Moore's strategy backfires; '9/11' shut out of Oscars

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Genx87

feel confident in saying he would feel nothing but disgust for the spoiled coward we now have in office.

But lets not get too far off topic here. How do you think he would feel about Moores lies, decpetions, and crap?

I think he would say that difference is when Bush lies, thousands of our troops die.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Wow...one whole scene.

How about Lila Lipscomb? What about those military recruiters? What about the Iraq war veteran that said he'd refuse to return to Iraq?

If you need more here you go

http://www.davekopel.com/Terro...-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

To call this a documentary is insulting the word itself

HA! Those were debunked long ago. It's been discussed up here before.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1354861&arctab=arc

And this: http://www.michaelmoore.com/bo...reader/index.php?id=16

I am looking through the first link and have to ask where are the sources?!?!? I mean I have no problem in debunking the debunks but without a source of information and having to rely on his opinion or spin doesnt do it for me. And it really shouldnt do it for you. It opens it up to discussion but in my book if one has facts and the other just provides his spin. The one with links and sources wins out.

And going to Michealmoore is like going to rapists to prove a rape didnt occur.

Go to the Daily Kos site and click on the individual links there. It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Oh, no! I have my own opinion. I guess your life would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed with you.

Condescending fool.

I always get a rolling laugh out of Bush-haters calling people condescending.

Thanks for the laugh.

As far as everyone agreeing with me, I'm not part of those who would designate 52% of this country ignorant idiots for voting for Bush (which I didn't), or believing in God (which I don't), or for not supporting gay marriage (which I do). Are you part of those people?

I didn't call 'people' condescending. I called you condescending.

Demonstrating even more irony, I see.

You wrote "Any further questions about bitterness, aidanjm?" regarding post rather than actually replying to it, which I find condescending. I wrote nothing about God or gay marriage, so your assumptions that I'd feel one way or the other are just that... assumptions.

Your post contained nothing to reply to. It was yet another boring blah, blah, blah, containing one person's trite opinion of Bush.

::yawn::

my grandfather landing at normandy, fighting his way through France, and getting caught in the Battle of the Bulge is anything but boring. He fought that we could have freedom of speech, so if you think labeling my opinions 'trite' will hurt my feelings, you're greatly mistaken.

The only way Bush could win my respect now is if he finds a diplomatic solution to bring Iran (one of the few Middle Eastern countries that actually likes us) into our corner. If he accomplishes this he'll cut off a large portion of foreign support for insurgents and befriend a future nuclear nation. Then he needs to befriend future-superpower China and enlist their aid to deal with the North Korea crisis. There's one thing President Bush hasn't learned: setting up democracies isn't enough to ensure our safety from terrorist attacks. Just ask Timothy McVeigh.

Silly me, I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion about our President's mistakes with you.

Yeah... go back to sleep, old man. Let the next generation fix this mess.

You started off your discussion by calling Bush a "spoiled coward" and claiming he has "no intelligence, honor, and integrity." Is that the extent of your intelligent discussion skills? If so, color me completely unimpressed. Because it sounds more like cut & pasted old rhetoric from the new liberal circle-jerk than anything someone intelligent would say.

And good for your Grandpa. I'll let me son in Fallujah know about him. :roll:

You obviously don't want to engage me regarding Bush's mistakes. No man is perfect, not me, not you, and certainly not President Bush. I believe President Bush has made some major foreign policy mistakes, and if he doesn't deal with Iran and North Korea delicately your son will have a lot more bullets shot at him when a diplomatic solution could be found.

But good luck to your son. I hope he stays safe.

Bush's mistakes are done and over and cannot be undone. He has also been voted back into office so be prepared for even more mistakes.

As you admit, no man is perfect. I agree completely. So tell me why we should discuss why Bush is not perfect?

imo, Bush's only real major fault is his lack of eloquence. If, like Clinton, he could sell ice to an Eskimo, people would be behind him and few would be bitching about this war. So is that what we are about? Instead of actually figuring out what's essentially right in this world we have to have some snake-oil salesman convince us of righteousness? That doesn't fly with me.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Bush's mistakes are done and over and cannot be undone. He has also been voted back into office so be prepared for even more mistakes.

