did, but it does not really bother me, although it obviously bothers others.

My words are proof enough.
Not in this forum.

You cannot disprove my words.
I agree. Your words are yours, even if they fly in the face of reality.

You know, I was reading through this thread and I couldn't help thinking of this song by John Lennon:

God: (Note: not the full version, just the part that is relivent to this thread)



I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-Ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me

I re-read your post. However, you consistently ignore the point I first raised about casualties in Iraq. You state 1,400, when in fact, it is over 100,000.

I was referring to US combat deaths. Also there is no way to know for certain that 100,000 is accurate. I do recognize both figures, but at the time we were talking about US soldiers.

This leads me to the belief that your feigned caring for the Iraqi people is disengenuous, and I find that, to quote your words, "disgusting".

Utter B.S. I care about the Iraqi people, and I'm not happy when they get killed. I want them to have a future, unlike some people around here.

However, yes I did flame people and for that I do apologize.

It is. Only a fool would dispute that. First off, the main battle tank in Saddam's military was the T-72, and the majority of fighters were MiGs.
I assume that you are talking about during the Iran-Iraq war, because in the Kuwait-thing, they actually had heaps of French fighters...

I assume that you are talking about during the Iran-Iraq war, because in the Kuwait-thing, they actually had heaps of French fighters...
Can't forget the Mirage, the AMXs that they had some of, the Exocet anti-ship missles, the berets... face it, the Ba'ath government WAS FRENCH.

Now, Mesa.
I tried hard to debate stuff with you and it worked fairly well so far, no?

But the way you behave towards others here is just stupid. You immediatly move on to ad hominems (did you pick that word up from me.... ;) ). That's not the way to start. That's the way to end an argument.

You did not say "US military personell casualties killed or wounded in combat-related incidents", you said "casualties". It is obvious what you meant, and CH is just having a bit of fun with you, I'm sure.

What good is an "ignore list"? You are just showing that you can't handle the discussion when you start ignoring people. Rather you should stay calm, look past any insults and then disprove other's claims, point by point.

I found in my few months here that I can get along with pretty much anyone, even if they are from "the other side". Be they Corneliu, or Undelia, or MarrakechII, it is perfectly possible to have a good discussion, no matter how stupid you think the other person is.
Try and do better in the future, okay?

Now, Mesa.
I tried hard to debate stuff with you and it worked fairly well so far, no?

But the way you behave towards others here is just stupid. You immediatly move on to ad hominems (did you pick that word up from me.... ;) ). That's not the way to start. That's the way to end an argument.

What good is an "ignore list"? You are just showing that you can't handle the discussion when you start ignoring people. Rather you should stay calm, look past any insults and then disprove other's claims, point by point.
I'm not sure if that is possible for him as...well, you can just read my little debate with him. Also, didn't he say he was going to leave? So why is he still posting? I still want to know if he thinks the PNAC is left wing propaganda simply because I posted the link. If that's indeed the case there will never be a rational argument with him.

-snip-
I did read it...but I still believe there is some good to be found in everyone! :D

I am honestly dumbfounded.

I read all this, I listened to both sides, and now, I just want to crap my pants.

I could respond to everything that was said in this forum, but I'd be here all morning. It took me an hour to read it, it'd take me several more to respond to it in full.

What happened to the Michael Moore debate? What should have started out as an intelligent, civil debate about a film-maker and political analyst never even got to the intelligent or civil point with but a few sporadic instances. It then proceeded to branch off into a poorly articulated and irrelevant tangent of left vs. right politics, and further degenerated into petty name-calling and holier-than-thou one-upmanship.

I'm not even going to start to pick apart the actual arguments, because my political philosophy would alienate one half of the people who need to really take in the rest of my message.

First off, STOP TAKING EVERYTHING SO PERSONALLY! If we could all pretend to be above the primal urge to obliterate anything that disagrees with us in even the most marginal degree, that would be super. Granted, we're all probably human, and want nothing more than to silence our opposition, but save your animalistic rage for the road. Some of us are rather fond of the idea of discussing the issues with an open mind, or at least the willingness to hear what someone else has to say. If someone doesn't share the same opinion as you, disagree with them -- don't develop a thirst for their blood.

One thing we all have to understand about eachother is that we all come from different backgrounds, have different experiences, different teachers, etc. We are bound to have -- get this -- DIFFERENT IDEAS! Does that make one wrong, and one correct? Not by a long shot. If one sees the goblet, and the other sees the faces, should they tear apart the other person's perception of the same picture because it is a different one than their own? Absolutely not. Instead of taking your biases, grudges, and peeves into a debate like this, take only your opinion and the will to listen to someone else's.

If two people from opposing sides of an issue do this, they can have a deep, enlightening debate. They may not change their position, but they will at least come away understanding the other side. It's a simple fucking concept people, I'm not explaining cold fusion.

If one person comes willing to listen, but the other comes willing only to talk, then by all means, tell them to shut the fuck up, but then MOVE ON. Don't even give closed-minded people the time of day. Until they learn how to talk it out without resorting to a bitch-fight, leave them out.

If all you want to do is throw your opinion around to start a fight, then don't interfere with people who want a serious, civilized debate.

There. Finished.

I am honestly dumbfounded.
Welcome to NS General!

Welcome to NS General!

Thank you. With the exception of this last hour and a half, it's been a pleasure.

Thank you. With the exception of this last hour and a half, it's been a pleasure.
This kind of thing happens a lot though. Certain topics get out of hands very easily.
Give it a while, start a thread yourself about a topic you'd like to debate (although "There is no God!" and "Bush sucks" are not good candidates...) and you'll soon find those that are genuinely up for a discussion.

I personally can't sleep. I had falling out with one of my friends.

Anyways, I apologize for being so defensive. I have nothing else to say.

I personally can't sleep. I had falling out with one of my friends.

Gee, I can't imagine that. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I apologize for being so defensive. I have nothing else to say.

How nice. Too bad it's all so disconnected at this point. Tends not to mean as much when the context is missing. Good luck sleeping.

Dude, what happened with my friend is nothing you can speculate on. so don't patronize me.

