Any of you read the Michael Moore letter to Bush?

**japangreg** · 02-12-2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by XU1
???...Ok I give up now...I thought that some one else was responsible for 9/11...

Tony

We currently have a commission looking into that one

**XU1** · 02-12-2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by japangreg
Only How about being told to floss by a toothless dentist?

Yes but in this case its a dentist who forgot/or didnt want to brush his teeth for once...and not one who didnt have any.

Tony

**abound media** · 02-12-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by japangreg
The point of this letter (remember the letter? The subject of this post? The one that doesn't mention Clinton at all?) was to ask a 'war time' president about his military service record, which appears to have several discrepancies.

Thank you

This was not ment to be a loose political discussion, even though its pretty much inevitable, now back to the topic.....

**XU1** · 02-12-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by japangreg
We currently have a commission looking into that one

Like the same one about the moon landing??..

Tony

**TallGuyLittleCar** · 02-12-2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by japangreg
[B]C'mon now, all of you're responses here are aimed at bashing Clinton for not attacking Al Queda.

Neither did Bush. Not until we got hit.

Our Embassies were hit during the clinton admin. first wtc bombing during clinton. The cole was bombed during clinton. How would bush have responded to these smaller attacks? who knows.

The point of this letter (remember the letter? The subject of this post? The one that doesn't mention Clinton at all?) was to ask a 'war time' president about his military service record, which appears to have several discrepancies.

O.K. how does slinging an m-16 or m-14 prepare you for conducting a world war, or handling national security? Is Mr. Moore calling for a president that will directly oversee the operations, or a president that is intelligent enough to allow the experts to handle things.

**Ultima Designs** · 02-12-2004, 06:07 PM

Not like Michael Moore isn't biased or prone to lying.

**abound media** · 02-12-2004, 06:07 PM

Is Mr. Moore calling for a president that will directly oversee the operations, or a president that is intelligent enough to allow the experts to handle things.

No, Moore intially back Gen. Wesley K. Clark's camp. Clark kills 2 birds with one stone

**abound media** · 02-12-2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
Not like Michael Moore isn't biased or prone to lying.

This was posted on another board today and its hillarious. The source is far from credable. I am totaly open to someone pointing out true lies to me. Some stuff is convincing to a degree, the rest is garbage. I am quite selective of what I can and cannot believe. This guys piece falls into the latter.

edit*

How is this relevant to the letter, do you suggest that those are lies as well?

**TallGuyLittleCar** · 02-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by abound media
No, Moore intially back Gen. Wesley K. Clark's camp. Clark kills 2 birds with one stone

Cool, up until Clark started to run he backed G.W. Bush's war on terror.

So I guess Moore backs g.w. bush, but just can't figure out new ways to get into the public spotlight.

**Ultima Designs** · 02-12-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by abound media
This was posted on another board today and its hillarious. The source is far from credable. I am totaly open to someone pointing out true lies to me. Some stuff is convincing to a degree, the rest is garbage. I am quite selective of what I can and cannot believe. This guys piece falls into the latter.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

How is this relevant to the letter, do you suggest that those are lies as well?

His history of distorting facts (read: lying) and doing anything to make the Bush administration look bad is completely relevant. If he is the only person to make this connection, his credibility is lacking - thus, his suggestions seem highly unbelievable.

**yasunobu13** · 02-12-2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

Using national review to refute Moore's claims isn't exactly the best thing to do. I agree that Moore is very biased, I would call him insane at times, but thinking that the national review will give you an unbiased take on anything is just as foolish as expecting Moore, himself, to be unbiased.

Just like Fox news, it's entertainment, not "Fair and Balanced"

**XU1** · 02-12-2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs

His history of distorting facts (read: lying) and doing anything to make the Bush administration look bad is completely relevant. If he is the only person to make this connection, his credibility is lacking - thus, his suggestions seem highly unbelievable. [/B]

Thats not surprising....the culture of Liberal journalism is not to report the news to us but to tells us what is good for us...I hate the arrogance, and the typical socialist mentality that they know better than the rest.

And because of this they are Not to be trusted...tell me the news as it is I can make up my mind so can the rest of the world....people arent that stupid..