As you admit, no man is perfect. I agree completely. So tell me why we should discuss why Bush is not perfect?

imo, Bush's only real major fault is his lack of eloquence. If, like Clinton, he could sell ice to an Eskimo, people would be behind him and few would be bitching about this war. So is that what we are about? Instead of actually figuring out what's essentially right in this world we have to have some snake-oil salesman convince us of righteousness? That doesn't fly with me.

see, this is where we disagree. I have huge problems with how he conducted the Iraq War, none of which would've been solved by more eloquence. And I think if he uses the same template to deal with Iran and North Korea (head-on, military, no diplomacy) it will gravely affect the safety of our nation for generations to come. Therefore, as a good American citizen it is my duty to speak against his mistakes so they will not be repeated. My loyalty is to this nation, not President Bush.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

Moore is great about ommitting pertinent facts. He paints pictures with a very select pallette of facts to force people into a conclusion that is not true.

Why does he not mention, while he's insinuating Bush did nothing for 7 whole minutes in that classroom except read My Pet Goat, that Ari Fleisher was in the back of the room holding up a notepad with the words "Don't say anything" written on it. Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy.

Any sane person can read Moore's site and Kopel's site and figure out who is debunked and who is not.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

Moore is great about ommitting pertinent facts. He paints pictures with a very select pallette of facts to force people into a conclusion that is not true.

Why does he not mention, while he's insinuating Bush did nothing for 7 whole minutes in that classroom except read My Pet Goat, that Ari Fleisher was in the back of the room holding up a notepad with the words "Don't say anything" written on it. Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy.

Any sane person can read Moore's site and Kopel's site and figure out who is debunked and who is not.

So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?
b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?

Actually, yes. Most Presidents do need to be told what to do. That's why they have these things called "advisors" and why he has a staff. Any President relying on himself to make his decisions in this type of situation should be considered a fool.

b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

C'mon. Give it some thought. The school was already a secure area. The danger would have been encountered by rushing off somewhere.

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

Au contrair. I believe you're not helping Moore on this one.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

Moore is great about ommitting pertinent facts. He paints pictures with a very select pallette of facts to force people into a conclusion that is not true.

Why does he not mention, while he's insinuating Bush did nothing for 7 whole minutes in that classroom except read My Pet Goat, that Ari Fleisher was in the back of the room holding up a notepad with the words "Don't say anything" written on it. Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy.

Any sane person can read Moore's site and Kopel's site and figure out who is debunked and who is not.

So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?
b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

😕 Sorry, but I think you're the one grasping at straws here, pal.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138
So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?

Actually, yes. Most Presidents do need to be told what to do. That's why they have these things called "advisors" and why he has a staff. Any President relying on himself to make his decisions in this type of situation should be considered a fool.

b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

C'mon. Give it some thought. The school was already a secure area. The danger would have been encountered by rushing off somewhere.

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

Au contrair. I believe you're not helping Moore on this one.

No, really, president's have advisors? Wow. I didn't know that!
Newsflash: Just because you have an advisor doesn't mean you have to do what they say. We didn't elect Ari Fleischer. Let's be honest: how he behaved wasn't PRESIDENTIAL. People want to feel like their President is in charge of the situation. Granted, no one was in charge of the situation that day but Bin Laden, but people still want the President to project confidence and a sense that he was managing the situation.

And who said i was trying to help Moore?

You assume way too much.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

Moore is great about ommitting pertinent facts. He paints pictures with a very select pallette of facts to force people into a conclusion that is not true.

Why does he not mention, while he's insinuating Bush did nothing for 7 whole minutes in that classroom except read My Pet Goat, that Ari Fleisher was in the back of the room holding up a notepad with the words "Don't say anything" written on it. Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy.

Any sane person can read Moore's site and Kopel's site and figure out who is debunked and who is not.

So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?
b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

😕 Sorry, but I think you're the one grasping at straws here, pal.

Read AGAINST ALL ENEMIES and get back to me, pal.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

One man's logic is another man's lies.

Moore is great about ommitting pertinent facts. He paints pictures with a very select pallette of facts to force people into a conclusion that is not true.

Why does he not mention, while he's insinuating Bush did nothing for 7 whole minutes in that classroom except read My Pet Goat, that Ari Fleisher was in the back of the room holding up a notepad with the words "Don't say anything" written on it. Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy.

Any sane person can read Moore's site and Kopel's site and figure out who is debunked and who is not.

So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?
b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

😕 Sorry, but I think you're the one grasping at straws here, pal.

Read AGAINST ALL ENEMIES and get back to me, pal.

Done. Your point?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138
So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?

