[deadlyruler]

FREE GAMES AND PLAYSTATION 2's
http://freewebs.com/deadlyruler13

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Indeed they were. You are in denial. Now it is YOU that is actually lying to defend a liar. He said Enron stood to benefit, that's FACTUALLY incorrect. When you make an accusation, you better have some proof. Michael Moore states as fact that Enron stood to benefit, but there is NO evidence that Enron was ever one of the interested parties. Moore lied. Period.

Actually, it's you who has provided no proof that Moore is wrong. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,

Multinational energy corporations and the U.S. government are supportive of the Taliban because “they are viewed as peacemakers,” Dr. Wahab said. He called the Taliban a “mixed blessing,” because while it has been successful in stopping much of the bloody fighting and in cracking down on crime and corruption, it continues its own violent repression, targeting civilians for their supposed allegiance to other political groups.

He explained that Delta, Unical as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Exactly. He's offering speculation for which there are no facts to back it up. Just like what you do. He's lying. He can't prove any of that.

It's not a lie. It's his opinion. You can disagree with it if you like, but that doesn't make it a lie.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I said the source was the Washington Post. But by the definition of vacation, the story was wrong. And Moore can't excuse himself by offering the Washington Post as his source. The film is his. He's responsible for the lies within it. Then you basically told me Bush said the word "vacation". I'm not stupid. Everyone has said the word vacation at some point in their life. If you can show me a George Bush quote where he said he was on VACATION 42% of his first 8 months in office, I'd love to see it. Everyone knows that he wasn't on vacation 42% of the time when you see that Camp David is by no means a "vacation", and even when Bush is on his ranch he's usually in planes flying toward other responsibilities in the nation. LOOK AT HIS SCHEDULE DURING THE "VACATION" TIME. This is very, very simple. It's not intellectually baffling by any means. Bush wasn't vacationing 42% of his first 8 months in office.

From CNN: "Bush is on what the White House calls a 'working vacation,' meeting with senior staff between time spent jogging and fishing on the 1,600-acre ranch." That's the "vacation" in question. It was the longest presidential vacation in 32 years.

Of course he's still doing work while he's on vacation. When you're president, you're president 24/7. It's not like you stop being president on weekends. But saying that the work he does when he's at Crawford is equivalent to the work he does when he's in Washington is like saying that professional wrestling is a real competition of athletic ability.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Moore is LYING by citing an article which has been ridiculed and disproven ever since it was published.

I guess you mean "ridiculed and disproven ever since it was published" in the same sense that "several nations" (read "two nations") had intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had WMD.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well their little studies directly contradict what the Miami Herald, USA Today, and countless other sources have found.

Yes, and there are many other studies that show that Gore won.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It was a LIE. She didn't count the votes. She certified the final vote count. Just like you said. She's not "the vote count woman". She would be, in Moore lingo, "the vote certification woman". And yes, the words used are important, because the way he said it is an obvious attempt to portray Harris as counting all the votes with a Bush bias. She simply certified the work of others.

Harris was the woman responsible for certifying the final vote count. That would make her, stay with me here, the vote count woman. You act like "vote count woman" is an official title that somebody has.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I'm sorry that's wrong. Two Congressmen have sons that fought in Iraq. Tim Johnson, who is mentioned there, and Duncan Hunter, who is not mentioned.

The problem here is that things change over time. We have no way of knowing when this scene took place. Hunter's son wasn't sent to Iraq until February. Considering that he was finishing the film in April, it's entirely possible that at the time there was only one congressman with a son serving in Iraq. And since this information is hard to come by, Moore probably wouldn't have known even if it had happened before his trip to Washington.

So congratulations. At best you've proven that he made a mistake. Of course, defending against Moore's point by saying that there are actually two members of Congress with sons in Iraq is kind of lame. It's like Bush responding to Kerry talking about how small the Coalition is by saying, "You forgot about Poland."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

You call it what you want. It's still a lie, albeit unintentional.

No, it's not a lie, you freak. It's what we humans call "a figure of speech."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

mag, I know you're only twenty, but some of the things you just can't grasp are things most people learn when they are two or three years old.

Well, you would know. That seems to be about the age level you're at.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Do you know the definition of "pelt"? Let me help you out, it means: "to cast, hurl, or throw repeatedly with some missile." According to the BBC one person threw ONE egg. EGG. EGGGGGG. Singular, damn it. Knock, knock... Anyone home in that head of yours? You are failing miserably to defend the many lies presented in Moore's film. Neither "pelted" or "eggs" fits what actually happened AT ALL. Bush's limo being "pelted with eggs" is a LIE. That IS what he actually said, there is no twisting of words involved. He lied. Period.

"Pelt" does not always mean plural. According to good ol' Funk & Wagnalls, pelt means, "to throw or hurl." The rest is, again, your own interpretation. And I love how nitpicky you have to get to find one lie in the whole film.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And no, he wouldn't be charged with libel. People lie all the time and aren't charged with libel. I mean, I could say the same thing about the Swift Boat Vets. You say they are liars. They have been "threatened" with libel suits...whoopie. So has Moore. Recall that Moore said: "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force."

Oh, I see. Because Moore's opponent's are such friendly and reasonable people, that they would never seize on such an opportunity to destroy his career. Or I guess they just felt so threatened by Moore saying he would fight back that they decided to drop it.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Uh, I've responded countless times. And now I shall respond yet again. You have a right to your little liberal theories, but you have offered no proof. And the burden of proof is yours. When photographs are taken of Bush and Rumsfeld in a sewer somewhere with lit candles, sodomizing each other in front of a statue of Hitler, then I would admit defeat. But you have no proof.

Bush and Rumsfeld sodomizing each other in front of a statue of Hitler in a sewer...you don't actually know what fascism means, do you?

And once again you have conveniently ignored the proof I offered pages ago. Why do you even bother replying if you're not going to respond to anything that I said?

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Uh, how do YOU know who here has been to Iraq and who hasn't?

What happened? Did they call you up for emergency film criticism duty in Baghdad?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, bottom line. If my sources are faulty, then yours are faulty. It's as simple as that.

That doesn't even make sense. The validity of your sources has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my sources. You're reverting back to that fourth grade logic again.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well of course you're right. When Kerry gets elected that IS what will happen. His priority is to get the troops home, not to finish the job. Oh I know he says BOTH are his priority, of course... But no person with a decent I.Q. believes that hocus pocus. So yes, Iraq will be doomed. If Bush is elected (HA! Yeah right...) then he will stay the course, and democracy WILL eventually endure.

First, Kerry has made it quite clear that he's committed to staying in Iraq until the job is done. Only morons who get all their information from Bush campaign ads and conservative pundits think otherwise.

But Iraq will end up as a Shiite theocracy no matter who is president. Iraq is pretty much a no win situation right now. The problem is that you can't force people to have a democracy. That's the definition of democracy--the people get to make the decisions. And the majority of Iraqis don't want a democracy. What they want is a theocracy. To the Arab mind the idea of separation of church and state makes no sense. If you already have God's law, why would you presume to make your own laws to replace it? Secular governments are entirely a product of the Enlightenment. But the Middle East never had the Enlightenment. To them there's no such thing as separation of church and state. They want their government to be a Muslim government.

