<font color=deepskyblue>Ok....if you boys are finished trying to prove who has the bigger font, can we get back to a calmer manner of discussion please? ;) :D </font>

But...but.... TL used the big font first!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] ;)

Seriously, Im not trying to elevate the discussion beyond calm so I will avoid using the big font going forward. [img]smile.gif[/img]

NS - I only talk about Moore being a Communist as Cerek said one of the things he didn't like about him was the fact that he had no positive program. I was pointing out that he actually did, but for obvious reasons (reasons I disagree with but still obvious ones) he is a little reticient about talking openly about it.

I read the second of those two links and frankly wasn't all that impressed by their arguments. They claim that he is factually inaccurate, however they then merely state what he lies about with no supporting evidence to show they are correct. A good example is their claim that Moore lies about Bush's campaign funding - they just say that he is obviously lying and don't back that up with anything. Its understandable, although not ideal, that extensive factual sources aren't present in a documentary, but to miss them out of a web column dedicated to subverting spin is a bit daft. Or possibly just lazy, either way its not good.

Secondly they claim that he is contradicting himself on the issue of gun crime by not giving a complete answer. My point above applies here - Moore wants to lead people to the answer, not just shout it at them. My interpretation of the film was that he thought capitalism and the media were responsible, ultimately capitalism being behind the media's decisions. To say he is contradicting himself by calling for gun restrictions and also saying they're not the full answer is either laughably stupid or deliberately being obtuse in order to attack him. I too think gun restrictions are imperative, but they're not going to solve the issue of a high murder rate by themselves. They have to be part of a lot of reforms, and ultimately revoution in my mind (and Moore's too I think).

Phew... errr... hope all that makes sense. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Chewbacca, it's real simple:

Saddam agreed to disarm. We knew he had chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds. He signed cease fire agreements saying he had WMD and SCUDS and he'd get rid of them. He never got rid of them, or if he did he did it secretly without documentation (an unlikely event).

What Hans Blix could or could not find spoke, at the time, more to Saddam's noncooperation than to the actual nonexistence of the weapons.

At the time, I actually believed he had WMD, based on hearing the administration's position and on my own independent research. I'm not going to call out the President for his belief when I think it was reasonable, based on the fact that I shared it. Democratic members of Congress may do this, but I will not.

Interesting Chewie, Please explain how the decision President Bush made is any different then the decision you seem to have arrived at? I mean in the first quote you post: You seam to have disreguarded the last part of Mr. Blix's statement: "However, that possibility is also not excluded." Did you both not look at the evidence that was before you and come to a conclusion, even through there is clearly a caveat of dissenting opinion in the evidence?

As for the released intel. info. while that maybe concidered a deception, which is part of the duties of the intel community, I don't see any evidence put forth that President Bush ordered the release of the publicly released info. without any dissenting views. If you have evidence please present it, or "Hale" give it to the Congressional committees that will be or are soon to be examining this matter. ;) :D

You seam to have disreguarded the last part of Mr. Blix's statement: "However, that possibility is also not excluded." Did you both not look at the evidence that was before you and come to a conclusion, even through there is clearly a caveat of dissenting opinion in the evidence?

As for the released intel. info. while that maybe concidered a deception, which is part of the duties of the intel community, I don't see any evidence put forth that President Bush ordered the release of the publicly released info. without any dissenting views. If you have evidence please present it, or "Hale" give it to the Congressional committees that will be or are soon to be examining this matter. ;) :D </font>[/QUOTE]Please clarify this "decision" I have made. From what I can tell, I havent disregarded anything.

Other quotes not used for breivities sake but can be found in the above posts
Chewie I quote your links and words:

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._intel100.html WASHINGTON — The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows. What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to President Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most-important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

There is a difference between a reasonable mistake and a<font size = 16> mistake made in haste while ignoring relevant informed opinions- a stupid avoidable mistake!</font> Leaving out the caveats and dissenting opinions about Iraqs WMD from the public version of the intel report is a<font size = 16> deception </font>

You may want Bush and Co. to have simply made a 'reasonable mistake' but that assessment defies reason and the facts. </font>[/QUOTE]Your Assessment that President Bush's actions where not a "reasonalble mistake"
but defies reason and the facts. Is a decision, as is the statement you went to the trouble and effort to post in large font size. I don't give a rats rear end if you come to a decision and ignor an opposing caveat or not. "Hale" I ignor opposing caveats all the time, it's called making a judgement call. But if you ever hope to convince anybody that truely wishes to be intelectually honest, don't even try to condemn sombody's actions for ignoring opposing caveats while ignoring opposing caveats yourself. Which is the intended result of your post in the attempt to use the quote by Mr. Blix to say there where no WoMD, or evidence of their exisistance, when Mr. Blix also CLEARLY says: "However, that possibility is also not excluded." Meaning there could be WoMD's present, because the possibility is also NOT excluded. In order for the logic you have tried to put forth, that the quoted Mr. Blix proves there were no WoMD's, and President Bush willfully ignored those facts, can not exist with out willfully ignoring the fact Mr. Blix said the WoMD's could be there.
As for me I try to apply the same standards to myself as I apply to everybody else, but that's just me. Each of us can do as they wish I don't care, but I will oppose and expose any double standard that I see, my decision, and my decision alone, I'll gladly bear the concequences(sp?) of that choice/decision/judgement call.

Nice post John D. However, as for Chewie using the large font size, I 'll defend him a bit by saying he was parodying me. I apologize because I started it.

Insinuations of intellectual honesty aside...I think it all boils down to a matter of perception of what a reasonable mistake is and what makes up a deception.

One person looking at one set of information comes to one conclusion, another person looking at another set of information comes to another.
And so on and so on...


And as for the large font size, I was taking a poke at the style, trying it on for size ;) .
It doesn't suit me though, I think my opinions are loud and clear enough with out it!

If what you say is true and he is a communist and doesn't come out and say it/tries to hide it. Then I'll have to tip my hat to you Barry, for you have done something I thunked was damn near impossible: lower MM I my estimation, If you don't have the stones to come out and say what you are, you deserve nearly zero respect. In the Democratic primaries Howard Dean at least didn't try to hide he was a liberal, he got my respect for that, my vote is a differant matter. I respect former President Carter, policialy I don't agree with him on anything. and hope I never/rarely ever do. Respecting somebody as a person and agreeing/beleiving in/supportting their ideas are two entirerly differant things and are not mutualy exclusive or inclusive.