Actually, yes. Most Presidents do need to be told what to do. That's why they have these things called "advisors" and why he has a staff. Any President relying on himself to make his decisions in this type of situation should be considered a fool.

b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

C'mon. Give it some thought. The school was already a secure area. The danger would have been encountered by rushing off somewhere.

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

Au contrair. I believe you're not helping Moore on this one.

No, really, president's have advisors? Wow. I didn't know that!
Newsflash: Just because you have an advisor doesn't mean you have to do what they say. We didn't elect Ari Fleischer. Let's be honest: how he behaved wasn't PRESIDENTIAL. People want to feel like their President is in charge of the situation. Granted, no one was in charge of the situation that day but Bin Laden, but people still want the President to project confidence and a sense that he was managing the situation.

And who said i was trying to help Moore?

You assume way too much.

I thought you wanted intelligent debate? Your reply gives no indication of that whatsoever. Intelligence also implies reason and you are tossing reason out the window in order to issue a soundbyte.

When you can back off the need for a rhetorical stance, feel free to provide a reasonable and level-headed response.

 

[Genx87]

think he would say that difference is when Bush lies, thousands of our troops die

I would be surprised. Moore is the type of guy who would complain that the Normandy landings werent done perfectly and the human life lost killing the Nazis your grandfather fought was not worth the fight.

Afterall it was the Japanese who attacked us in Pearl Harbor, not the Nazis. What are we doing thousands of miles from the Japanese fighting Nazis in Europe?

It's hard to provide sources for some of the debunking since it's merely pointing out the flaws in Kopel's logic.

Why? Kopel had zero problem backing up his claims with sources.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why? Kopel had zero problem backing up his claims with sources.

His irrelevant claims of taking things out of context?

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138
So the President
a) Needs to be told what to do on notepads?

Actually, yes. Most Presidents do need to be told what to do. That's why they have these things called "advisors" and why he has a staff. Any President relying on himself to make his decisions in this type of situation should be considered a fool.

b) He might have been targeted... and he stayed near children?

C'mon. Give it some thought. The school was already a secure area. The danger would have been encountered by rushing off somewhere.

You're not really helping Bush on this one.

Au contrair. I believe you're not helping Moore on this one.

No, really, president's have advisors? Wow. I didn't know that!
Newsflash: Just because you have an advisor doesn't mean you have to do what they say. We didn't elect Ari Fleischer. Let's be honest: how he behaved wasn't PRESIDENTIAL. People want to feel like their President is in charge of the situation. Granted, no one was in charge of the situation that day but Bin Laden, but people still want the President to project confidence and a sense that he was managing the situation.

And who said i was trying to help Moore?

You assume way too much.

I thought you wanted intelligent debate? Your reply gives no indication of that whatsoever. Intelligence also implies reason and you are tossing reason out the window in order to issue a soundbyte.

When you can back off the need for a rhetorical stance, feel free to provide a reasonable and level-headed response.

Once again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean my opinion is trite or unintelligent.
And just because you say it is, doesn't make it so either.

Let's break this down, shall we? How exactly am I "tossing reason out the window in order to issue a soundbyte?"

For one, there are no microphones around here and I'm not being interviewed, hence no "soundbyte".
We're writing... hence no sound. And how exactly am I throwing reason out the window? Are you claiming there isn't a concept known as "acting presidential"? Because it does exist, whether you've heard of it or not.

Personally, I would've politely and calmly dismissed myself from the classroom and gotten on the phone immediately to the White House situation room. Any attack planned on the President would've been harder to conduct with him on the move in his armored car surrounded by Secret Service, and he should've been in the chair authorizing decisions, shutting down air traffic, etc

To say he should've stayed seated because Ari Fleischer told him so, doesn't fly with me. To say it would've caused panic doesn't fly with me. You know what caused panic? The twin towers collapsing. I think we were maxed out on panic that day.

And I'm not quite sure how you see my stance as rhetorical. I've been the one that's trying to actively engage you. To be honest, I think you're confused about the definition of "rhetorical".

 

[Genx87]

His irrelevant claims of taking things out of context?

Kopel taking Moore out of context?

Thank you for the laugh, and I mean really lol

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

His irrelevant claims of taking things out of context?

Kopel taking Moore out of context?

Thank you for the laugh, and I mean really lol

That's what he did.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Thank god it got shut out of the Oscars. If Fahrenheit 9/11 actually won the Oscar for Best Picture, it would have been a tragedy. While F 9/11 was very entertaining, there are so many other films that actually deserve the award much more than Moore's film.