So you can either lose little, or you can lose big. You lose big by "staying the course" and continuing an American occupation to enforce a western style democracy that the Iraqis don't want. When the Iraqis realize that this "democracy" isn't really a democracy since it's not letting them have the government they want, you have a civil war on your hands. So you'll have a long, drawn out conflict that will continue until the US finally decides that it's not worth the costs of trying to maintain. But that won't happen until MANY more American soldiers are killed. After the US pulls out a Shiite theocracy is formed. You lose little by (and it's probably too late for this at this point) bringing in the UN to help rebuild Iraq so that the reconstruction effort has at least a hint of legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. The US hands over power to a semi-stable democracy in Iraq, and shortly afterward the Iraqis vote in a Shiite government. And you end up with a Shiite theocracy.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Of course I said that! I never denied saying that! I'm not a liar like you are, give me a little credit. What I'm saying is this. READ CAREFULLY. I'm saying that you apparently brought that up to avoid the POINT of what I was saying. The civilians killed by insurgents was never the point.

I didn't avoid anything. You see, I have this gift. I can actually respond to more than one point. If you didn't want me to respond to it, you shouldn't have even posted it.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And anyway, some sources DO include civilians killed by insurgents. You'll notice here that it says, "Most of the deaths were caused by U.S. strikes, not insurgent strikes..." That means that SOME of the deaths were caused by insurgents.

http://www.realcities.com/images/rea...5245418768.gif

That's from the Iraqi Health Ministry. I'm talking about the count done by IBC.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

So all of a sudden it is YOU that doesn't know the definition of a straw-man argument? Where in hell were you schooled? Without a doubt you ignored what I was saying and exaggerated and distorted it to make it seem absurd and give you "easier" grounds to try and refute my REAL point, by attempting to refute the exaggerated one.

Hey, you got me there. Because I never had the benefit of one of those Texas schools where they teach you all about cattle ranching. But the way I learned it, it's not a straw-man if you then go on to address the rest of the argument.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh give me a break... First of all, they have shown Iraqis as people. But, do you really think Americans are so stupid as to not understand the human cost of war? What do you think the American people think Iraqis are? Insects? I have more faith in Americans than that, blasphemy to your ears I know.

It's not a matter of intelligence. This is what always happens during war. We demonized the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, we demonized the Japanese during World War II, we demonized the Germans during WWI and WWII. And it's not just Americans. This happens in every country. Heck, France and Germany still hate each other.

Americans, like any other group of people, believe what the media tells them. Since 9/11 Americans have constantly been told IRAQ = BAD. They would never use those words, of course. But they don't have to. It's making a point without ever actually saying it. The people in the Bush administration are masters at this.

Now if you were to ask people if they thought Iraqis are human beings they would certainly all say yes. They know it on a purely intellectual level. But simply regurgitating what you know you're supposed to say is very different from really knowing something. When many Americans think about Iraqis the image they have isn't that of a real human being. It's a caricature. It's that towel-head over there in the desert. He's nothing like me. Besides, Bush tells us that they were the ones who attacked us on 9/11. So why should they care if some of them die?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL. No. Hannity is not like Michael Moore. Hannity has a liberal counterweight there to dispute his arguments.

First, I would hardly consider Colmes a "liberal counterweight." He's barely liberal and not much of a counterweight. Second, how does Colmes' presence have anything to do with what Hannity himself says?

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Well, when you acknowledge my sources I'll gladly ackowledge yours. :-)

I acknowledge your sources for exactly what they are.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ah, so basically to make this long, boring story short...you are saying Clarke did nothing wrong. Why am I not surprised? I disagree, of course, but I'm not surprised. lol.

How horrifying to suggest that Clarke did nothing wrong. Of course, now you're going to take that little summarization as the entirety of what I said and disregard all of the support I offered for my conclusion because it's a "long, boring story." But I guess I should know better than to use big words like "facilitate" and "Taliban" in front of you. Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse you.

Did Clarke make the right call? I'm sure that can and will be debated. But his decision was not an unreasonable one. You just don't like it because Clarke said it.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Right. Because John Kerry would give a veto... He'd let France and the others talk him out of it.

No, I think it would have more to do with letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs and prove that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yes, ignore the fact that they found exactly what they knew they would find in that man's apartment. Forget that they saved the Brooklyn Bridge and tons of lives. Go back and read the point by Dick Morris. With terrorists the goal is to PREVENT what is going to happen. They don't have all the concrete evidence that one would have by exploring a murder scene, where the crime has ALREADY taken place. It has nothing to do with going back and "doing it right". They had enough intelligence to know what they would find in the man's apartment, and they found it. They saved lives. Without the Patriot Act, bye bye Brooklyn Bridge.

Of course you're trying to prevent it from happening. But you still have to show probable cause. If they have enough evidence then getting a warrant won't be a problem.

There's really no situation in which you would ever have to take away people's civil rights for security purposes. And if there were such a situation, I'd much rather have liberty than security. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

No one could tell you what to think because I don't believe you are capable of thinking. What you just said was basically that it's bad that the Brooklyn Bridge didn't get blown up.

Now THAT'S a straw-man.

And by your standards, "I don't believe you are capable of thinking," is also a lie.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

All I need to say here is just LISTEN to yourself Mr. Hypocrite. What you are saying is what Michael Moore says about EVERYTHING. Theories, stretches, etc. There is far more proof about the Oil For Food fiasco and France being bribed than there is that Bush is a fascist or that Enron was going to benefit from the Unocal pipeline. What a hypocrite...

Well then prove it!

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yep. Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

No, not at all. And now it's my turn to chastise you for underestimating people. Children are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. Plus it doesn't hurt that they've chosen the winner for the past four elections.

Besides, if I were a candidate I'd rather have the endorsement of children than that of Iran

Originally Posted by Ninth

The point is that Iraq could not afford to buy France, even if France had any good reason to be bought by Iraq. I mean, if we had gone there, we would have got more money out of commercial deals than we could even have by accepting bribes from Saddam. (and I'm not saying France had never dealt with Saddam before. Then again, so had many countries, among which the US)

Exactly. France probably did have deals with Hussein. But then again, as you point out, so did America. But saying that France decided not to go to war with Iraq because of the money they were getting from Hussein really rests on the assumption that they're retarded. They would have to be because if they were in it for the money they would have joined to Coalition. There's a lot more money to be made by controlling Iraq than whatever Hussein was willing to share with them. And I just don't see any reason to assume that the French are retarded. They had a number of other legitimate reasons for not going into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Bottomline: I stand by my "thinking this is idiotic" statement, but I don't think you're an idiot. If it sounds the same to you, then it's because I'm not expressing myself correctly.

Well, if you don't want to say it, I will. Sanjuro, you're an idiot. I'm glad you'll be staying home this Election Day so that your stupidity doesn't taint the vote.

