Go to Fahrenheit 911 - pros and cons
- Add a comment
- Go to (No subject)
My eyes are wide open. Thank you very much. That why I can see Bush for the a pile of poo that he is.
posted by
Shavonne
on January 18, 2005 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Shavonne wrote in part, " Amazing how you can defend Bush. Just amazing." Why, thank you!
Nothing to it, really, just an honest look at the truth. Open your mind and look at the facts, like you liberals demand we conservatives do, and you can defend him too.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 16, 2005 at 5:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, shavonne, you're on. Bush did send American soldiers into harm's way. And what do you call terrorism, be it against America, Israel or anyone else?
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 14, 2005 at 6:24 PM
| link to this | reply
hello
posted by
Star5_
on January 14, 2005 at 6:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Amazing how you can defend Bush. Just amazing. Aside from that fat f-ck Moore, Bush sent troops into harms way, Moore didn't. Bush is a much bigger scum sucking s.o.b than Moore will ever be.
posted by
Shavonne
on January 13, 2005 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Amazing how you can defend Bush. Just amazing. Aside from that fat f-ck Moore, Bush sent troops into harms way, Moore didn't. Bush is a much bigger scum sucking s.o.b than Moore will ever be.
posted by
Shavonne
on January 13, 2005 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you for reading!
I think I’m justified in asking about blood on Michael Moore’s hands, given how often I’ve heard the same accusation leveled at President Bush. If the President is accused of having blood on his hands for leading the war, then Moore has blood on his for encouraging our enemies.
Damon, we’re not a bunch of “blinkered,” unquestioning robots on this side of the pond. Never have been. I think our sending King George’s redcoats packing a couple of centuries back is ample evidence of the independent attitude that still is in place today. Questioning is in our blood.
What I don’t understand is how liberals can accuse conservatives of being blinkered (I love that term, thanks for introducing me to it!). We of all people are constantly questioning what goes on around us. So I think you and I are very much alike here. I think we should all ask lots of questions. What sets us apart is the answers we arrive at.
You postulated that the Bush administration wants war, and that the whole scenario you suggest is murky. Indeed, it is, as is any other form of utter confusion and obfuscation of fact. As for the President and his team, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about, as witnessed by the fact that the Vice President broke all ties with Halliburton years ago. This in not to mention the fact that former president Clinton also did a lot of business with Halliburton. Why? Because, as in so many other cases, this American business is the very best in their field. And I know of a rather portly filmmaker who has made a far tidier profit than anyone in government from the war – and who is a lot more intimately involved with your Carlyle Group bogeyman than the President .
As far as rationale for the war goes: WMD, conceded. But the issue there now is finding out why the whole free world’s intelligence was wrong. But you are wrong on the other two. You forget that the President vowed to go after governments that aided and abetted terrorism and terrorists, wherever they are. That’s precisely what he did in sacking Saddam. And how ironic for you to accuse the Bush administration of lining its pockets, in light of the $28,000,000,000 oil-for-“food” scandal that Saddam ran, nothing less than the biggest financial scandal ever.
Starr4all, when I said the movie is a good movie I was addressing the skill with which it was made. Moore had an objective, and he very skillfully works his audience’s emotions to achieve it through the way he produced the movie, even though the content of the movie is largely outright false or yanked out of context.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 13, 2005 at 7:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Indeed, Movies...
...don't kill, so no movie director can be said to have blood on his hands.
And I agree that the film's purpose was not to say what's right and what's wrong. It's primary purpose was to make a blinkered, Foxed-out American public sit up and question, just for once, what is being done in their name.
Now, when you write "Anyone can stand in front of a crowd and claim to support the troops. But when those words are contradicted by other words and actions that do, wish or enable harm to them, they are meaningless" that sounds a lot like George W.Bush, being all rah-rah about the war but then failing to equip the troops properly. Is this who you were referring to?
When you say "No one wants war" you're presumably not talkinmg about the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld crowd, who definitely do want war because it's making them all some very tidy sums, thank you very much. Cheney through haliburton, specifically, and the Bush family through the Carlyle Group, which is mainly concerned with supplying arms, on whose board Daddy Bush sits, and which is heavily financed by the Saudis and, specifically, the bin Laden family. Murky, isn't it?
When you say, "the military has a job to do, and that job is protecting this country and its people" I copuldn't agree more. Where this whole Iraq farce stinks is when a national military is used on spurious grounds (NO WMDs, NO al-Qaeda connection, NO threat) to line the pockets of greedy, powerful individuals in the oil and arms industries.
So on the back of all that, I'll say it again.
I support the troops. And I oppose the policy.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on January 13, 2005 at 4:10 AM
| link to this | reply
I just wanted to comment on two things you wrote.
First, IMHO, I believe the movie was good if the movie made the person go and research what was being said. If the person just blindly followed the movie at face value, then I agree with you.
And lastly, I disagree with the comment that Michael Moore has blood on his hands. Movies don't kill people. I think these terrorists are going to kill as many as possible without Moore's movie. They are "on a mission from got to kill the evil westerners."
posted by
starr4all
on January 12, 2005 at 7:59 AM
| link to this | reply
What a surprise
Liberal Irrationalist carried to Championship by cheering mob of Liberal Irrationalists!
posted by
Jack_Flash
on January 11, 2005 at 8:27 PM
| link to this | reply
How is this?
I support our troops. I don't completely believe in the mission, but I support the execution of it none-the-less.
posted by
Renigade
on January 11, 2005 at 8:21 PM
| link to this | reply