 

[Genx87]

That's what he did.

lol k

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Thank god it got shut out of the Oscars. If Fahrenheit 9/11 actually won the Oscar for Best Picture, it would have been a tragedy. While F 9/11 was very entertaining, there are so many other films that actually deserve the award much more than Moore's film.

Now that I can agree with. Heck, I'd have voted for The Incredibles over it. 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Once again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean my opinion is trite or unintelligent.
And just because you say it is, doesn't make it so either.

It has nothing to with agreement or lack thereof. It has to do with the way it's posed, the methodolgy you use to formulate your claim.

Let's break this down, shall we? How exactly am I "tossing reason out the window in order to issue a soundbyte?"

C'mon. "bin Laden was in charge that day." Does it really take a genius to recognize the hyperbole in that?

For one, there are no microphones around here and I'm not being interviewed, hence no "soundbyte".
We're writing... hence no sound. And how exactly am I throwing reason out the window? Are you claiming there isn't a concept known as "acting presidential"? Because it does exist, whether you've heard of it or not.

Where have you heard it? Where does it exist? A movie?

Personally, I would've politely and calmly dismissed myself from the classroom and gotten on the phone immediately to the White House situation room. Any attack planned on the President would've been harder to conduct with him on the move in his armored car surrounded by Secret Service, and he should've been in the chair authorizing decisions, shutting down air traffic, etc

Wow. I guess you really don't understand how things work.

When something like this happens, the first and foremot consideration is the safety of the president. They are not going to move him from a known safe condition to an unknown and potentially unsafe condition without some planning. And that planning takes some time. Regardless of what you THINK you might do, the President doesn't just jump up, as if he's some man of action, and yell "Let's move boys!" with a heroic wave of the hand.

To say he should've stayed seated because Ari Fleischer told him so, doesn't fly with me. To say it would've caused panic doesn't fly with me. You know what caused panic? The twin towers collapsing. I think we were maxed out on panic that day.

To claim he should have jumped up, for no real reason and with no actual plan in place yet to secure the president, tells me you consider the Hollywood version of the president to be your ideal. That's not the way it works.

And I'm not quite sure how you see my stance as rhetorical. I've been the one that's trying to actively engage you. To be honest, I think you're confused about the definition of "rhetorical".

Rhetorical - consisting of rhetoric. I explained it above already.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Once again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean my opinion is trite or unintelligent.
And just because you say it is, doesn't make it so either.

It has nothing to with agreement or lack thereof. It has to do with the way it's posed, the methodolgy you use to formulate your claim.

Let's break this down, shall we? How exactly am I "tossing reason out the window in order to issue a soundbyte?"

C'mon. "bin Laden was in charge that day." Does it really take a genius to recognize the hyperbole in that?

For one, there are no microphones around here and I'm not being interviewed, hence no "soundbyte".
We're writing... hence no sound. And how exactly am I throwing reason out the window? Are you claiming there isn't a concept known as "acting presidential"? Because it does exist, whether you've heard of it or not.

Where have you heard it? Where does it exist? A movie?

Personally, I would've politely and calmly dismissed myself from the classroom and gotten on the phone immediately to the White House situation room. Any attack planned on the President would've been harder to conduct with him on the move in his armored car surrounded by Secret Service, and he should've been in the chair authorizing decisions, shutting down air traffic, etc

Wow. I guess you really don't understand how things work.

When something like this happens, the first and foremot consideration is the safety of the president. They are not going to move him from a known safe condition to an unknown and potentially unsafe condition without some planning. And that planning takes some time. Regardless of what you THINK you might do, the President doesn't just jump up, as if he's some man of action, and yell "Let's move boys!" with a heroic wave of the hand.

To say he should've stayed seated because Ari Fleischer told him so, doesn't fly with me. To say it would've caused panic doesn't fly with me. You know what caused panic? The twin towers collapsing. I think we were maxed out on panic that day.

To claim he should have jumped up, for no real reason and with no actual plan in place yet to secure the president, tells me you consider the Hollywood version of the president to be your ideal. That's not the way it works.

And I'm not quite sure how you see my stance as rhetorical. I've been the one that's trying to actively engage you. To be honest, I think you're confused about the definition of "rhetorical".

Rhetorical - consisting of rhetoric. I explained it above already.