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by deadlyruler

FREE GAMES AND PLAYSTATION 2's
http://freewebs.com/deadlyruler13

Our battleground is getting spammed now.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Actually, it's you who has provided no proof that Moore is wrong. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Dr. Wahab? LOL. Do you have any legitimate reason why we should believe what this man thinks???

Originally Posted by mag

It's not a lie. It's his opinion. You can disagree with it if you like, but that doesn't make it a lie.

It's a lie because it can't be PROVEN. It's not an innocent opinion. He's accusing the president of something without PROOF. That's a lie.

Originally Posted by mag

From CNN: "Bush is on what the White House calls a 'working vacation,' meeting with senior staff between time spent jogging and fishing on the 1,600-acre ranch." That's the "vacation" in question. It was the longest presidential vacation in 32 years.

Of course he's still doing work while he's on vacation. When you're president, you're president 24/7. It's not like you stop being president on weekends. But saying that the work he does when he's at Crawford is equivalent to the work he does when he's in Washington is like saying that professional wrestling is a real competition of athletic ability.

Yes but Michael Moore lied. Granted, he's a dumb man, but SURELY he knows that a vacation is "leisure time away from work devoted to rest or pleasure," and so by by not calling Bush's "working vacation" what it really is, he paints a portrait of a president who is out partying and stroking his erection for 42% of his first eight months in office. Calling it simply "leisure time away from work devoted to rest or pleasure" is a LIE.

Originally Posted by mag

I guess you mean "ridiculed and disproven ever since it was published" in the same sense that "several nations" (read "two nations") had intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had WMD.

No, I mean it in the sense that many sources (which you wouldn't give the time of day) have pointed to how false that 42% figure is.

Originally Posted by mag

Yes, and there are many other studies that show that Gore won.

Ohhh... So Moore only cites the sources that were just as upset that Bush won as he was, I see. What a talented documentarian.

Originally Posted by mag

Harris was the woman responsible for certifying the final vote count. That would make her, stay with me here, the vote count woman. You act like "vote count woman" is an official title that somebody has.

I'm simply saying that she didn't count the votes. She certified the work of others.

Originally Posted by mag

The problem here is that things change over time. We have no way of knowing when this scene took place. Hunter's son wasn't sent to Iraq until February. Considering that he was finishing the film in April, it's entirely possible that at the time there was only one congressman with a son serving in Iraq. And since this information is hard to come by, Moore probably wouldn't have known even if it had happened before his trip to Washington.

So congratulations. At best you've proven that he made a mistake. Of course, defending against Moore's point by saying that there are actually two members of Congress with sons in Iraq is kind of lame. It's like Bush responding to Kerry talking about how small the Coalition is by saying, "You forgot about Poland."

It's still factually incorrect. And you admit it. And there is no excuse. The film had its world premiere at Cannes in May. Many filmmakers are still editing their films the night prior to the festival premiere. Moore had three months to CORRECT his film. The truth of the matter is, he didn't want to correct anything. He would rather just have a lie in his film to go along with all the other lies.

Originally Posted by mag

No, it's not a lie, you freak. It's what we humans call "a figure of speech."

A figure of speech that unfortunately ended up being a lie. I feel bad for Moore...poor guy. He couldn't even remember what he wrote on his own website, so he ended up looking like an idiot.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, you would know. That seems to be about the age level you're at.

Whooo! Please, don't say such things. OUCH. You got me bad dude...

Originally Posted by mag

"Pelt" does not always mean plural. According to good ol' Funk & Wagnalls, pelt means, "to throw or hurl." The rest is, again, your own interpretation. And I love how nitpicky you have to get to find one lie in the whole film.

Next you'll be telling me that "egg" isn't sigular in this context. One guy threw one egg. Michael Moore said Bush was "pelted with eggs." LOL! That's such a blatant, silly lie. THAT'S why I mention it. I've already pointed out plenty of other lies to keep it company, but this one is particularly amusing precisely because I don't see why Moore felt he had to lie about an egg! lol.

Originally Posted by mag

Oh, I see. Because Moore's opponent's are such friendly and reasonable people, that they would never seize on such an opportunity to destroy his career. Or I guess they just felt so threatened by Moore saying he would fight back that they decided to drop it.

Ignoring the point about the Swift Boat Vets I see. You are TERRIBLE at this stuff...

Originally Posted by mag

Bush and Rumsfeld sodomizing each other in front of a statue of Hitler in a sewer...you don't actually know what fascism means, do you?

And once again you have conveniently ignored the proof I offered pages ago. Why do you even bother replying if you're not going to respond to anything that I said?

Again, it was a joke. I'm trying to lighten the mood so that you feel less stupid. I mean you keep saying you've provided "proof" and you clearly haven't, so to cushion your fall I was trying to be funny. If I failed then, oh well...I hope you didn't hurt yourself too bad when you hit the ground.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

What happened? Did they call you up for emergency film criticism duty in Baghdad?

Please, don't ignore the question. How do YOU know who here has been to Iraq, and who has not? It's a very simple question, that you clumsily avoided. I've gotten used to that "strategy" from you though.

Originally Posted by mag

That doesn't even make sense. The validity of your sources has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my sources. You're reverting back to that fourth grade logic again.

No, the fourth grade logic would be your instant animosity toward any source that says things you don't like to hear. There is a very simple explanation for why you THINK you are right when you are wrong. It's because you believe everything you read that is anti-American, and you choose not to believe any good information about America. I'll be the first to tell you our country isn't perfect. I'll be the first to tell you our president is only human. But you are so blinded by your hatred for this administration that you ignore what is good and focus exclusively on what is bad (and bizarre conspiracy theories that make everything look even WORSE). That is why your souces are incredibly negative. Negativity is the only thing you respond to. So any sources that see what is GOOD (cruel dictator out of power in Iraq, women voting in Afghanistan) you ignore to focus on what is bad (people die in war...NOOO!!!).

Originally Posted by mag

First, Kerry has made it quite clear that he's committed to staying in Iraq until the job is done. Only morons who get all their information from Bush campaign ads and conservative pundits think otherwise.

But Iraq will end up as a Shiite theocracy no matter who is president. Iraq is pretty much a no win situation right now. The problem is that you can't force people to have a democracy. That's the definition of democracy--the people get to make the decisions. And the majority of Iraqis don't want a democracy. What they want is a theocracy. To the Arab mind the idea of separation of church and state makes no sense. If you already have God's law, why would you presume to make your own laws to replace it? Secular governments are entirely a product of the Enlightenment. But the Middle East never had the Enlightenment. To them there's no such thing as separation of church and state. They want their government to be a Muslim government.

So you can either lose little, or you can lose big. You lose big by "staying the course" and continuing an American occupation to enforce a western style democracy that the Iraqis don't want. When the Iraqis realize that this "democracy" isn't really a democracy since it's not letting them have the government they want, you have a civil war on your hands. So you'll have a long, drawn out conflict that will continue until the US finally decides that it's not worth the costs of trying to maintain. But that won't happen until MANY more American soldiers are killed. After the US pulls out a Shiite theocracy is formed. You lose little by (and it's probably too late for this at this point) bringing in the UN to help rebuild Iraq so that the reconstruction effort has at least a hint of legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. The US hands over power to a semi-stable democracy in Iraq, and shortly afterward the Iraqis vote in a Shiite government. And you end up with a Shiite theocracy.

