An Open Letter from Michael Moore to George "I'm a War President!" Bush

[Oblivion437]

With what's at stake, I don't want to wait that long. The future of our country, and the world is on the line, and very immediate danger to everyone on the planet is pressing. I want more data to compute the Censored solution!

[ 02-22-2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Larry_OHF]

Oblivion437, there are two profane words that are not allowed on this forum, and that was one of them.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: With what's at stake, I don't want to wait that long. The future of our country, and the world is on the line, and very immediate danger to everyone on the planet is pressing. I want more data to compute the Censored solution!

Consider yourself lucky Oblivion, that Larry got to this first. DON'T do it again.

[Timber Loftis]

Bush is a hypocrite and thats what Moore is picking up on. Clinton was not a hypocrite in sleeping with Lewinski to my mind - maybe he shouldn't have done it but I don't think he was a hypocrite for doing it.

This is coming from a Clinton supporter:

1. Clinton was not hypocritical until he said, and I quote, "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman." This was perjury, and he paid the price.

2. To show Bush's hypocricy would require showing his belief was false, he knew it was false, and that he went ahead and stated it anyway. This can't be shown. We all basically tought Saddam had WMD. Heck the UN stated Saddam had WMD several several times. Saddam agreed to a cease fire in which he ADMITTED he had WMD and AFFIRMED he would get rid of them. He actually USED WMD on the Kurds (mustard gas). He NEVER showed proof of disarmament, and I for one was not willing to believe he pulled a bund of "secret disarmaments" and did not inform the UN -- particularly since he was wiley enough to call every news station on the planet when he made the piddly gesture of cutting up a few SCUDs in an attempt to avoid US invasion. In short, becuase it was a reasonable belief shared by many, no one will ever be able to prove Bush intentionally lied. There is a difference between a reasonable mistake and a lie.

I do get sick and frikking tired of repeating the same frikking argument. And I hope "frikking" is not one of the prohibited words. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 02-23-2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I also don't remember Mr. Moore asking Clinton any "probing questions" about Monica Lewinsky, White Water, or any number of other issues which caused controversy during Clinton's 8 years in office. If he really wants to earn my respect, then let's see him subject liberals to the same satirical microscope he uses for conservatives.

I remember MM bashing the Clinton administration for the Kosovo war and their welfare-to-work program in "Bowling for Columbine" as well as in "The Awful Truth".
I also remember him making fun of "The man from Hope" in TV Nation, because he claimed that Clinton spend far more of his youth in a nearby "party-town".
I remember him picking on Clinton's secretary of Defense for being a wuss (and he was a heart-bleeding liberal).
And I remember him using equally ridiculing wording in describing the Presidential candidates during the last election in his famous "Moshpit" episode.
MM is not a comedian, he's a political activist. And as such it's perfectly understandable that as a lefty he's picking on the "righties" more often. Yet he has shown that when he disagrees with the stuff "his" left-wingers pull, he's there to give it to them too.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Bush is a hypocrite and thats what Moore is picking up on. Clinton was not a hypocrite in sleeping with Lewinski to my mind - maybe he shouldn't have done it but I don't think he was a hypocrite for doing it.

This is coming from a Clinton supporter:

1. Clinton was not hypocritical until he said, and I quote, "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman." This was perjury, and he paid the price.

2. To show Bush's hypocricy would require showing his belief was false, he knew it was false, and that he went ahead and stated it anyway. This can't be shown. We all basically tought Saddam had WMD. Heck the UN stated Saddam had WMD several several times. Saddam agreed to a cease fire in which he ADMITTED he had WMD and AFFIRMED he would get rid of them. He actually USED WMD on the Kurds (mustard gas). He NEVER showed proof of disarmament, and I for one was not willing to believe he pulled a bund of "secret disarmaments" and did not inform the UN -- particularly since he was wiley enough to call every news station on the planet when he made the piddly gesture of cutting up a few SCUDs in an attempt to avoid US invasion. In short, becuase it was a reasonable belief shared by many, no one will ever be able to prove Bush intentionally lied. There is a difference between a reasonable mistake and a lie.