I'm not going to agree on anything with you. That's my prerogative. I'm never going to agree with someone who praises an stooge for the left.

You may want to pack the habit of breathing out and in, I believe Leonstein thinks highly of it.

Dude, what happened with my friend is nothing you can speculate on.

Nor do I care to. Nor have I.

so don't patronize me.

You're always so high on yourself. What makes you think I want to patronize you?

Didn't bother to read any responses, so forgive me if I just re-hash what has already been said.

Moore spoke at my university a couple of months back, and because it was free to undergraduate students, I decided to go. Before seeing him, I had a very high opinion of the man. He seemed well-informed, and I agreed with much of what he had to say.

After seeing him speak live, I was bitterly disappointed. Rather than presenting his ideas in an intelligent manner, rather than backing up his normal arguments with logic or facts, the only thing he really said was "BUSH SUCKS." (Mind you, this was pre-election 2004)

Really, I agree that Bush sucks. But in the whole two hours the man talked, not once did he say why Bush really sucks (at least in any political sense). Not once did he talk about his foreign policies, his reckless spending, his religious fixations, or anything else like that. Instead, what he focused on was Bush's speaking mistakes, his past criminal record, and nothing that really matters in the long run.

In conclusion...as long as I don't ever have to hear the man speak, and try to be witty, I'm fine with him.

*edit*
My apologies, I seem to be a bit off the current topic.

I like what Moore says, and I agree with many things he says, however, if wants to dig up shit on Bush, and make him look so bad...he doesnt need to use shady editing techniques to do it.

That needlessly damages his own credibilty, when there is plenty of well documented crap to show us.

His movies dissapoint me, but his books, are the opposite.
In "Dude, Wheres My Country?", there are 27 pages of quotes and sources, wich he uses to illustrate his points.

He should take the same effort with his movies.

You may want to pack the habit of breathing out and in, I believe Leonstein thinks highly of it.
I would go as far as calling it my prerogative...
:D

I enjoy most of his work. His books are entertaining and his documentaries are phenomenal. I suggest he stick to his documentaries though, his fictional movie (Canadian Bacon) was terrible.

No it happens to be I'm actually right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths;_ylt=AsCGWbhgEALr3DRmue5RcUBvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"As of Saturday, July 23, 2005, at least 1,775 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,365 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians."

First piece of Accuracy I've seen this morning.

100,000 is grossly overstated.

Define an Iraqi civilian Casualty! How many Iraqi insurgents have been killed that weren't wearing markings of a militia group? How many insurgents were actually included in that death toll? That is what I want to know.

It is. Only a fool would dispute that. First off, the main battle tank in Saddam's military was the T-72, and the majority of fighters were MiGs.

Correct!

they weren't forced on anyone. Voting wasn't compulsory. You are full of delusions.[/QUOTE]

Nope it wasn't compulsory. If it was then we would've had 100% turn out and there wasn't. The majority of the voters came out to vote and that's a plus.

I respect people from the right like Corneliu who actually listen what you have to say and reply with a well thought out response no matter how much I may disagree with him.

WOW! I never thought I'd receive a compliment from you Ubershizasianaxis. Thank you :)

*hands you a cookie*

I also respect you as well. Your right that we don't agree on alot of things but at least your respectful leftie who listens. Keep it up :)

I assume that you are talking about during the Iran-Iraq war, because in the Kuwait-thing, they actually had heaps of French fighters...

Won't deny this but most of those fled to Iran. Iran gave the pilots back after the war but not the planes. That's funny :p

I enjoy most of his work. His books are entertaining and his documentaries are phenomenal. I suggest he stick to his documentaries though, his fictional movie (Canadian Bacon) was terrible.

WHAT???!!!!!

Do not insult Canadian Bacon dude. It had to be one of the best movies I've ever watched. He should stick to those films and can his documentaries because they suck and are filled with inaccuracies.

I have to say, I'm in an advanced state of sheer awe when it comes to Moore. (Rhyme! Yay!) I cannot fathom how someone can make such blatant fabrications, and how someone can make unbelievably ludicrous statements (In Stupid White Men, he attributes gun crime among poor black communities to white people. Why? Because white people own guns black people can steal.), yet can walk away with millions of dollars.

Maybe he's being ironic? "Look, I don't need facts, I can just feed people whatever I want and they'll pay me for it!" Is that his real commentary on America?

I am against FORCED liberation, absolutely. The people of Iraq are less free now then they were under Saddam. They are under occupation by a foreign power and they don't like it. Some may be thankful that Saddam is gone, but they certainly don't like the replacement. Yeah, they want the US off THEIR soil.

There's no such thing as peaceful liberation. Countries don't come about to democracy without revolution, civil war, and other such events. Secondly, I've yet to hear from an Iraqi who isn't incredibly glad Saddam is gone. The problem Iraqis - and lots of other people have - is a lack of patience. The fact that we have to stay in Iraq for years is not something either the Iraqis, or ourselves, like to admit to. It'd be great if we could have toppled Saddam and left the country, but the insurgency itself shows why we couldn't do that. In fact, that is one of the main reasons we didn't simply send the SAS or Delta Force in to take him out, or launch cruise missiles at his palaces.

Originally Posted by Mesatecala
I'm not going to agree on anything with you. That's my prerogative. I'm never going to agree with someone who praises an stooge for the left.

Well, I'm not going to agree on anything with YOU. That's MY perogative. I'M never going to agree with someone who praises a stooge for the right!! Or anyone who IS a stooge for the right.

The right are all a bunch of mouth-breathers. Can't stand 'em. In fact, anyone who is a right-winger, please just identify yourselves now, it's easier that way, I can just put you on my ignore list and save myself the trouble later on, because no right-winger has anything valuable to add to a conversation.

Originally Posted by Mesatecala
I'm not going to agree on anything with you. That's my prerogative. I'm never going to agree with someone who praises an stooge for the left.

Well, I'm not going to agree on anything with YOU. That's MY perogative. I'M never going to agree with someone who praises a stooge for the right!! Or anyone who IS a stooge for the right.

The right are all a bunch of mouth-breathers. Can't stand 'em. In fact, anyone who is a right-winger, please just identify yourselves now, it's easier that way, I can just put you on my ignore list and save myself the trouble later on, because no right-winger has anything valuable to add to a conversation.