Kerry has also made it "clear" that he wants to get the troops home soon. He was even setting deadlines until his campaign people probably had to tell him to shut up. So which is the truth? And actually, I'm all for finishing the job there, giving them democracy, and if they decide NOT to have a democracy because they have a democracy, then whatever... LOL.

Originally Posted by mag

I didn't avoid anything. You see, I have this gift. I can actually respond to more than one point. If you didn't want me to respond to it, you shouldn't have even posted it.

You can respond to anything you like. But you didn't respond to "more than one point". You IGNORED one point to talk about the lesser point.

Originally Posted by mag

That's from the Iraqi Health Ministry. I'm talking about the count done by IBC.

Uh, I KNOW that you were talking about the IBC. I was illustrating the fact that I was talking about the Iraqi Health Ministry.

Originally Posted by mag

Hey, you got me there. Because I never had the benefit of one of those Texas schools where they teach you all about cattle ranching. But the way I learned it, it's not a straw-man if you then go on to address the rest of the argument.

LOL! Cattle ranching? I have no clue how to cattle ranch. What I know is that my school district and my high school specifically were among the very best in the nation. Strangely enough, I've just taken photographs of my house and neighborhood to show someone else, and I would be more than happy to show everyone that is under the impression that Texas is where cows roam the streets. LOL! I find that so hilarious. In 2002 or 2003 (the last time I checked basically) the U.S. Census Bureau named my city the second fastest growing city in the U.S. People are flooding into this area. Plano got full, now they are flooding into Frisco. Big businesses, great schools, incredibly low crime, lower cost of living compared to many states, no state taxes, etc. I've lived in New York and Los Angeles in my lifetime, they BLOW compared to this area.

And now, back to the important stuff, I DID say the "first paragraph" regarding what you said. So you can take that however you wish. Second, you didn't really address anything in the second or third except in your own fantasy...

Originally Posted by mag

It's not a matter of intelligence. This is what always happens during war. We demonized the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, we demonized the Japanese during World War II, we demonized the Germans during WWI and WWII. And it's not just Americans. This happens in every country. Heck, France and Germany still hate each other.

Americans, like any other group of people, believe what the media tells them. Since 9/11 Americans have constantly been told IRAQ = BAD. They would never use those words, of course. But they don't have to. It's making a point without ever actually saying it. The people in the Bush administration are masters at this.

Now if you were to ask people if they thought Iraqis are human beings they would certainly all say yes. They know it on a purely intellectual level. But simply regurgitating what you know you're supposed to say is very different from really knowing something. When many Americans think about Iraqis the image they have isn't that of a real human being. It's a caricature. It's that towel-head over there in the desert. He's nothing like me. Besides, Bush tells us that they were the ones who attacked us on 9/11. So why should they care if some of them die?

I don't believe the media is doing this though, and that was what we were talking about. If a majority of Americans are this way (and I don't think they are), then that is a shame, and I hope it's not true. But the media hasn't been the cause.

Originally Posted by mag

First, I would hardly consider Colmes a "liberal counterweight." He's barely liberal and not much of a counterweight. Second, how does Colmes' presence have anything to do with what Hannity himself says?

Because what Hannity says can be rebutted by people on the show. Michael Moore's medium can't be immediately rebutted in the same way. Their methods are very different. Hannity gives people a chance to prove him wrong. The other day he asked a guy to PROVE that Republicans are trying to get rid of African American votes, and prove that Bush would bring back the draft, etc. The guy had no proof, so he just stuttered and stammered around and tried to change the subject. Moore doesn't even give anyone that chance. He sculpts people (using the tools of cinema) into how he wants them to be seen, not how they truly are. It's like Ron Silver said, "You give me enough footage, and I could make Michael Moore look like a religious fanatic right-winger."

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

I acknowledge your sources for exactly what they are.

As I do yours.

Originally Posted by mag

How horrifying to suggest that Clarke did nothing wrong. Of course, now you're going to take that little summarization as the entirety of what I said and disregard all of the support I offered for my conclusion because it's a "long, boring story." But I guess I should know better than to use big words like "facilitate" and "Taliban" in front of you. Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse you.

Did Clarke make the right call? I'm sure that can and will be debated. But his decision was not an unreasonable one. You just don't like it because Clarke said it.

So you admit it can be debated. I already explained why I believe it was the wrong decision, and you seem to think you have a reasonable opinion as well. So we disagree I suppose. But I can ASSURE you I don't dislike it just because Clarke said it. That is EXTREMELY false. As I've said, I have a mixed opinion of Richard Clarke. I like a lot of what he does and says, and I also disagree with a lot. This just happens to be something I disagree with.

Originally Posted by mag

No, I think it would have more to do with letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs and prove that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Ah, I see. Let the U.N. delay everything for 18 months so Saddam can transfer everything out of the country THEN search, find nothing, and act satisfied. I'm down with that. Cool.

Originally Posted by mag

Of course you're trying to prevent it from happening. But you still have to show probable cause. If they have enough evidence then getting a warrant won't be a problem.

There's really no situation in which you would ever have to take away people's civil rights for security purposes. And if there were such a situation, I'd much rather have liberty than security. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

According to Dick Morris the evidence of picking up transmissions talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, and finding the very man who was said by Kalid Mohammad (captured in Afghanistan) to be the Al Qaida operative there...wasn't enough. It wasn't enough before the Patriot Act. Because the best evidence a crime can provide occurs after the crime itself. After the crime is too late. If there was a guy in Afghanistan saying that I was their operative who was going to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, then they damn well better come and search my house. Just like they searched the real operative's house, and they found everything they knew they would find there, preventing a great disaster.

And the Benjamin Franklin quote simply does not refer to terrorism. I love history, but that quote is for a different age. This is a new kind of war. These things must be prevented.

Originally Posted by mag

Now THAT'S a straw-man.

And by your standards, "I don't believe you are capable of thinking," is also a lie.

It has the look of it, but it's really not. Let's go over it... You said the Patriot Act is wrong. FACT. The Patriot Act has been crucial in locating over 20 terrorist cells in this country and thwarting many terrorist attacks. FACT. So if you dislike the Patriot Act, does it not stand to reason that you dislike the very thing that has prevented further attacks of terror on our country?

Originally Posted by mag

Well then prove it!

LOL. How? We don't trust each other's sources.

Originally Posted by mag

No, not at all. And now it's my turn to chastise you for underestimating people. Children are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. Plus it doesn't hurt that they've chosen the winner for the past four elections.

Besides, if I were a candidate I'd rather have the endorsement of children than that of Iran

I already knew about the Iran endorsement. That's hilarious. Anyway, so kids are really smart and picked the winner the last four years right? So you believe they made the right choice with Bush in 2000? Cool.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, if you don't want to say it, I will. Sanjuro, you're an idiot. I'm glad you'll be staying home this Election Day so that your stupidity doesn't taint the vote.