I do get sick and frikking tired of repeating the same frikking argument. And I hope "frikking" is not one of the prohibited words. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Timber you're getting mighty annoyed about having to repeat this argument but I have stated why I disagree with it. I don't think George Bush made an innocent mistake, I think he lied. Of course if he did just make a reasonable mistake then of course my argument falls down, but please don't assume that I don't know that. I've said before and I'll say again - I understand your argument. Now calm the hell down and come to terms with the fact that just because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand your argument.

[Timber Loftis]

Now calm the hell down and come to terms with the fact that just because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean I don't understand your argument.

Ummm.... Okay.

So long as we recognize the fact that you think he outright lied, which will be REALLY hard to prove, I'm fine with it. Sorry for boiling over. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

As I said above, I recognise that its not perjury unless he lied. I just think that he did. I'm basing that on the fact that he was convinced of the need to go to war and would have done anything to persuade the public to support it. I know its hard to prove, but I'm not trying to prove it. Just pointing out that in my opinion lying about not sleeping with someone when you did is small fry as compared to lying about intelligence in order to go to war. If he hasn't lied about it then I've still got a lot else to throw at him...

And don't get me wrong, I'm no great fan of Clinton either. I just think the whole perjury issue in this instance is so completely irrelevant to his ability to govern.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I also don't remember Mr. Moore asking Clinton any "probing questions" about Monica Lewinsky, White Water, or any number of other issues which caused controversy during Clinton's 8 years in office. If he really wants to earn my respect, then let's see him subject liberals to the same satirical microscope he uses for conservatives.

I remember MM bashing the Clinton administration for the Kosovo war and their welfare-to-work program in "Bowling for Columbine" as well as in "The Awful Truth".
I also remember him making fun of "The man from Hope" in TV Nation, because he claimed that Clinton spend far more of his youth in a nearby "party-town".
I remember him picking on Clinton's secretary of Defense for being a wuss (and he was a heart-bleeding liberal).
And I remember him using equally ridiculing wording in describing the Presidential candidates during the last election in his famous "Moshpit" episode.
MM is not a comedian, he's a political activist. And as such it's perfectly understandable that as a lefty he's picking on the "righties" more often. Yet he has shown that when he disagrees with the stuff "his" left-wingers pull, he's there to give it to them too. [/QUOTE]Then perhaps I was too hasty in my judgement. Who knows, if I ever have the time to look at his self-serving drivel and find out that he does slam the left almost as hard as the right (only not as often), I may even have to upgrade his status from "intolerable" to "somewhat tolerable buffoon". [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

In case you can't tell, I have a hard time giving Michael Moore credit for anything other than being able to tie his own shoes. And I don't have irrefutable proof that he can do that. But he has rubbed me the wrong way ever since he came into the public spotlight in the early 80's. He has always struck me as something of a whiner that likes to ridicule the policies and decisions of others, but doesn't offer any viable alternatives to those policies or decisions himself.

The cold hard fact is that I cannot give Michael Moore a fair evaluation because I have never liked his sarcastic satirism or his eternal whining and I really doubt I ever would - even if he were actually making a legitimate argument.

The same holds true with Rush Limbaugh. He actually has some good points in his commentary from time to time - or at least I assume he does - but he can't say "Good Morning" without spewing some hateful, vitriolic remark about the Democrats in the same breath. So his personal antics negate any valid points his commentary might actually contain.

[Faceman]

I've noticed that he doesn't do a lot, but to be honest there's not a lot you can do.
Politics nowadays have separated from the people so far, that there's only two possibilities to get to the top (i.e. a position where you can change things).
1.) MONEY!
2.) Join a party and spend years doing exactly those things, you actually want to change, before you finally get into the position not to change them because that would be hypocritical.

If you're not prepared to take one of these paths I think it's a fruitful task to annoy the hell out of people to prove your point.
You don't need to be a chef to recognize a burnt steak.