7 replies to this topic

[Stotic]

Click on Video

http://www.foxnews.c...,127236,00.html

[dognapot]

one thing i certainly hate about moore is that he seems to absolutely addicted to saying things for thier sensational value as apposed to thier correctness. this debate is no different.

bush didn't lie about WMD that i can tell. however, he got the point across through sneaky linguistic tricks that pass over far too many people's heads. moore, obviously, is one of those people. bush's most notable 'lie' is that saddam was trying to buy uranium. what he said was

" The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

which is not a lie. the british government was adopting lots of false information. that was among it. even though it was proven false before the war began, it doesn't constitute a lie. if the brits were unaware of any such idea, then it would be a lie. you see how easy it is fool people into believing a lie without lying yourself?

bush does it all the time. it's the equivalent of ending your every sentence with "or that's what they tell me" and it shouldn't fool people as well as it does. one particularly frustrating development is the administration's back-pedaling on these issues. they go so far as to say that the whitehouse never said iraq was an immediate threat.

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

how immediate is now, cheney?

cheney really pisses me off too. he's not afraid to outright lie and call you moron for not taking his intellectual insult as a compliment. just a couple weeks ago cheney went off on how iraq was connected to al-qaeda, and that the US's war on terror has made the world safer. without any inference cheney comes to wild and delusional conclusions that make me question his mental health.

so what i'm trying to say here is, moore can do a lot better without twisting the truth. what's going on in america today is just insane. the truth is in plain sight and is incredibly damning, but moore's rhetoric is based on emotional appeal and not so much about making any case whatsoever. that's what really what bugs the crap out of me, a documentary maker who never fails to do a human interest movie instead. moore's praised like he's noam chomsky with the truth, but he's frickin' john stossel.

[Thunderja]

Hehe this was a lame setup by a mediocre journalist and Moore pwnt him despite the fact the other guy had many sleepless nights practicing what he is going to say.

From a rest of the world perspective Fox News is such a joke, without a doubt the most one sided current affairs programme we are forced to glance at in the early hours of the morning.

I'm not commenting on the political situation anywhere just the interview which was cheap and nasty. I may not agree with all Moore's views but he is prolly one of the only people left on widespread American television who uses freedom of speech and says what he wants.

Haven't seen Farenheit 911 but Shooting For Columbine was an absolute masterpiece and shows that he isn't just an anti-Bush maniac and that he has the good of America in his mind.

[Wafer]

Moore just spouts puerile drivel! His rants are aimed at trailer trash everywhere in the free world. Not his fault as he has to aim at the lowest common denominator and education standards are appalling.

Long gone are the days of intelligent political satire like Punch and Private Eye. Bring back Gore Vidal, except nobody would understand him now.

[dognapot]

actually the daily show does have some good satire going on. worth watching.

[Stotic]

The Dailys Show is the bomb - diggity.

[Gaddy]

I don't see how there can be a huge arguement made that 9/11 could've been prevented. As one of the largest nations in the world, as for size and power, the US is bound to have many bomb threats, terrorist situations, and all sorts of other things. They can't go off limiting everything to keep after all of those threats, it would end our democracy and our rights. That's of course just how I see it.


I don't see how anyone could say they wouldn't have gone to war. If you are the leader of our nation when an action like 9/11 happens, then you are going to do something. There was no option but to go to war, it was simply a choice of who with. I feel that they picked the country that was truely a problem and did aid the attack. That is highly debatable, but what do you think we, as a nation, would do if he'd simply sat on his ass?


I think it is good that Moore does try to point out to the people that our government isn't golden. Bad choices are made. People do things for reasons that aren't always fully told. He seems like a pretty annoying jackass to me most of the time, though.


As for news programs, it is very easy to tell how bias many of them are...I don't think I even need to say anything about that. I stopped watching most things about reasons for this and that on the news. They simply seem to be trying to brainwash everyone into thinking our nation is without flaw.


-Gaddy

[dognapot]

true we couldn't just sit on our asses but at the time we were learning that some of the alledged hijackers we're still alive. it wouldn't have been sitting on our asses to do further investigation, and investigation aside, you simply cannot fight ideas with guns and bombs. it isn't effective and in this case, it's ironically counter-productive. the 9/11 terrorists were attacking an entire country for the percieved transgressions done by american policy makers. so american policy makers attack an entire country for the terrorists it's own policy makers are ambivalent towards. in addition to that, just months before 9/11, afghanistan was awarded aid for it's merits in improving this or that, but no one thought much of terrorism then. whatever it improved then it's certainly not there anymore, the US's work in afghanistan is incomplete and on permanent hiatus. kabul is ruled by an oil executive and shariah law, while the surrounding land is ruled by warlords and, yes, the taliban! they're still there!