Oh boy, this is really productive. Uh, I guess now I call you an idiot too? "mag, you idiot!" Ok, heh. Cool. Yeah I guess that was sort of fun, but exclaiming common knowledge can be a little overrated at the same time.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Ninth

France doesn't hate the US, really. We do resent you, that's true, but there's no hate. But that's not the point. The point is that Iraq could not afford to buy France, even if France had any good reason to be bought by Iraq. I mean, if we had gone there, we would have got more money out of commercial deals than we could even have by accepting bribes from Saddam. (and I'm not saying France had never dealt with Saddam before. Then again, so had many countries, among which the US)

I didn't call you an idiot, I just said you were saying something idiotic, which is not quite the same. And it's indeed very easy to piss me off when talking politics, and you're very good at it, because your political ideals are so far away from mine. That's why I usually refrain to participate this discussion.
Bottomline: I stand by my "thinking this is idiotic" statement, but I don't think you're an idiot. If it sounds the same to you, then it's because I'm not expressing myself correctly.

Ok you can say I make idiotic statements, that's fine. I agree with Tim on this though.

[jjacob]

Let me get this straight: Sanjuro, of all the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, you've chosen to refute:
"only 1 congressman has a son fighting in Iraq"
"Bush received the most unwelcoming arrival in DC. His limousine was scheduled to show him to the bystanders, but so many things were thrown at his limo that the driver/SS chose to put some gas on it."
"Bush was more on vacation than any other U.S. president."


Although to be fair to Bush, it turns out he didn't expect there to be ANY casualties in an invasion, as was reported on CNN.

*wonders if "God" told him that too :eek:

john kerry is a douche bag but im voting for him anyway
i guess everyone knows who i will vote for!

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Dr. Wahab? LOL. Do you have any legitimate reason why we should believe what this man thinks???

Do you have any legitimate reason why we shouldn't believe what he thinks? I mean, other than your usual reasoning that you don't like what he's saying.

Dr. Wahab has a PhD from Stanford and is a professor at Lewis & Clark College. He was invited by the Afghan administration's Minister of Higher Education to serve as a senior advisor. He worked in Afghanistan with the Ministry of Higher Education from August 2002 through June 2003. And as I said, this was published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. So I would say he has some pretty solid credentials.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It's a lie because it can't be PROVEN. It's not an innocent opinion. He's accusing the president of something without PROOF. That's a lie.

No, it's not. An opinion can't be a lie.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Yes but Michael Moore lied. Granted, he's a dumb man, but SURELY he knows that a vacation is "leisure time away from work devoted to rest or pleasure," and so by by not calling Bush's "working vacation" what it really is, he paints a portrait of a president who is out partying and stroking his erection for 42% of his first eight months in office. Calling it simply "leisure time away from work devoted to rest or pleasure" is a LIE.

Well, if Moore lied then so did Bush. Because as I've said twice now, Bush is the one who called it a vacation.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

No, I mean it in the sense that many sources (which you wouldn't give the time of day) have pointed to how false that 42% figure is.

Sources I wouldn't give the time of day...so more Zionist conspircay theories, huh?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ohhh... So Moore only cites the sources that were just as upset that Bush won as he was, I see. What a talented documentarian.

No, he cites the sources that are relevant to what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I'm simply saying that she didn't count the votes. She certified the work of others.

Nobody ever said otherwise.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It's still factually incorrect. And you admit it. And there is no excuse. The film had its world premiere at Cannes in May. Many filmmakers are still editing their films the night prior to the festival premiere. Moore had three months to CORRECT his film. The truth of the matter is, he didn't want to correct anything. He would rather just have a lie in his film to go along with all the other lies.

Moore did make changes to the film before the release. But there wouldn't have been anything to correct. Look at the scene again. What he says is, "I guess I was tired of seeing people like Lila Lipscomb suffer, especially when out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." "Had," past tense. In other words, at this particular point in time, only one congressman had a son in Iraq.

Also, he specifically says "an enlisted son in Iraq." Enlisted means a rank below a commissioned officer or warrant officer." Hunter's son is a first lieutenant. That's significant because it's the enlisted men who get sent into combat first.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

A figure of speech that unfortunately ended up being a lie. I feel bad for Moore...poor guy. He couldn't even remember what he wrote on his own website, so he ended up looking like an idiot.

No, the only person who ends up looking like an idiot is the moron who can't recognize a simple figure of speech.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Next you'll be telling me that "egg" isn't sigular in this context. One guy threw one egg. Michael Moore said Bush was "pelted with eggs." LOL! That's such a blatant, silly lie. THAT'S why I mention it. I've already pointed out plenty of other lies to keep it company, but this one is particularly amusing precisely because I don't see why Moore felt he had to lie about an egg! lol.

You're a little feeble, aren't you? You can correct Moore's grammar all you want. That still doesn't make him a liar.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ignoring the point about the Swift Boat Vets I see. You are TERRIBLE at this stuff...

The Swift Boat Vets stuff isn't really relevant. Do you understand that there is a difference between the Kerry campaign taking the Swift Boat Veterans for Their Own Bloated Egos to court and any one of the numerous groups Moore has alienated taking Moore to court? What do you think the Republicans would have done if Kerry had responded to the Swift Boat Vets with a libel charge? They're already criticizing him and Edwards for being lawyers (as if that was somehow significant). Kerry couldn't have taken the Swift Boat Vets to court if he wanted to actually win. But there wouldn't be anything stopping the people who don't like Moore from taking him to court if they actually had a case to back it up.

BTW, that's exactly what's happening to Stolen Honor, the anti-Kerry documentary that was going to be shown by Sinclair Broadcasting.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Again, it was a joke. I'm trying to lighten the mood so that you feel less stupid. I mean you keep saying you've provided "proof" and you clearly haven't, so to cushion your fall I was trying to be funny. If I failed then, oh well...I hope you didn't hurt yourself too bad when you hit the ground.

I don't think I'm the one you should be worried about.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Please, don't ignore the question. How do YOU know who here has been to Iraq, and who has not? It's a very simple question, that you clumsily avoided. I've gotten used to that "strategy" from you though.

Well, since you're the one who got this topic going with your, "You sit there and pretend you know the work involved in reconstructing a country, but you have yet to name the countries where you've worked on getting the power and water back to 100% of the people," why don't you answer that question first?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

No, the fourth grade logic would be your instant animosity toward any source that says things you don't like to hear.

Well, that would describe your responses. But mine not so much. So far the sources you've given me include Zionist conspiracy theory websites and Ariel Sharon. The most solid source I've seen from you so far are the partisan hacks at FOX News. That's kind of sad.

So yeah, I've rejected a lot of your sources. The difference between you and me, though, is that I can actually tell you what's wrong with your sources. You reject my sources just because you don't like what they're saying.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There is a very simple explanation for why you THINK you are right when you are wrong. It's because you believe everything you read that is anti-American, and you choose not to believe any good information about America. I'll be the first to tell you our country isn't perfect. I'll be the first to tell you our president is only human. But you are so blinded by your hatred for this administration that you ignore what is good and focus exclusively on what is bad (and bizarre conspiracy theories that make everything look even WORSE). That is why your souces are incredibly negative. Negativity is the only thing you respond to. So any sources that see what is GOOD (cruel dictator out of power in Iraq, women voting in Afghanistan) you ignore to focus on what is bad (people die in war...NOOO!!!).