I'm sorry you don't full understand the concept of rhetoric. I was posing ideas and questions, fully expecting your answers.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of "acting presidential". It's an elusive quality, akin to the "It Girls" of Old Hollywood. It's a set of behavior rules that conveys an equal amount of confidence and accessibility. Howard Dean's rally yell? That wasn't presidential. It was too raw and it cost him the nomination. JFK's Berlin speech? That was presidential. These moments are all planned: George Bush on an aircraft carrier to instill confidence, George Bush on a fishing show to convey accessibility ("Hey, he's one of us!") Of course policy is more important than all the smoke and mirrors, but the people demand a certain amount of it to feel secure. Why do you think Bush was mad at his advisors for whisking him away to that airbase on 9-11? I didn't look presidential.

I'm sorry you don't understand the way the Secret Service works. At any given location, the Secret Service knows multiple escape routes and can move the president instantly to safety. The Presidential limo is basically a moving tank, and Air Force One is the safest aircraft in the world. To say that the Secret Service need 7+ minutes to figure out where to move him is an insult to one of our greatest organizations, which operates tirelessly 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


To be honest, I feel like you're not really thinking through your responses. You paste together a couple phrases you've heard bandied about--"liberal circle jerk"-- and throw in a few concepts that you don't truly understand-- "rhetorical"-- but your arguments have no real substance. "You're unintelligent." Okay, how? "I don't like your methodology" Okay, how?

Sigh. You weren't the debate partner I'd hoped for. Have a nice night...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
I'm sorry you don't full understand the concept of rhetoric. I was posing ideas and questions, fully expecting your answers.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of "acting presidential". It's an elusive quality, akin to the "It Girls" of Old Hollywood. It's a set of behavior rules that conveys an equal amount of confidence and accessibility. Howard Dean's rally yell? That wasn't presidential. It was too raw and it cost him the nomination. JFK's Berlin speech? That was presidential. These moments are all planned: George Bush on an aircraft carrier to instill confidence, George Bush on a fishing show to convey accessibility ("Hey, he's one of us!") Of course policy is more important than all the smoke and mirrors, but the people demand a certain amount of it to feel secure. Why do you think Bush was mad at his advisors for whisking him away to that airbase on 9-11? I didn't look presidential.

I'm sorry you don't understand the way the Secret Service works. At any given location, the Secret Service knows multiple escape routes and can move the president instantly to safety. The Presidential limo is basically a moving tank, and Air Force One is the safest aircraft in the world. To say that the Secret Service need 7+ minutes to figure out where to move him is an insult to one of our greatest organizations, which operates tirelessly 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


To be honest, I feel like you're not really thinking through your responses. You paste together a couple phrases you've heard bandied about--"liberal circle jerk"-- and throw in a few concepts that you don't truly understand-- "rhetorical"-- but your arguments have no real substance. "You're unintelligent." Okay, how? "I don't like your methodology" Okay, how?

Sigh. You weren't the debate partner I'd hoped for. Have a nice night...

Yep. If you're looking for thoughtful discussion, you're pumping a dry well. As I learned in a couple of recent threads, Chicken's M.O. is to parrot the same tired talking points as long as he can. Then, when cornered, divert the discussion by crying about the tone of your comments (while completely denying the tone of his own, of course).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... ]Why does he not mention that rushing out of the classroom would have been a panic inducing move, not to mention that there had to be planning on what to do next with the president as there was no way to know whether the terrorists were now targeting Bush himself.

Instead he idiotically assumes that Bush should have jumped up and done something. Of course, Moore has no clue what that something was.

And that's one minor example of Moore's unadulterated horse ploppy. ...

On the contrary, I think this oft-repeated excuse is the "horse ploppy". First, there's absolutely no reason Bush leaving the room would induce panic, at least not unless he ran screaming from the room at the top of his lungs. How would it possibly induce panic for Bush to politely excuse himself? If the kids in the room didn't know about the attack, it would be completely unremarkable for Bush to have said, "I have to go now. I have work to do." If the kids did know about it, it would be even easier: "Sorry kids, I need to find out what's going on." If anything, at least for the adults in the room, watching the President of the United States sit there with a blank look on his face while the country was attacked would induce panic.

Re. what should he have done: Display leadership. Communicate. Take charge. Find out what we knew. Find out what we were doing. Confirm he is satisfied the response is satisfactory. The man was elected to lead the country, not sit on his duff waiting for his handlers to pull his strings.