liberals....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand?

I admit that. But, La Rhodes is not above it. Look at the Ollie North interview. ollie North correctly said he was never convicted of a crime. That is 100% true. Yet, RR, perhaps out of ignorance, refuted him and then when he tried to explain, she went after him like a terrier on a rat when she was DEAD wrong.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Mr. Carne,

I like most people have this thing we call a "life." This "life" requires things like a job and attention to loved ones to keep it sustained. It is true that I have “scurried away.” Some of us have to actually work to survive. Unfortunately, I look at work as a time to be productive and to earn a paycheck. It is hard for me to justify spending time addressing attacks from liberals who get offended when someone disagrees with them. There is money to be made and taxes, which you wonderful liberals love so much, to be paid. More power to you if you have all the time in the world to post all day, every day. I wish I could have that kind of free time.

I will post in due time, but not until I take care of the important things in life, like my job and my family.

Peace out!

I guess you didn't benefit from Allah's wonderful tax cuts, eh? Poor thing.

Glad to know that you found the time to post a ****ty op-ed in your busy life.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand?

Well, I agree on the diff, you make. I comment only on the technique!!!!!!!

BTW - La Rhodes (sp.?) is not above lying. Look at the Ollie North interview. When Ollie North, who I am no fan of by any means, said he was never convicted of a crime, RR went apoplectic. Ollie North was telling the truth - there is no way around that. He tried to explain to RR that when a conviction is overturned it is as if is never existed. Instead of seeing the truth of that, RR launched into an atteck mode. That sounds like Hannity to me

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Rob67

It is true that I have “scurried away.”

I'll let that speak for itself.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I admit that. But, La Rhodes is not above it. Look at the Ollie North interview. ollie North correctly said he was never convicted of a crime. That is 100% true. Yet, RR, perhaps out of ignorance, refuted him and then when he tried to explain, she went after him like a terrier on a rat when she was DEAD wrong.

No, he was convicted, then it was overturned, but the courts overturned it on a technicality and said that he was still guilty as sin. Of course, his conviction is therefore no longer valid, but it doesn't change the fact that he was convicted at one point and time. She was 100% correct.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry for the double post. I thought the first did not go through

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, he was convicted, then it was overturned. Of course, his conviction is therefore no longer valid, but it doesn't change the fact that he was convicted at one point and time. She was 100% correct.

No she was not. He was never convicted, ever no matter what the time period indicated prior to the overturning of the false conviction. The temporal aspect confuses people. But, she was not commenting on that initially.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No she was not. He was never convicted, ever no matter what the time period indicated prior to the overturning of the false conviction. The temporal aspect confuses people. But, she was not commenting on that initially.

Yes, he was convicted. Then it was overturned with the courts saying that he was still guilty in their eyes.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree. But, I think MM was performing a very Karl Rove-esq move there.

The big difference is that Karl Rove is surreptitiously advising the president of the United States, who is making decisions that affect the whole world. Michael Moore is making a movie with a viewpoint he is unabashedly trying to get across.

Do you really think people can disassociate OBL from all turban wearing Middle Easterners. I think they cannot.

I'll concede that point. Yet, I would have been perturbed by it only if Moore were inciting violence against them. All he is doing is establishing a link between the bin Ladins and the Bushes.

The Saudis have been in bed with every other administration since the 60's and maybe even before that. Yet, that is not brought out. Why? Well, I think that is because it would lessen in people's heads the any link that may exist between the Saudis, the BL's, and W.

No, it's because no other president had links as tight with the Saudis as Georgie and his dad. If you can show evidence that proves otherwise, I am open. Bin Ladin money very probably floated George Bush's failure of an oil company in Texas. Why would the Saudis invest in a loser oil field in Texas run by a complete moron? Don't you think that is a legitimate question?

[dissention]

Don't bother, Carne, he won't read it. He's too busy researching to see if Ollie North was convicted. Which he was, on three counts.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm??

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.

But the problem is...Moore and others have short-term memory. Moore conviently forgets to include some of these soundbites and speeches. Every politician lies and flips positions...*sigh*...I'll post this again...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yes, he was convicted. Then it was overturned with the courts saying that he was still guilty in their eyes.

I am not explaining this again, it does not matter if the courts thought he was innocent or guilty. They overturned his conviction. That means it is as if IT NEVER EXISTED period - end of story - there is no getting around that no matter how much you dislike Ollie North. I can't stand him either, but my dislike of him does not mean the law does not apply to him nor does it make untrue the statement that legally he was never convicted, even though he may very well be guilty as sin, which he was. SHEEBUS!

AND - my point was and is La Rhodes acted just like that jerk Hannity when she was called out on this. She screamed up and down and refused to let Ollie North get a word in edgewise to explain the law to her - she apparently would rather yell the loudest and sound ignorant by doing so. So, that is the parralell I was trying to draw.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I'll let that speak for itself.

It’s interesting that you want me to debate the Moore film in this thread as opposed to the other thread dedicated to that very topic. But Diss and you refuse to address the talking points in the original post of THIS thread. Do they make too much sense? Are personal attacks the best the libs here have to offer?? Come on now!!! I expect better from Mac fans!

Were your feelings hurt by the title of the original post? Did it touch a nerve?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

No, it's because no other president had links as tight with the Saudis as Georgie and his dad. If you can show evidence that proves otherwise, I am open. Bin Ladin money very probably floated George Bush's failure of an oil company in Texas. Why would the Saudis invest in a loser oil field in Texas run by a complete moron? Don't you think that is a legitimate question?

Well, let's see, like 15 years ago James R, Bath gave W. $50,000 to help launch W's oil company called Arbusto. Mr. Bath served in the Texas NG with W and is a friend of the Bushes who served as a financial advisor to a brother of OBL. He is a shadey character. Although many believe there are other connections and that the BL had other investments in this oil company, there are not as provable. But, even if they are, that was a long time ago - June 1977 to be exact And - if all they can come up with is a $50,000 investment 15 years ago, I am not buying that $50,000 is a drop in the bucket when we are talking about oil money.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Were your feelings hurt by the title of the original post? Did it touch a nerve?

Oh, yeah, I'm scarred for life.

Can you actually post an original thought? All you do is resort to posting drivel from conservatives with their heads stuck up their asses. You just went and quoted something about Democrats wanting to strike Iraq. Do you realize how little that means to me? I disagreed with them about it as I disagree with your beloved Fascist administration.

I do my own thinking.

Now, what are the mistruths in Moore's movie? Don't quote me some drivel from some idiot. I want you to tell us what you know is not factual in Fahrenheit 9/11.