That's just not true at all. I get news from a number of sources, including jingoistic conservative organizations like the ones you seem to love so much. I know perfectly well that America has done some good things. But I'm also not going to turn a blind eye when America does something wrong just because I happen to live here. It's not my fault America's actions around the world have been so overwhelmingly negative.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Kerry has also made it "clear" that he wants to get the troops home soon. He was even setting deadlines until his campaign people probably had to tell him to shut up. So which is the truth?

It's not an either-or decision. The two go hand in hand. Trying to bring the troops home is what the current administration should be doing.

mag

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

You can respond to anything you like. But you didn't respond to "more than one point". You IGNORED one point to talk about the lesser point.

Your "point" was just repeating what I had already explained was wrong. Your point about the IBC including civilians killed by insurgents was the only thing new worth responding to.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Uh, I KNOW that you were talking about the IBC. I was illustrating the fact that I was talking about the Iraqi Health Ministry.

So in other words, you're ignoring one point to talk about a lesser point.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL! Cattle ranching? I have no clue how to cattle ranch. What I know is that my school district and my high school specifically were among the very best in the nation. Strangely enough, I've just taken photographs of my house and neighborhood to show someone else, and I would be more than happy to show everyone that is under the impression that Texas is where cows roam the streets. LOL! I find that so hilarious.

Well, there's only two things that come from Texas. I guess now we know which one you are.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I don't believe the media is doing this though, and that was what we were talking about.

Well, it's nice that you believe that, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Because what Hannity says can be rebutted by people on the show. Michael Moore's medium can't be immediately rebutted in the same way. Their methods are very different. Hannity gives people a chance to prove him wrong. The other day he asked a guy to PROVE that Republicans are trying to get rid of African American votes, and prove that Bush would bring back the draft, etc. The guy had no proof, so he just stuttered and stammered around and tried to change the subject. Moore doesn't even give anyone that chance. He sculpts people (using the tools of cinema) into how he wants them to be seen, not how they truly are. It's like Ron Silver said, "You give me enough footage, and I could make Michael Moore look like a religious fanatic right-winger."

But your point with Moore was about his arguments, not how balanced his work is. Hannity can have Colmes say whatever he wants. It still doesn't change what Hannity says himself--which is based largely on ignoring countless facts, taking quotes out of context, and straight up lying.

Besides, if the argument is that nobody ever gets the chance to refute what Moore says, I don't buy it. Moore gets two hours to make his point. His critics are on the news and the internet for months (even before the film is released) making outrageous charges like "he's a liar" or "he's a Nazi propagandist."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

But I can ASSURE you I don't dislike it just because Clarke said it. That is EXTREMELY false. As I've said, I have a mixed opinion of Richard Clarke. I like a lot of what he does and says, and I also disagree with a lot. This just happens to be something I disagree with.

So then why is it that you're such a huge fan of Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us." Because the Bush Doctrine is really just a much more militant version of the same basic idea. We don't make deals with terrorist regimes (that's not actually true, but it's something we should be doing).

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ah, I see. Let the U.N. delay everything for 18 months so Saddam can transfer everything out of the country THEN search, find nothing, and act satisfied. I'm down with that. Cool.

Yes. Hussein moved all of his weapons of mass destruction out of the country. I love this theory. Of course, we don't have the technology to do this. But we're betting that a third world dictator does.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

According to Dick Morris the evidence of picking up transmissions talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, and finding the very man who was said by Kalid Mohammad (captured in Afghanistan) to be the Al Qaida operative there...wasn't enough. It wasn't enough before the Patriot Act. Because the best evidence a crime can provide occurs after the crime itself. After the crime is too late. If there was a guy in Afghanistan saying that I was their operative who was going to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, then they damn well better come and search my house. Just like they searched the real operative's house, and they found everything they knew they would find there, preventing a great disaster.

Are we talking about the same Dick Morris? Because the Dick Morris I'm thinking of is a campaign consultant. He has no experience in law enforcement.

Regardless, you still haven't shown how this was something that couldn't have been prevented without the Patriot Act. Police prevented crimes all the time before the Patriot Act. Once a complaint is made you need to determine probable cause. If you have probable cause, there's no problem getting a warrant. If you don't have probable cause, you have no business getting a warrant. It's as simple as that. And from what I've read, Iyman Faris was caught through police surveillance, not any search.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And the Benjamin Franklin quote simply does not refer to terrorism. I love history, but that quote is for a different age. This is a new kind of war. These things must be prevented.

It's a new kind of war, but this is something that doesn't change. You can't give up freedom for security, ever. No matter how many laws you pass you'll never be secure. You could die at any time. And if terrorists want to attack us, they'll probably find a way. But freedom is what makes this country worth defending. Because even though we've been doing our best to see how much we can shred the Constitution, America is still a country that, at least in principle, is built on the idea of liberty and freedom. If you take that away, America becomes no different than any one of the 200 other countries in the world. And there's nothing left worth keeping secure.

I know you think Clarke is an extreme Bush-hating liberal (despite the fact that he's worked for three Republican administrations), but since I've already mentioned his lecture I'll share with you something he ended with. He told us that in his entire career, he never needed to take away people's rights for the purpose of national security. You can disagree, but I happen to think that Clarke knows a little more than Dick Morris about national security.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

It has the look of it, but it's really not. Let's go over it... You said the Patriot Act is wrong. FACT. The Patriot Act has been crucial in locating over 20 terrorist cells in this country and thwarting many terrorist attacks. FACT. So if you dislike the Patriot Act, does it not stand to reason that you dislike the very thing that has prevented further attacks of terror on our country?

No. No, it doesn't stand to reason. I think that's possibly the lamest argument you've given yet. And that's saying quite a bit. If your premises are that I think the Patriot Act is wrong and that the Patriot Act prevented the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, it does not follow that I wanted the Brooklyn Bridge to be destroyed. It's completely invalid.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

LOL. How? We don't trust each other's sources.

Well, start using better sources then.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I already knew about the Iran endorsement. That's hilarious. Anyway, so kids are really smart and picked the winner the last four years right? So you believe they made the right choice with Bush in 2000? Cool.

I never said that.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh boy, this is really productive. Uh, I guess now I call you an idiot too? "mag, you idiot!" Ok, heh. Cool. Yeah I guess that was sort of fun, but exclaiming common knowledge can be a little overrated at the same time.

Hey, I'm just giving some friendly feedback. You're pretty full of yourself, so I wouldn't want you walking around thinking that you're not an idiot. Somebody needed to tell you.

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Do you have any legitimate reason why we shouldn't believe what he thinks? I mean, other than your usual reasoning that you don't like what he's saying.

Dr. Wahab has a PhD from Stanford and is a professor at Lewis & Clark College. He was invited by the Afghan administration's Minister of Higher Education to serve as a senior advisor. He worked in Afghanistan with the Ministry of Higher Education from August 2002 through June 2003. And as I said, this was published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. So I would say he has some pretty solid credentials.

