EPTLies of Fahrenheit 9/11 - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
beanmachine
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
On June 26 2004 23:24 TeCh)PsylO wrote: It is typical of Excal to create one of his rant threads than disappear... Oh sorry I forgot to mention the source. Not that it matters of course, the info is still relevant. http://debbieschlussel.com/ saw F911 and listed all the questionable accusations and facts then exposed them. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
Debbie Schlussel, a conservative political commentator, columnist.... A lifelong conservative Republican activist.... Really, you attack Moore for his bias, his choice of providing information. You say he is giving propaganda by only showing one side of the story. You are doing the exact same fucking thing! So do your conservative leaders. You don't care about truth. You do not care about objectivity. You are trying to debunk Moore becuase he is better at his bias then you and your conservative masters are at yours. Why don't you give the man his due for being smarter than all of you and have a nice day.. | ||
|
OriginalLogic
United States85 Posts
 First of all...if anyone has ever lost someone in their immediate family, even outside of war, only then can you understand that movie. Now...the first war in the Persian Gulf, which most of you don't even remember, most of the US didn't like either. We were assiting Kuwait, with UN support, because Iraq blamed them for stealing oil and began attacking. However, we didn't proceed to bomb Iraq, etc. We played peace-maker, like UN supported actions are supposed to be, and we made Iraqi troops leave Kuwait. We only did this after they didn't listen to UN demands and only then the "coalition" troops attacked Iraqi targets. Still...loss of life = bad. A good portion of the US did not like this war. Now comes GWB. I'm sorry but when a large committee proves that Iraq had no connection to al'Queda and when al'Queda asked for Iraqi assistance they were declined help...it kinda throws Bush's theory out the window. On top of that, he initiated action without consent of the UN and his only response to the committee's results are something resembling "I say there's a connection between Iraq and al'Queda because there is one." Bush has shot himself in the foot on this issue many times and, if any of you people saying this movie was dumb have ever watched any news that wasn't on FOX (or any news at all), you probably would have seen this information. Granted, Saddam wasn't a nice guy and it's cool that he's gone, but I'd rather have all those Americans alive and back in this country. Hunt for al'Queda all you want...hunt down individual terrorists...our country has been doing things like that for years anyway. However, there is no logical leap between what we did in Afghanistan and what we did in Iraq. The two overriding ideas in Moore's film are the following: There is absolutely no excuse for loss of life. When you're leading a country, you need to do your job properly and in a timely manner. There's absolutely no information you can present that would tell me or anyone else that Bush did his job properly and in a timely manner and tried every alternative to war in order to save American lives. | ||
|
Sw1tCh
United States2005 Posts
| ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
On June 26 2004 23:41 TeCh)PsylO wrote: For god sakes.....! It's incredible... Really, you attack Moore for his bias, his choice of providing information. You say he is giving propaganda by only showing one side of the story. You are doing the exact same fucking thing! At least all facts are presented in this way. You misunderstand. There is a difference between presenting accusations and refuting them. In refuting you don't need to present both sides, you just need to defeat the attacking side. | ||
|
BadBinky
Finland649 Posts
On June 26 2004 23:53 Excalibur_Z wrote: At least all facts are presented in this way. You misunderstand. There is a difference between presenting accusations and refuting them. In refuting you don't need to present both sides, you just need to defeat the attacking side. i see this shit on every forum and i like it :D | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
At least all facts are presented in this way. You misunderstand. There is a difference between presenting accusations and refuting them. In refuting you don't need to present both sides, you just need to defeat the attacking side. You have a point, but is Moore not just playing the same role as you? It is not as if the subject began with him. You say you disagree with his tactics, but you watch/read news from places that use the same tactics, and you use them yourself. You say you are just refuting Moore, but he is just refuting Bush and the mainstream media. You are calling him unpatriotic, but you are playing the same role as him. What Moore is doing is the same thing that every conservative figure, including yourself, is doing. Which is why I say you are really not attacking his tactics, becuase you obviously endorese them, you are attacking his success at getting a message across that you don't agree with. You have not exposed any lies, you have only shown that Moore is one sided. In the process, you have shown that you are too. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
On June 27 2004 00:05 TeCh)PsylO wrote: You have a point, but is Moore not just playing the same role as you? It is not as if the subject began with him. You say you disagree with his tactics, but you watch/read news from places that use the same tactics, and you use them yourself. You say you are just refuting Moore, but he is just refuting Bush and the mainstream media. You are calling him unpatriotic, but you are playing the same role as him. What Moore is doing is the same thing that every conservative figure, including yourself, is doing. Which is why I say you are really not attacking his tactics, becuase you obviously endorese them, you are attacking his success at getting a message across that you don't agree with. You have not exposed any lies, you have only shown that Moore is one sided. In the process, you have shown that you are too. I don't disagree that this is one-sided because it is designed to refute his biased "factoids". There is a difference between an opinion, which I give, and half-truths or things taken out of context as fact, which Moore does. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
On June 27 2004 00:00 Gryffindor_us wrote: Who was Eniram before, I know he was someone before that name. Also, ignore my post more Excal it's quite funny. I read your post but it didn't even say anything to provoke a response. | ||
|
SoLsiTO
United States573 Posts
On June 25 2004 23:44 Excalibur_Z wrote: I do. Because it's lies and propaganda. I should have a list ready by Monday. It seems it took you awhile to copy and paste. There is a difference between an opinion, which I give, and half-truths or things taken out of context as fact, which Moore does. Instead you just plagiarize someone else's work. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12269 Posts
On June 27 2004 01:00 SoLsiTO wrote: It seems it took you awhile to copy and paste. Instead you just plagiarize someone else's work. Uh it's not plagiarism when you cite the source, and that report came out today =p | ||
|
SoLsiTO
United States573 Posts
| ||
|
bObaZ
Portugal864 Posts
Just think about it . . . | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On June 27 2004 01:13 bObaZ wrote: i Laugh in the face of the americans that say that michael moore only tell lies... The people that live on USA don't even know what bush have done.. You only Know what the government wants you to know... You are their Little Puppets LOL! How can u refute some theory if u don't even know the truth? Just think about it . . . Why is that so funny to you? If you think that people are being brainwashed you find humor in it?  | ||
| ||