Though you ignored me, I"m going to state this anyway. By ignoring the otherside, you will miss most of a debate and only see those that you agree with. That is not how a proper debator acts. A proper debator listens to what the other side says (provided it is well thought out) and respond in a like manner (provided that no flames are issued)! You just can't debate with those that you agree with then it isn't called debating. There are lefties on here that I can't stand but I still listen to what they have to say. And after awhile, though we hardly agree on anything, certain things become jokes among us all.

Do try to listen to the otherside. I listen to the other side all the time and on occassion even acknowledge that they have made a valid point and likewise, they acknowledge when I make a valid point.

By not listening to us on the right, you might miss something that is coherent and accurate.

Thank you.

Do try to listen to the otherside. I listen to the other side all the time and on occassion even acknowledge that they have made a valid point and likewise, they acknowledge when I make a valid point.

By not listening to us on the right, you might miss something that is coherent and accurate.

Thank you.
True, which is why I read posts from people like you and Eutrasca, and then decide why I disagree with you. ;)
When I left this last night, it was still pretty civil. A few pages ago, this was close to decending into a flame war, though it seems to have cooled off. Can I suggest that everyone remains calm?

<rather obviously not a mod, though>

Though you ignored me, I"m going to state this anyway. By ignoring the otherside, you will miss most of a debate and only see those that you agree with. That is not how a proper debator acts. A proper debator listens to what the other side says (provided it is well thought out) and respond in a like manner (provided that no flames are issued)! You just can't debate with those that you agree with then it isn't called debating. There are lefties on here that I can't stand but I still listen to what they have to say. And after awhile, though we hardly agree on anything, certain things become jokes among us all.

Do try to listen to the otherside. I listen to the other side all the time and on occassion even acknowledge that they have made a valid point and likewise, they acknowledge when I make a valid point.

By not listening to us on the right, you might miss something that is coherent and accurate.

Thank you.

A proper debater cannot debate properly when they are pissed off, and the right has an innate ability to piss me off, even just by BREATHING the right pisses me off. Why? Because they do not think for themselves...they take their talking points and marching orders and propaganda from the RNC, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc, and then go and mouth-breathe them everywhere! Right-wingers, in my opinion, are incapable of independent thought...they have to be told what to think, say, believe...and they go spouting off their propaganda and cute little cliches as if they actually said something either true or intelligent. And when you call them on it, they cannot defend it, but rather start mouth-breathing about Commies, hippies, left-wing "extremists" liberals, feminists, the ACLU, the People For The American Way, labor unions...as if those groups are responsible for all the ills of today. And it just really pisses me off.

The reason YOU are on my ignore list is because you used the cute little cliches just one too many times on me, and it pissed me off. Rather than flame you and get in trouble, I protected myself by ignoring you. Your cute little comments on my job skills and experience, and my unemployment situation, and your apparent lack of any compassion...was enough to royally piss me off.

That is another thing that royally pisses me off about the right. They have no compassion, concern, or caring for those who happen to be down on their luck. To the right wing, it is almost as if you guys really believe that God is somehow punishing me for something I did, by making my life fall apart. You never stop to consider that SOME things, no matter WHAT you think...are beyond the control of someone who is down on their luck...and they are down on their luck through no real fault of their own.

It is the uncaring, cold, heartless, mean-spiritedness of the right that turns me off so badly. I cannot imagine being so cold, cruel, heartless and callous, as everyone on the right seems to be. I usually cannot listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh for more than five minutes before I am literally SCREAMING at the radio, that is how badly the guy pisses me off. And most right-wingers are getting their talking points right from Limbaugh.

They don't bother to fact-check, they just take the spin and propaganda, and present it as Gospel truth, and use it to back up their arguments, and never source an INDEPENDENT, trustworthy, and verifyable source.

How anyone can hold the types of opinions and ideals that the right does just absolutely flummoxes me. How can ANYONE be so mean, heartless, cruel?? Just because that is what the world is does not mean you have to INDULGE it!! Work to change it, and make the world a better, kinder, gentler place!

I know, now I am rambling here bit, but I think you can possibly understand where I am coming from. The right wing wants to stifle MY free expression, MY ability to think for myself, and to decide for myself...they want to take away MY freedoms and liberties, and they want to take away thing I value, because the thing I value frighten them. Well, too damn bad if it does. I am just as human as everyone else, and I damn well deserve the chance to live my life as I see fit, without interference, and without people trying to stop me from doing the things that make me happy (so long, of course, as those things to not ACTUALLY HARM someone else...or otherwise prevent them from seeking out the things that make THEM happy.) And sorry, but you don't have the right not to be offended, and so, if something that makes me happy offends you, then tough shit, deal with it, because I'm not hurting you, harming you, or preventing you from seeking out a different path.

It's all about choices...and it seems to me that the right wants to limit my choices, until I have nothing left but to choose the least rotten of available paths. They wanna take away from me the ability to choose my own path...if that path would truly make me happy, they want to deny me access to that path. I don't think the right-wing really WANTS people to be happy, independent...i think the right just wants people to be conformist and obedient...in short, to be good little mind-slaves, good little wage-slaves...and NEVER, EVER should we, the little people, ever challenge or question. We are not supposed to see or feel the chains with which you have shackled us...we are not supposed to see the bars of the cages in which you wish to lock all of us. We are not supposed to hope or dream...we are not supposed to believe a better way is even POSSIBLE...because that would threaten the structure on which they have built their power.

The problem is I SEE THE CHAINS, I SEE THE CAGES...they want to take away my individuality, they wanna take away my happiness, my ability to think, plan, dream, hope...I mean WHY the right so wants to control every tiniest aspect of other people's lives...I just don't get it, I don't understand it. Why do y'all hate people so much? I mean you MUST hate people if you want them in such a miserable existence!

Anyways, that is my rather long-winded rant on the right, and why I so cannot stand them. They are the antithesis of everything I define myself to be. They want to make me into what I am not. they want me to be miserable, and they don't want me to think for myself...or to have hopes or dreams. They wanna keep me enslaved, body, mind, and soul. I refuse to play that game.

In many symbolic ways, and in many other ways less symbolic, and in some cases, pretty drastic...I have effectively thrown off the shackles, the cages, the chains...and declared myself independent of them....and have vowed that none would ever again impose them upon me. I am a non-conformist, I refuse to give in to the status quo and just accept it, with all it's faults. I will work till my dying breath to remake the world in my image, and it will be a far better place to live, if I am successful. It will be a place of kindness, cooperation, love, peace, joy, non-competitiveness....it will be a place in which everyone has enough, and no one has too much (especially when those who have too much REFUSE to share.)

So...am I a hippie? A commie? A liberal? Well, if you define a hippie, a commie, or a liberal....as someone who wants a fairer, kinder, gentler, more loving world in which to live and love, then I not only am a hippie, commie, and a liberal, but I am PROUD to be a hippie, a commie, and a liberal.

Michael Moore is a.... DOUCHE BAG

There's no such thing as peaceful liberation. Countries don't come about to democracy without revolution, civil war, and other such events.
Let me re-phrase my comment. I was against the forced "liberation" (occupation) of Iraq. The US chose to "liberate" (occupy) Iraq with the use of brute force, against the will of the people. The US believed that Iraqis would welcome their "liberators" (occupiers) with open arms. This has not been the case and represents why Iraq is in a state of turmoil.

Secondly, I've yet to hear from an Iraqi who isn't incredibly glad Saddam is gone.
Do you hear from Iraqis often? The fact remains that a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave as soon as possible.

The problem Iraqis - and lots of other people have - is a lack of patience.
How much patience would you have with an occupying force in Washington, especially if there is daily regimen of death and destruction?

The fact that we have to stay in Iraq for years is not something either the Iraqis, or ourselves, like to admit to.
It doesn't stop the US from building "enduring" military bases in Iraq, or hijacking their economy?

It'd be great if we could have toppled Saddam and left the country,
But that was not part of the plan? That is why Bremer's Orders were written, and why the US is building "enduring" military bases.

but the insurgency itself shows why we couldn't do that.
The insurgency is a clear demonstration to how the US miscalculated Iraqi resistance to being "westernized".

In fact, that is one of the main reasons we didn't simply send the SAS or Delta Force in to take him out, or launch cruise missiles at his palaces.
The main reason that the US sent ground forces was to remove Saddam from power and then occupy the country.

BTW, the US did try to take out Saddam with cruise missiles. He was targeted right from the beginning based on available intel. The ground forces were going in no matter what:

War on Iraq begins (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2866109.stm)

US military sources have told the BBC that five key members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, were targeted in the first attacks.......

Reports quoting American military officials said planes had struck "targets of opportunity" which were thought to be occupied by elements of the Iraqi leadership.

US officials said Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter-bombers.

Though you ignored me, I"m going to state this anyway. By ignoring the otherside, you will miss most of a debate and only see those that you agree with. That is not how a proper debator acts. A proper debator listens to what the other side says (provided it is well thought out) and respond in a like manner (provided that no flames are issued)! You just can't debate with those that you agree with then it isn't called debating. There are lefties on here that I can't stand but I still listen to what they have to say. And after awhile, though we hardly agree on anything, certain things become jokes among us all.

Do try to listen to the otherside. I listen to the other side all the time and on occassion even acknowledge that they have made a valid point and likewise, they acknowledge when I make a valid point.

By not listening to us on the right, you might miss something that is coherent and accurate.

Thank you.
So with that said, I encourage you to go back a couple pages (I have it set for 40 posts/page) and read my little debate with Mesatacala. Even though he's on your side, I'm sure you might have a laugh at it. And that is also why now I don't take for granted my hearty, wholesome debates with you or Eutrusca and the rest of the reasonable conservatives here.

True, which is why I read posts from people like you and Eutrasca, and then decide why I disagree with you. ;)
When I left this last night, it was still pretty civil. A few pages ago, this was close to decending into a flame war, though it seems to have cooled off. Can I suggest that everyone remains calm?

<rather obviously not a mod, though>

I agree with this statement. I don't care if you disagree with me. That's part of life. I'd be concerned if everyone agrees on everything :D

Clever man. I am sure he can justify it in a different light. Makes him sleep better a night

A proper debater cannot debate properly when they are pissed off, and the right has an innate ability to piss me off, even just by BREATHING the right pisses me off. Why? Because they do not think for themselves...

Talk about not thinking for themselves. Not my fault that you disagree with us. I don't care if you disagree but getting mad when someone voices an opinion (as you have a habit of doing) isn't conducive to a proper debate either. I see things on here all the time that boil my blood but I guess since I'm used to it, it doesn't effect me as it once did.

The best thing to do is to not let it bother you. If someone has a different opinion then you, who cares.

they take their talking points and marching orders and propaganda from the RNC, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc, and then go and mouth-breathe them everywhere!

Actually, I get my news from a variety of sources and not all of them from conservative sources.

Right-wingers, in my opinion, are incapable of independent thought...they have to be told what to think, say, believe...and they go spouting off their propaganda and cute little cliches as if they actually said something either true or intelligent.

I can say the samething regarding the left however it is just as false as this statement you just made. Nice Ad homin.

And when you call them on it, they cannot defend it, but rather start mouth-breathing about Commies, hippies, left-wing "extremists" liberals, feminists, the ACLU, the People For The American Way, labor unions...as if those groups are responsible for all the ills of today. And it just really pisses me off.

And when you call the left on something your labeled as a right wing religious nut. Labels mean nothing. Its something we toss about because we have nothing better to do in our spare time. Much like argueing online.

The reason YOU are on my ignore list is because you used the cute little cliches just one too many times on me, and it pissed me off.

Really? Funny. I do that to several people and so far, your really the only one that has me on ignore. No one else seems to have a problem with cliche's so how come you do? And what cute little cliches are you talking about?

Rather than flame you and get in trouble, I protected myself by ignoring you. Your cute little comments on my job skills and experience, and my unemployment situation, and your apparent lack of any compassion...was enough to royally piss me off.