Tony

**Ultima Designs** · 02-12-2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by yasunobu13
Using national review to refute Moore's claims isn't exactly the best thing to do. I agree that Moore is very biased, I would call him insane at times, but thinking that the national review will give you an unbiased take on anything is just as foolish as expecting Moore, himself, to be unbiased.

Just like Fox news, it's entertainment, not "Fair and Balanced"

While the National Review may obviously not be the most subjective source, their data is relatively well researched, thought out, and cited. Your critiscisms of Fox News are unfair and generally lack basis, because Fox News: has, by far, the largest viewer base and best ratings. As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, numerous viewer polls have indicated that there is a nearly 50/50 balance between liberal and conservative viewers. Also, the number of pundits from both sides of the aisle - liberal and conservative - shows a great deal more balance than any other news channel.

**XU1** · 02-12-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
Fox News: has, by far, the largest viewer base and best ratings. As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, numerous viewer polls have indicated that there is a nearly 50/50 balance between liberal and conservative viewers.

This is something that Liberal media Shows or liberal newspapers/commentatos dont seem to want to know...people can make up their own mind...one reason why the majority of people will never have a "liberal" view of the world is that it is by large lacking in commonsense, and is out of touch with what the average person feels and thinks....and sees.

Tony

**yasunobu13** · 02-12-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
While the National Review may obviously not be the most subjective source, their data is relatively well researched, thought out, and cited. Your critiscisms of Fox News are unfair and generally lack basis, because Fox News: has, by far, the largest viewer base and best ratings. As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, numerous viewer polls have indicated that there is a nearly 50/50 balance between liberal and conservative viewers. Also, the number of pundits from both sides of the aisle - liberal and conservative - shows a great deal more balance than any other news channel.

I watch Fox news on a regular basis, and I can see quite a bit of bias in it.

**ViRGo_RK** · 02-12-2004, 07:23 PM

Fox news tastes like peppermint.

Okay, obviously I have nothing to add to this argument. Everything I feel has either been said, or I'm tired of the argument.

Mm, peppermint.

**hurricaneone** · 02-12-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
Your critiscisms of Fox News are unfair and generally lack basis, because Fox News: has, by far, the largest viewer base and best ratings. As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, numerous viewer polls have indicated that there is a nearly 50/50 balance between liberal and conservative viewers. Also, the number of pundits from both sides of the aisle - liberal and conservative - shows a great deal more balance than any other news channel.

FOX News has high ratings because it puts the news into funsized morsels that idiots find easy to mentally digest, not because they are an unbiased source for current events.

As for Moore, he's a reactionary, looking to create yet another reaction. Place faith in his words if you're anti-Bush, ignore him if you're pro-Bush. Either way, the world will still most likely be spinning tomorrow.

**Ultima Designs** · 02-12-2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by hurricaneone
FOX News has high ratings because it puts the news into funsized morsels that idiots find easy to mentally digest, not because they are an unbiased source for current events.

Perhaps so, or perhaps because people find them the least biased, most reliable, factual based news organization? Regardless, the point is that it isn't only conservatives or liberals that watch it, meaning that Fox News obviously must be doing something balanced.

Originally posted by hurricaneone
As for Moore, he's a reactionary, looking to create yet another reaction. Place faith in his words if you're anti-Bush, ignore him if you're pro-Bush. Either way, the world will still most likely be spinning tomorrow.

Err...Moore is a revolutionary. Reactionary is the other side of the spectrum.

**yasunobu13** · 02-12-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
Err...Moore is a revolutionary. Reactionary is the other side of the spectrum.

I think hurricaneone meant that Moore is just out to create a reaction. He just likes to stir up controversy by making accusations. He likes attention.

**XU1** · 02-12-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by hurricaneone
FOX News has high ratings because it puts the news into funsized morsels that idiots find easy to mentally digest, not because they are an unbiased source for current events.

As for Moore, he's a reactionary, looking to create yet another reaction. Place faith in his words if you're anti-Bush

Ahhhh...you gotta love it..to quote Winston Churchill.." if by the time your 16 30 your not a Socialist theres something wrong with you...if your still a Socialist by the time your 31 and over theres something wrong with you"

I think by that time a person realises that other people are not idiots.....

Tony

Thread: Any of you read the Michael Moore letter to Bush?

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions