-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why Michael Moore doesn't get it.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AntiEverything
Senior member
Moonbeam, you have so much hatred for people who disagree with you. Maybe someday you'll realize that it's just hatred of yourself that you're projecting onto others. When you realize the truth, then you'll cease hating.
flawlssdistortn
Senior member
I agree with the fact that Moore got a little carried away with his conspiracy theory. I guess the fat slob just couldn't resist the sound of his own voice. I mean, the movie would have been noticeable enough had he just layed out the facts and remained objective. Instead of exposing Bush's inacapility to handle the situation, Moore blew it way out of proportion, and therefore discredited the whole documentary. Hell, he's managed to discredit the entire liberal point of view. Every time an objection or a criticism is made, the neocons just automatically point to that fat, ridiculous excuse for a journalist.
Moore is more of an embarrassement for the democrats than Alan Keyes is for the Republicans. I say we take that bastard's liberal card away.
Moore is more of an embarrassement for the democrats than Alan Keyes is for the Republicans. I say we take that bastard's liberal card away.
Moore is a man who likes to peddle his wares to whoever will listen. He just happens to have a huge market for it since over 40% of America dislikes his policies.
I lost all respect for Moore when I first watched one of his movies, Bowling for Columbine. Instead of a documentary about the abuse many children suffer from their peers, he went off on a tirade about gun control. Instead of pointing out how teachers and coaches were aware of the taunts and assaults against the children and chose to ignore it, he griped about how life-long welfare mothers were being forced into the slavery which is work. Lastly, rather than showing the utter desperation and fear these students had with regard to their aggressors, Moore wanted to reinforce the ?whites fear the darkies? stigma.
Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? Moore and liberals says he did. Yet it?s well known that the Saddam regime used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels after the first Gulf War. Furthermore, US troops found small stockpiles of medium range chemical tipped capable missiles in Iraq. However, since they weren?t SCUDs and because their tips weren?t dripping with nerve agents, their discovery was downplayed and eventually dismissed. Of course, when 350 tons of explosives ?go missing?, those same people froth at the mouth and accuse Bush personally for letting them fall into the hands of terrorists.
Well sheesh, I thought Iraq wasn?t a stronghold for terrorists? I thought Iraq didn?t have WMDs? The folks in Oklahoma City know what a few tons of explosives can do. Obviously, Moore doesn?t consider them WMDs either. Up until the end, two words continued to escape from his mouth: ?Bush lied?.
Personally, I think he was overeager. The intelligence was sketchy and some of the sources (Israel) might have been slipping in false information. Bush hated how Saddam was blatantly breaking the UN conditions set upon him from the first Gulf War yet the UN (especially France/Germany/Russia) wasn?t doing a thing to correct it. He wanted to finish daddy?s work and get the SOB out of there.
Of course, Moore barely mentioned how Iraq threw out the original US-lead UN weapons inspectors and kept them out for several years. He also failed to mention how Saddam was selling oil on the black market through Syria. Moore likes to portray Iraq as an innocent country invaded by American warmongers.
I hate Bush, but I hate Moore and their liberal history rewriters even more. I hope that the salt which was the elections burn their wounds for many years to come.
Uh, Halabja was in 1988. Saddam did not use chemical weapons after the first Gulf War. I'd love to see a link that he did.
Start reading:
THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
Hijacking Catastrophe - by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)
http://www.informationclearing...e.info/article6895.htm
You mean the inspectors Clinton pulled out in 1998 in order to launch strikes at Iraq?
So, the Swiftboat Liars are more your speed?
What hate? I just described you in terms that help you to project your hate on to me so you can appreciate that it's there and it's real. You are projecting that I'm projecting. It's the American Taliban that hate American culture and not the hate American culture that's coming from the red states.
AntiEverything
Senior member
You don't find calling people "stupid... idiots" to be hateful? What are you so afraid of about yourself that you have denigrate those that disagree with you?
The New Yorker? Yeah, there's an impartial news source. Try again. Try posting links to moderate news agencies.
He used them after the Kurds uprised in the north with the false assumption that the CIA was going to help them. Much of it was conventional bomb and shoot, but some of it invloved chemicals. Let me hunt for a link.
No, I mean the ones tossed our around 93-94. The ones that went into the Ministry of Agriculture and found some very damning documents, but were barred from removing them from the premise. When they asked for UN support, none were given. The same ones that left shortly thereafter.
I never got into the facts behind the Swiftboat folks because I saw it for what it was: election day fluff. As such, I can't and won't comment on it.
Wow, I must have hit a nerve. You're getting a little personal there. The New Yorker is a rat?s nest of intellectual liberal thinking. I?d trust works from the New Yorker about as much as I?d trust Pat Robinson and the 700-Club to tell me that the sky is up. Give me an independent, moderate report.
Besides, you?re sidestepping my points. You nitpick at parts and suddenly assume I have no floor to stand on. Even *IF* Iraq didn?t use gas grenades against the Kurds, what about the mid-range gas-capable missiles they found? What about the 350 tons of explosives that were ?lost?? I could blow up some major landmarks with that stuff.
NightCrawler
Diamond Member
They did it was called Passion of the Christ....it did very well at the box office.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Thanks for providing further proof that the other 49% is not nearly as intelligent as they claim to be.
Big problem is when a documentary is done to impliment an political agenda.
Moore's film was more propaganda than documentary.
It is being called a documentary because it sounds better to the Hollywood elite.
Moore is similar to Stone. Takes an event and twists it to suite his own preconceved notions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