Sorry but a person your age shouldn't be living at home. A person your age should've made the right choice by getting job retraining instead of turning it down. You made the choice so yes, it is your fault for the situation your in. Sorry for telling the truth but there you have it. If this offends you then I guess what they say about you lefties is true. You can't stomach the truth.

That is another thing that royally pisses me off about the right. They have no compassion, concern, or caring for those who happen to be down on their luck.

Actually I do. Why? Because my mother's side of the family has been there. That's right. My mom's side of the family was on welfare. Guess what? They are no longer on welfare. Why? Because they worked their tales off to get to where they are today.

To the right wing, it is almost as if you guys really believe that God is somehow punishing me for something I did, by making my life fall apart. You never stop to consider that SOME things, no matter WHAT you think...are beyond the control of someone who is down on their luck...and they are down on their luck through no real fault of their own.

In this case, the fault is entirely your own because you declined job retraining and other choices that were offered. You do have no one to blame but yourself so stop trying to pin it on others. If you have accepted what they have offered, you wouldn't be in this mess. I believe someone else has already told you this.

It is the uncaring, cold, heartless, mean-spiritedness of the right that turns me off so badly. I cannot imagine being so cold, cruel, heartless and callous, as everyone on the right seems to be. I usually cannot listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh for more than five minutes before I am literally SCREAMING at the radio, that is how badly the guy pisses me off. And most right-wingers are getting their talking points right from Limbaugh.

Not me. I can't stand his radio commentary. I don't listen to Rush because he does go over the top.

They don't bother to fact-check, they just take the spin and propaganda, and present it as Gospel truth, and use it to back up their arguments, and never source an INDEPENDENT, trustworthy, and verifyable source.

Interesting. The left is guilty of the samething. I've seen it but then, your on the left so I guess you don't see it.

How anyone can hold the types of opinions and ideals that the right does just absolutely flummoxes me. How can ANYONE be so mean, heartless, cruel?? Just because that is what the world is does not mean you have to INDULGE it!! Work to change it, and make the world a better, kinder, gentler place!

Because its a doggie dog world perhaps? Danger lurks everywhere and we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend its not there. Unlike the left.

I know, now I am rambling here bit, but I think you can possibly understand where I am coming from. The right wing wants to stifle MY free expression, MY ability to think for myself, and to decide for myself...they want to take away MY freedoms and liberties, and they want to take away thing I value, because the thing I value frighten them.

100% incorrect on all counts. Nice job!

Well, too damn bad if it does. I am just as human as everyone else, and I damn well deserve the chance to live my life as I see fit, without interference, and without people trying to stop me from doing the things that make me happy (so long, of course, as those things to not ACTUALLY HARM someone else...or otherwise prevent them from seeking out the things that make THEM happy.)

It'll be a cold day in hell before someone tells me how to run my life.

And sorry, but you don't have the right not to be offended, and so, if something that makes me happy offends you, then tough shit, deal with it, because I'm not hurting you, harming you, or preventing you from seeking out a different path.

Then take your own damn advice. If I said something to offend you, to damn bad. Welcome to the US where we can say whatever the hell we want provided it doesn't incite a riot.

It's all about choices...and it seems to me that the right wants to limit my choices, until I have nothing left but to choose the least rotten of available paths. They wanna take away from me the ability to choose my own path...if that path would truly make me happy, they want to deny me access to that path. I don't think the right-wing really WANTS people to be happy, independent...

This isn't true by any stretches of the imagination.

i think the right just wants people to be conformist and obedient...in short, to be good little mind-slaves, good little wage-slaves...and NEVER, EVER should we, the little people, ever challenge or question.

Sounds like the left to me.

We are not supposed to see or feel the chains with which you have shackled us...we are not supposed to see the bars of the cages in which you wish to lock all of us. We are not supposed to hope or dream...we are not supposed to believe a better way is even POSSIBLE...because that would threaten the structure on which they have built their power.

Again sounds like the left. Alwell.

The problem is I SEE THE CHAINS, I SEE THE CAGES...they want to take away my individuality, they wanna take away my happiness, my ability to think, plan, dream, hope...I mean WHY the right so wants to control every tiniest aspect of other people's lives...I just don't get it, I don't understand it. Why do y'all hate people so much? I mean you MUST hate people if you want them in such a miserable existence!

Incorrect again. Jeez, your striking out all over in this post aren't you?

Anyways, that is my rather long-winded rant on the right, and why I so cannot stand them. They are the antithesis of everything I define myself to be. They want to make me into what I am not. they want me to be miserable, and they don't want me to think for myself...or to have hopes or dreams. They wanna keep me enslaved, body, mind, and soul. I refuse to play that game.

Sounds like the left. Just be who you are. I'm who I am and no one can do a damn thing about it. We are all individuals and that is how it should be.

In many symbolic ways, and in many other ways less symbolic, and in some cases, pretty drastic...I have effectively thrown off the shackles, the cages, the chains...and declared myself independent of them....and have vowed that none would ever again impose them upon me. I am a non-conformist, I refuse to give in to the status quo and just accept it, with all it's faults. I will work till my dying breath to remake the world in my image, and it will be a far better place to live, if I am successful. It will be a place of kindness, cooperation, love, peace, joy, non-competitiveness....it will be a place in which everyone has enough, and no one has too much (especially when those who have too much REFUSE to share.)

Sounds like a socialist regime. Anyway, good luck with this. I doubt it'll happen since the world is unpredictable. I doubt it'll happen because there are people out there that hate peace (Iran, north korea, etc). And people hate taxes so good luck with that as well.

So with that said, I encourage you to go back a couple pages (I have it set for 40 posts/page) and read my little debate with Mesatacala. Even though he's on your side, I'm sure you might have a laugh at it. And that is also why now I don't take for granted my hearty, wholesome debates with you or Eutrusca and the rest of the reasonable conservatives here.

I did read it and I wanted to tell him but I couldn't do that without flaming him. Be advised that not all of us are like him.

I doubt it'll happen because there are people out there that hate peace (Iran, north korea, etc).

Good to know you've got your finger on the pulse of millions of people you've never met, Corneliu.

You'd make a fabulous marketing exec.

Oh come on! Genetic modification is the way of the future. Imagine extremely high yields and locust resistent crops that can solve world hunger. Those hippies and eco-terrorists are just holding back progress.
But they’re untested!!! NOOOOOOSSS!!21!!11112!! WE MIGHT MUTATES IF WE EATS THEMSS!!!111!!!!121!! FRANKY FOOOOODD!!1!11!! AHHHHHHHHH!!H!@@!@1@@!@@21212`1

On a side note, Corneliu, you are a credit to your ideology.

WOW! I never thought I'd receive a compliment from you Ubershizasianaxis. Thank you :)

*hands you a cookie*

I also respect you as well. Your right that we don't agree on alot of things but at least your respectful leftie who listens. Keep it up :)

*Takes the cookie and devours it* :D

No thank you!

Hey Mesa, I am still not suspended! Next time, show a little respect and courtesy and people might actually listen to you! But until you change, you will always be a faggot to me! :p

....Yeah, I am feeling happy at the moment.

Let me re-phrase my comment. I was against the forced "liberation" (occupation) of Iraq. The US chose to "liberate" (occupy) Iraq with the use of brute force, against the will of the people. The US believed that Iraqis would welcome their "liberators" (occupiers) with open arms. This has not been the case and represents why Iraq is in a state of turmoil.

Fair enough. My belief is our only error was not taking Saddam out in '91, but that's under the bridge by now.

Do you hear from Iraqis often? The fact remains that a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave as soon as possible.

I have yet to see a single Iraqi who wants anything other than swift and assured death for Saddam. I did not claim any of them wanted anything other than the coalition to be out, but I also said they need to learn the virtue of patience.

How much patience would you have with an occupying force in Washington, especially if there is daily regimen of death and destruction?

That'd depend on who the occupying force was, why I believed they were there, and who was causing the death and destruction. If there was no National Guard, Washington PD, and no equivalent organisations except those being trained by my occupiers, I doubt I'd like it but I'd like to think I could recognize the necessity of them. And if the ones causing the death and destruction were Americans, I'd hardly be able to blame the Brits of the Chinese or whoever was occupying the US for it.

It doesn't stop the US from building "enduring" military bases in Iraq, or hijacking their economy?

Oh Christ. You're one of those people who isn't aware one of the meanings of 'enduring' suggests that the US wants to build strong bases.

But that was not part of the plan? That is why Bremer's Orders were written, and why the US is building "enduring" military bases.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. At all. To clarify, I said that it'd be great if we could have killed Saddam and left; this obviously implies that that was impossible.

The insurgency is a clear demonstration to how the US miscalculated Iraqi resistance to being "westernized".

I don't see anyone attacking Iraqi mosques for the purpose of eradicating Islam. I don't see the relics of the Persians being melted down. I don't see anyone forcing Iraqis to buy the vast numbers of DVDs and the like which became available in Iraq after Saddam was toppled. No, actually, the only Westernization that's being done without the direct complicity of the Iraqis are the governmental proceedings, and 8 million voters - about a third of the country - seemed quite happy to lend their support to the motion.

The main reason that the US sent ground forces was to remove Saddam from power and then occupy the country.

No duh.

BTW, the US did try to take out Saddam with cruise missiles. He was targeted right from the beginning based on available intel. The ground forces were going in no matter what:

War on Iraq begins (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2866109.stm)

US military sources have told the BBC that five key members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, were targeted in the first attacks.......

Reports quoting American military officials said planes had struck "targets of opportunity" which were thought to be occupied by elements of the Iraqi leadership.

US officials said Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter-bombers.

It looks to me like everything you are saying is backing up my point. Yes, we tried to take Saddam out once we went to war. And yes, if we had succeeded we would still have taken over the country. Nobody is denying this. My point was that we couldn't destroy the regime and NOT occupy Iraq. How we actually went about trying to kill Saddam once the war started was largely irrellevant.

Funny about those lies.

Sorry to rain on your parade Kradlumania, but I beleive the full quote your looking for was as follows: "A federal judge Thursday threw out a libel and defamation lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore by the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul D. Borman ruled that statements Moore made about James Nichols in the 2002 "Bowling for Columbine" documentary were "factual and substantially true."

That's from ABCnews.com (yes i give my sources so people can check them and make sure that I'm not misrepresentting the facts to back up my argument like some people.) stating cleary that the judge ruled only on the particular comments in the film pertaining to the said plaintiff - certainly far from those of the entire "documentary". Shame you left all that out of your "quote"...

Won't deny this but most of those fled to Iran. Iran gave the pilots back after the war but not the planes. That's funny :p
CLARIFICATION: I meant French Fighter Jets, of course. :p

I have yet to see a single Iraqi who wants anything other than swift and assured death for Saddam. I did not claim any of them wanted anything other than the coalition to be out, but I also said they need to learn the virtue of patience.
And then there is those that care more about being able to keep their private enterprises going but can't. I saw a little bit on "foreign correspondent" (in Oz) a while ago about two brothers who had a successful business making all kinds of stuff out of wood. They have to close at noon now because the trouble came to their street too.
They couldn't give a shit about Saddam, they just wanted to feed their children and couldn't. They can't afford to be patient.

Oh Christ. You're one of those people who isn't aware one of the meanings of 'enduring' suggests that the US wants to build strong bases.
And you don't think that long-term military bases (replacements for those in the emirates and Saudi Arabia?) are part of their strategy for the middle east?

It looks to me like everything you are saying is backing up my point. Yes, we tried to take Saddam out once we went to war. And yes, if we had succeeded we would still have taken over the country. Nobody is denying this. My point was that we couldn't destroy the regime and NOT occupy Iraq. How we actually went about trying to kill Saddam once the war started was largely irrellevant.
I think it is generally accepted that this mess is the result of Rumsfeld and his goons not thinking before they acted. Their "transformation" doctrine is great if you want to win a war, but neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq was there enough thinking done about the post-war situation.
High Military Figures did say they needed several hundreds of thousands (the original US Army plans said something like 400,000 (?)) men on the ground. Rumsfeld didn't agree and took one unit off after the other - and this is the result.