Sorry, I finally got into Everquest 2 Beta earlier today and I'm already hopelessly addicted so I have to make this quick...

Where is his evidence that Enron stood to benefit?

Originally Posted by mag

No, it's not. An opinion can't be a lie.

He presents it as fact. So it's a lie.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, if Moore lied then so did Bush. Because as I've said twice now, Bush is the one who called it a vacation.

Show me then. Show me where Bush called 42% of his first eight months in office, a vacation.

Originally Posted by mag

Sources I wouldn't give the time of day...so more Zionist conspircay theories, huh?

No, no. Just sources that don't agree America is sinking into the flames of fascism and hell.

Originally Posted by mag

No, he cites the sources that are relevant to what he's talking about.

It's funny you say that... Only because Moore is usually citing things that AREN'T relevant, and he tries to make them seem relevant with editing.

Originally Posted by mag

Nobody ever said otherwise.

Except Moore...

Originally Posted by mag

Moore did make changes to the film before the release. But there wouldn't have been anything to correct. Look at the scene again. What he says is, "I guess I was tired of seeing people like Lila Lipscomb suffer, especially when out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." "Had," past tense. In other words, at this particular point in time, only one congressman had a son in Iraq.

Also, he specifically says "an enlisted son in Iraq." Enlisted means a rank below a commissioned officer or warrant officer." Hunter's son is a first lieutenant. That's significant because it's the enlisted men who get sent into combat first.

First paragraph is a lousy excuse, second paragraph everyone knows about but most people are too embarrassed to mention it. Somehow it's not as much of a sacrifice because he's a first lieutenant. Can't please a liberal.

Originally Posted by mag

No, the only person who ends up looking like an idiot is the moron who can't recognize a simple figure of speech.

Oh I recognize what he said fine, and I think it made him look stupid. Then again, he always looks stupid so you may have a point...

Originally Posted by mag

You're a little feeble, aren't you? You can correct Moore's grammar all you want. That still doesn't make him a liar.

WHAT?! LOL. He's a liar, plain and simple. You defend his B.S. by saying it's a figure of speech or bad grammar. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by mag

The Swift Boat Vets stuff isn't really relevant. Do you understand that there is a difference between the Kerry campaign taking the Swift Boat Veterans for Their Own Bloated Egos to court and any one of the numerous groups Moore has alienated taking Moore to court? What do you think the Republicans would have done if Kerry had responded to the Swift Boat Vets with a libel charge? They're already criticizing him and Edwards for being lawyers (as if that was somehow significant). Kerry couldn't have taken the Swift Boat Vets to court if he wanted to actually win. But there wouldn't be anything stopping the people who don't like Moore from taking him to court if they actually had a case to back it up.

BTW, that's exactly what's happening to Stolen Honor, the anti-Kerry documentary that was going to be shown by Sinclair Broadcasting.

Sorry, didn't have time to look at the link... Anyway, you go ahead and say they are different. I disagree.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, since you're the one who got this topic going with your, "You sit there and pretend you know the work involved in reconstructing a country, but you have yet to name the countries where you've worked on getting the power and water back to 100% of the people," why don't you answer that question first?

Because I was ASKING if you'd been there. I'm not the one who said, "I guess by your standards nobody here knows anything about Iraq because none of us have ever been there." And how do YOU know none of us have been there?

Originally Posted by mag

Well, that would describe your responses. But mine not so much. So far the sources you've given me include Zionist conspiracy theory websites and Ariel Sharon. The most solid source I've seen from you so far are the partisan hacks at FOX News. That's kind of sad.

So yeah, I've rejected a lot of your sources. The difference between you and me, though, is that I can actually tell you what's wrong with your sources. You reject my sources just because you don't like what they're saying.

That's not true at all. Not at all. You are as much of a liar as your beloved liberal heroes. lol.

Originally Posted by mag

That's just not true at all. I get news from a number of sources, including jingoistic conservative organizations like the ones you seem to love so much. I know perfectly well that America has done some good things. But I'm also not going to turn a blind eye when America does something wrong just because I happen to live here. It's not my fault America's actions around the world have been so overwhelmingly negative.

I don't turn a blind eye either. It's not my fault you THINK America's actions around the world have been so overwhelmingly negative.

Originally Posted by mag

It's not an either-or decision. The two go hand in hand. Trying to bring the troops home is what the current administration should be doing.

Hell no. I disagree. They have to finish the job. Americans "pulling out" of places is what energized Bin Laden.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Your "point" was just repeating what I had already explained was wrong. Your point about the IBC including civilians killed by insurgents was the only thing new worth responding to.

Really? You mean to say you find my points as worthless as I find yours? What a shock!

Originally Posted by mag

So in other words, you're ignoring one point to talk about a lesser point.

Uh, no not at all.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, there's only two things that come from Texas. I guess now we know which one you are.

And only dumb f u c k s come from Pittsburgh I guess.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, it's nice that you believe that, but you're wrong.

It's nice that you believe I'm wrong, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by mag

But your point with Moore was about his arguments, not how balanced his work is. Hannity can have Colmes say whatever he wants. It still doesn't change what Hannity says himself--which is based largely on ignoring countless facts, taking quotes out of context, and straight up lying.

Besides, if the argument is that nobody ever gets the chance to refute what Moore says, I don't buy it. Moore gets two hours to make his point. His critics are on the news and the internet for months (even before the film is released) making outrageous charges like "he's a liar" or "he's a Nazi propagandist."

Not true. Hannity doesn't fit your description at all. And the main reason Moore's work annoys me is because his lies are visual. And images are often more powerful than words. Then again, I just talked to my ex-girlfriend today who I could've sworn was a liberal (we never discussed politics much), and she was talking about how she thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a very good movie. So I said, "Ah, you ARE a Kerry fan." And she said, "No, I'm voting for Bush, I just thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a well done movie." LOL! So maybe I'm the one underestimating people afterall. Perhaps most people aren't dumb shits who buy Moore's crap.

Originally Posted by mag

So then why is it that you're such a huge fan of Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us." Because the Bush Doctrine is really just a much more militant version of the same basic idea. We don't make deals with terrorist regimes (that's not actually true, but it's something we should be doing).

A deal to get bin Laden isn't a bad deal...

Originally Posted by mag

Yes. Hussein moved all of his weapons of mass destruction out of the country. I love this theory. Of course, we don't have the technology to do this. But we're betting that a third world dictator does.

With 18 months time offered him by the U.N., what kind of technology was necessary exactly?

Originally Posted by mag

Are we talking about the same Dick Morris? Because the Dick Morris I'm thinking of is a campaign consultant. He has no experience in law enforcement.

Regardless, you still haven't shown how this was something that couldn't have been prevented without the Patriot Act. Police prevented crimes all the time before the Patriot Act. Once a complaint is made you need to determine probable cause. If you have probable cause, there's no problem getting a warrant. If you don't have probable cause, you have no business getting a warrant. It's as simple as that. And from what I've read, Iyman Faris was caught through police surveillance, not any search.