Sorry to rain on your parade Kradlumania, but I beleive the full quote your looking for was as follows: "A federal judge Thursday threw out a libel and defamation lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore by the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul D. Borman ruled that statements Moore made about James Nichols in the 2002 "Bowling for Columbine" documentary were "factual and substantially true."

That's from ABCnews.com (yes i give my sources so people can check them and make sure that I'm not misrepresentting the facts to back up my argument like some people.) stating cleary that the judge ruled only on the particular comments in the film pertaining to the said plaintiff - certainly far from those of the entire "documentary". Shame you left all that out of your "quote"...
Dammit, I was afraid that was going to be the case.

Look, friends-if conservatives want to get all panty-in-a-bunch about Moore, hold him to a higher standard than they would people who appear in News mediums (film is not a News medium...) like Coulter or Limbaugh or O'Rielly or even the administration, fine. Let 'em. Baby needs thier bottle. If they want to think that Moore invented editing or staged shots have never been a part of documentary, fine. If they want to set up a standard for documentary that makes the only film that could be considered a legitimate documentary to be Empire by Andy Warhol-whatever. If they want to quibble about a gun in one day or two weeks in a film that stated that access to guns was not the problem-let them reveal that they are unable to understand the text or see the forest through the trees.

But don't do stupid shit like what just got caught up there. You don't need to.

Michael Moore goes a little too far on many issues, not really basing some of his ideas and actions on solid ground. Unfortunately this fact provides his targets and his critics with plenty of amunition, for when he really does make a great killer point.

I love his documentaries by the way.

Sorry but a person your age shouldn't be living at home. A person your age should've made the right choice by getting job retraining instead of turning it down. You made the choice so yes, it is your fault for the situation your in. Sorry for telling the truth but there you have it. If this offends you then I guess what they say about you lefties is true. You can't stomach the truth.

More example of why you are on my ignore list, and why you piss me off. You think I don't fucking KNOW that someone my age shouldn't be living at home?!?!? Do you think I LIKE having to live at home? Do you think this is what I wanted?!?! I mean, I'd intended to move back with my mom when she retired, only because I didn't want her to be alone then, and she is a widow, and I was, and intend on remaining, single. moving home THEN would have been a choice...not an economic force situation, which is what happened instead...and I ended up back home seven years sooner than I intended. With that came a loss of my independence, and my pride. You have no idea how much it hurt to have to move back home. And here you go rubbing it in my face, and making fun of me over it...and rubbing my face in my pain, and in my hurt pride...and you expect me to LIKE you after you do that to me??

Second...you are ASSUMING (wrongly) that I turned down job retraining...or that it was in fact ever even offered to me (it wasn't!) Do you think I would have turned down any form of assistance I could have gotten, in order to AVOID the indignity of having to move back home??

So no, IT IS NOT MY FAULT GODDAMN YOU...YOU ARE ASSUMING SHIT THAT ISN'T TRUE, WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT MY SITUATION, WHICH IS WHY YOU...AND CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOU...PISS ME THE FUCK OFF!!!

My mom's side of the family was on welfare. Guess what? They are no longer on welfare. Why? Because they worked their tales off to get to where they are today.

Hooray for them! Do you honestly think that I would not work my TAIL off, if I were just given a goddamn opportunity to do it?? No, I sit, eight hours a day, loooking through want ads, online job sites, making phone calls, emailing and faxing resumes...and fucking no one ever responds!! Do you have any fucking clue how frustrating the goddamn job market IS out there today?? No, I bet you fucking don't, or you'd have a little more compassion.

That is another thing about you conservatives that pisses me off, your attitude as though what has happened to me could NEVER happen to you. Bullshit. It could.

In this case, the fault is entirely your own because you declined job retraining and other choices that were offered. You do have no one to blame but yourself so stop trying to pin it on others. If you have accepted what they have offered, you wouldn't be in this mess. I believe someone else has already told you this.


Once again, you seem DETERMINED TO PISS ME OFF by making false accusations about a situation you know jack-shit about. Again, you have falsely assumed that job retraining was offered to me...and you have falsely assumed I turned it down. READ MY FUCKING LIPS....NO ONE HAS OFFERED ME JACK FUCKING SHIT!!! Does it get through now?? Is it clear yet?? What does it take to penetrate your abnormally high level of resistance to reality??

Because its a doggie dog world perhaps? Danger lurks everywhere and we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend its not there. Unlike the left.

The phrase is "dog-eat-dog world" And why is it that way?? SELFISHNESS, GREED, LACK OF COMPASSION FOR OTHERS!! We know that is the way it is, but we refuse to indulge it, and not fight it...we want to fight it and resist it, so that, maybe one day, it doesn't HAVE to be as goddamn hard and cruel as it is now!! Jesus, how many times do I have to repeat it before you finally get what we are about!?!?!

You have repeatedly made false assumptions about my situation, and you have levelled untrue accusations at me...and you have rubbed my face in my pain, by mocking it, and mocking my situation. that is why you were put on ignore. I took you off, briefly, but I see now that it was a mistake to do that, you are still the same old you, and so back to the list you go, goodbye and good riddance, I don't ever wanna see anything you write ever again.

I did read it and I wanted to tell him but I couldn't do that without flaming him. Be advised that not all of us are like him.

Yeah, right...sure you're not...

Good to know you've got your finger on the pulse of millions of people you've never met, Corneliu.

You'd make a fabulous marketing exec.


well, didn't you know Corneliu had a special insight into what I was offered, and what I did with what I was offered, too?

Didn't you know he knew more about my situation than I, myself, know about my own situation??

Didn't you know Corneliu is all-knowing, all-seeing, and omniscient and omnipotent??? (sarcsm off)

I don't really want to debate it.. I guess if someone comments I'll consider it..lol.

I just wanted to say;

Michael Moore Rocks! And if half the people loved their country as much as he loves his.. that would be amazing! Most people just don't get him. Because you're a BAD American heaven forbid you dissent!

*yawn*

{Edit} I voted Myrth, Myrth is fabulous, but the bias poll also left me no choice{/Edit}

More example of why you are on my ignore list, and why you piss me off. etc...
-snip-

O_o wooah man....I feel sorry for you......