You are ignoring what I'm saying... The "probable cause" in this case wasn't enough to get them a search warrant prior to the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by mag

It's a new kind of war, but this is something that doesn't change. You can't give up freedom for security, ever. No matter how many laws you pass you'll never be secure. You could die at any time. And if terrorists want to attack us, they'll probably find a way. But freedom is what makes this country worth defending. Because even though we've been doing our best to see how much we can shred the Constitution, America is still a country that, at least in principle, is built on the idea of liberty and freedom. If you take that away, America becomes no different than any one of the 200 other countries in the world. And there's nothing left worth keeping secure.

I know you think Clarke is an extreme Bush-hating liberal (despite the fact that he's worked for three Republican administrations), but since I've already mentioned his lecture I'll share with you something he ended with. He told us that in his entire career, he never needed to take away people's rights for the purpose of national security. You can disagree, but I happen to think that Clarke knows a little more than Dick Morris about national security.

I don't think the Patriot Act takes away people's rights or freedoms. So your point is useless.

Originally Posted by mag

No. No, it doesn't stand to reason. I think that's possibly the lamest argument you've given yet. And that's saying quite a bit. If your premises are that I think the Patriot Act is wrong and that the Patriot Act prevented the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, it does not follow that I wanted the Brooklyn Bridge to be destroyed. It's completely invalid.

Forgive me while I laugh my ass off...

Originally Posted by mag

Well, start using better sources then.

"Better" in your estimation may be completely different from the way I see things. And it's politically motivated. You are a brainwashed zombie.

Originally Posted by mag

Hey, I'm just giving some friendly feedback. You're pretty full of yourself, so I wouldn't want you walking around thinking that you're not an idiot. Somebody needed to tell you.

I'm am rather full of myself, but YOU calling me an idiot is only fattening up my ego further.

Ok back to to EQ2...

Brandon (guybrush guy), what do you think of it so far? I think it's pretty damn sweet.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I don't think the Patriot Act takes away people's rights or freedoms...

That is becuase you either haven't read it, don't comprehend it, or have little respect for the principles this country is founded on.

Even many Republicans have spoken out against its infringement on liberty and the Constitution. Are you so blinded by bias that you can't even see the dissension in your own party on the matter? Or what about the fact that at least one portion of the Patriot Act has already been ruled unconstituional in a court of law?

[Bastich]

Oh, and as far as the poll... I support neither candidate, so I can't participate. An "OTHER" option would have been nice.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Sorry, I finally got into Everquest 2 Beta earlier today and I'm already hopelessly addicted so I have to make this quick...

I told you you're a junky.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Where is his evidence that Enron stood to benefit?

He was there. Of course, if you don't belive the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, there's also the Guardian which wrote, "A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas." And Pulitzer Prize nominated writer John Loftus writes, "...a consortium of American oil companies (lead by Unocal) had hired Enron to determine the profitability of building an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan so that America could have access to the Caspian Sea Basin, holding 1/8th of the worlds energy supplies." He continues, "US energy companies (Enron, as the Afghan pipeline consultant for UNOCAL) used the Saudi intelligence connection to the Taliban to begin negotiations for a pipeline across Afghanistan," and, "When Bush's son came into office, Enron allegedly approached Cheney in late January and told him vaguely about the secret Saudi-Taliban pipeline negotiations, and how important it was to America's energy policy for generations to come."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

He presents it as fact. So it's a lie.

He doesn't present it as fact. He presents it as his opinion. So it's not a lie.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Show me then. Show me where Bush called 42% of his first eight months in office, a vacation.

We just went through this. Stop playing EverQuest for a minute, and read what I wrote. That was the whole point of posting the CNN quote, "Bush is on what the White House calls a 'working vacation,' meeting with senior staff between time spent jogging and fishing on the 1,600-acre ranch."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Except Moore...

No, not except Moore. Moore never said that Katherine Harris counted the votes. That's nothing more than your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

First paragraph is a lousy excuse, second paragraph everyone knows about but most people are too embarrassed to mention it. Somehow it's not as much of a sacrifice because he's a first lieutenant. Can't please a liberal.

Well, it's more reasonable than saying that Moore lied because he used the plural form of "egg" instead of the singular. You can call it a "lousy excuse" if you want, but it's the truth. And as I said, the difference between enlisted men and officers is significant because enlisted men are the ones sent into combat first. Not to demean the service of officers, but logically, if your son is a first lieutenant you probably don't have to worry about him as much as if your son is a staff sergeant.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Oh I recognize what he said fine, and I think it made him look stupid. Then again, he always looks stupid so you may have a point...

You obviously don't recognize what he said because you're still saying it's a lie when it's clearly not. The only person looking stupid here is you.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

WHAT?! LOL. He's a liar, plain and simple. You defend his B.S. by saying it's a figure of speech or bad grammar. Give me a break.

Yes, he said "eggs" instead of "egg." What a filthy liar.

(Note to administrators: Thanks for the "rolls eyes" emoticon. It's coming in real handy in this thread.)

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Sorry, didn't have time to look at the link... Anyway, you go ahead and say they are different. I disagree.

Well, the link has apparently been changed anyway. But it was a link to an AP story on Yahoo! News about a Vietnam vet who was suing Stolen Honor for libel because he says they show a picture of him and say that he didn't really serve in Vietnam.

But the situations are clearly different for the reasons I've already stated. Kerry is running a presidential campaign. Presidential campaigns can't go around suing people. If Moore was really the liar people like you say he is, the NRA would have taken him down after Bowling for Columbine.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Because I was ASKING if you'd been there. I'm not the one who said, "I guess by your standards nobody here knows anything about Iraq because none of us have ever been there." And how do YOU know none of us have been there?

Well, I haven't been there. And I can tell you haven't been there because you have no idea what's going on over there. And the only other person really commenting in this thread is from the Netherlands.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

That's not true at all. Not at all. You are as much of a liar as your beloved liberal heroes. lol.

Well, I do use figures of speech pretty often. So by your standards I guess that would make me a liar. But what exactly are you denying? That you've used Ariel Sharon and Zionist websites as sources? Is this another one of those convenient cases of amnesia?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I don't turn a blind eye either. It's not my fault you THINK America's actions around the world have been so overwhelmingly negative.

For anybody to think that the effect of America's foreign policy on the rest of the world has been positive, they would have to either be just as bad as people like Kissinger or have no idea what's going on in the world. With you I get the impression it's more ignorance than malice.

mag

[Mattsius]

O.M.G!

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Hell no. I disagree. They have to finish the job. Americans "pulling out" of places is what energized Bin Laden.

No, no. You have it all backwards, Americans "invading" places is what energizes Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and (thanks to the war in Iraq) countless more new terrorist cells. The only reason Bush is able to run for president a second term is because his administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way. By invading Iraq they invited a whole new generation of terrorists, along with the usual Al Qaeda bunch, to plan and execute more terrorist attacks against the West. Somehow you seem to have the idea that terrorism is a new threat. It's been around for ages.

Originally Posted by Mattsius

O.M.G!

Yeah I know, I just read mag's reply too.