But yeah Corneliu, your venturing into forbidden grounds and you're adding insult to injury so yeah.....lay off.

And then there is those that care more about being able to keep their private enterprises going but can't. I saw a little bit on "foreign correspondent" (in Oz) a while ago about two brothers who had a successful business making all kinds of stuff out of wood. They have to close at noon now because the trouble came to their street too.
They couldn't give a shit about Saddam, they just wanted to feed their children and couldn't. They can't afford to be patient.

Wait, why do they have to close at noon every day because there was trouble in their street? But whatever, sucks for them. I'm not about to pretend war is pretty and nobody gets hurt.

And you don't think that long-term military bases (replacements for those in the emirates and Saudi Arabia?) are part of their strategy for the middle east?

:headbang: I think it'd make sense, if they planned on staying in Iraq. But the bases being termed as 'enduring' is not proof of that. It could mean long-lasting, yes, but also that they're planning to hand them over the Iraqis once the Iraqis are well-trained (Which I believe is actually the plan.). But I tend to see the use of the word here implying strength and resiliance more than simply long-term.

I think it is generally accepted that this mess is the result of Rumsfeld and his goons not thinking before they acted. Their "transformation" doctrine is great if you want to win a war, but neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq was there enough thinking done about the post-war situation.
High Military Figures did say they needed several hundreds of thousands (the original US Army plans said something like 400,000 (?)) men on the ground. Rumsfeld didn't agree and took one unit off after the other - and this is the result.

Yeah, I can't deny it could have been done better, but none of that mean the thing itself was wrong.

Michael Moore Rocks! And if half the people loved their country as much as he loves his.. that would be amazing! Most people just don't get him. Because you're a BAD American heaven forbid you dissent!

No, I entirely get him. He's building a massive fortune out of lies and slander. He's stirring up dislike of political figures to that end, and he does so in completely innaccurate ways. For example, in Fahrenheit 9/11, he asks some senators whether they would send their kids to Iraq. One of those he asked doesn't have children (Michael Castle (R-Delaware).). Numerous senators do have children in the military, but none of them have the power to choose where they are deployed. So they don't work for Moore's purposes. Some are above the rank of 'enlisted man', and so Moore doesn't count them.

And I don't believe people who dissent are bad whatevernationtheylivein, but I believe people who dissent based on massive fabrications, who use sensationalism, who can't actually seem to make up their minds (I'm still not sure what he's saying about guns in BFC. Except for the lies he tells. But I don't know to what end, because he doesn't appear to actually have a target/scapegoat.) on the very causes he champions, and who has done nothing outside of ad hominem attacks on the President for some years now, well, then I do have a problem.

Almost all of the valid issues Moore raises are obfusicated by his bombastic sensationalism and his giant neon hat which has big arrows point down and plays the words 'Me me me!' as loudly as is possible without making his own ears bleed.

One drop of nonlibel in an OCEAN of his bullshit.


Funny about those lies.

There is a whole friggin industry to debunking Moore Moorelies.com Moorewatch.com Bowliingfortruth.com michaelmoorehatesamerica.com WHY? Because he spews that much crap. Those on the left should really be up in arms more so than the right because you all get painted with the same brush of bullshit.


And your's isn't? That website is not exactly unbiased, either.

CLARIFICATION: I meant French Fighter Jets, of course. :p

I guess because they were french fighter jets, it's no surprise that they ran :p

O_o wooah man....I feel sorry for you......

But yeah Corneliu, your venturing into forbidden grounds and you're adding insult to injury so yeah.....lay off.

Sorry, but I hate it when people blame the powers that be for their troubles when they have no control over it. That pisses me off.

Lyric, I apologize!

Well the new constitution will be based on Islamic law what the US "made then have was an INTERIM constitution. I'm not 100% in agreement with the US war in Iraq. I believe the war was started to divert the men and assests of extremist Muslims to a place outside CONUS so they could be dealt with simply and effectivly. I think this has been and will remain the reason for the war in Iraq, I'm sorry that Iraqi's are suffering for US security but being honest better there than here.


My only question is...if we were REALLY there to "liberate Iraq," then why will we not let them have the kind of Government the majority there have stated that they want...which is a Constitution based upon Islamic Law?

Why will we only allow them to have a government WE approve of...if our goal was to liberate them...rather than to exploit them for their resources (oil) and use them as a staging area for further empire-building?

The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they know what we are really about, and they have made it clear that they want us gone in short order, and they want their country back.

If we truly wanted to liberate them, rather than enslave them ourselves...we would allow them to form any sort of government they wanted...whether or not we approved of the government they set up for themselves.

They are not stupid, they know we want to enslave them, not liberate them.

(I'm still not sure what he's saying about guns in BFC.

For the record: I'm British, I don't know much about US right vs Left Politics or Politicians and I refuse to be drawn into a debate on the Iraqi war, it is a subject too recent and too emotional to engage in a reasonable debate.

Michael Moore is good at his job, as in he is good at stirring sh1t up and getting touchy subjects some press attention. I agree with almost everything he says but also acknowledge that he is a sensationalist. The thing is, I am willing to accept that sensationalism is a necesary evil.

What he was trying to say about guns in BFC was that having guns isn't wrong or dangerous in itself. But having them in a nation so scared and paranoid IS dangerous. And I totally agree with him. I don't think kids in America would go around slaughtering each other if the media wasn't so focussed on death and disaster, if politicians weren't ignoring education and weren't weapons dealers! Like MM pointed out, there are guns lying around in Canada, but the people trust each other and teenagers aren't so overlooked. I also thought Marilyn Manson was fantastic in BFC, so articulate and honest. See, he's a sensationalist in his own way and it is great entertainment while making a point. I think that's a good thing :-)

We need both educated and informed, measured and intelligent debate, AND we need brazen, proud and extrovert social commentaries in order to engage a wide audience in the issues that are crucial to the social development of society.

-edit-
P.S. Documentaries are always biased, no one would make a documentary if they didn't have something to say. MM's films ARE documentaries, they document real events and examine them. He may not always be accurate, he may use common techniques for getting his point across, but that is what the documentary business is all about!