Michael Moore, Hezbollah Heartthrob

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
So why hasn't he been charged?

Because i havent gotten the warrant yet. I live in the 9th Circuit. You know how hard it is to get anything against liberalism done there.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
Because i havent gotten the warrant yet. I live in the 9th Circuit. You know how hard it is to get anything against liberalism done there.

Cute.

But, seriously, you make claims that you can't back up...

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Cute.

But, seriously, you make claims that you can't back up...

Not really. Its my opinion that Moore is a traitor. I have good circumstancial evidence to back it up. As for him supplying direct money or goods to the enemy, i doubt it could ever be found. IMO though, Moore is a traitor.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
Not really. Its my opinion that Moore is a traitor. I have good circumstancial evidence to back it up. As for him supplying direct money or goods to the enemy, i doubt it could ever be found. IMO though, Moore is a traitor.

Alright, I respect your opinion, although I don't see how anything he has said falls outside of the bounds of free speech.

As for you saying, "As for him supplying direct money or goods to the enemy, i doubt it could ever be found," that is a roundabout way of suggesting that he likely is supplying terrorist groups directly with money or goods...which is rediculous.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Alright, I respect your opinion, although I don't see how anything he has said falls outside of the bounds of free speech.

As for you saying, "As for him supplying direct money or goods to the enemy, i doubt it could ever be found," that is a roundabout way of suggesting that he likely is supplying terrorist groups directly with money or goods...which is rediculous.

Kinda like his roundabout ways of suggesting Bush caused 9/11? Or that Bush flew the Bin Laden's out of the country before anyone else? Or basically anything from that movie?

Yea i see what your saying there Flasher.

His free speech isnt being violated. He still has the right to spout any traitorous crap that he wants without fear of his GOVERNMENT persecuting him. The people though have their right to free speech as well. I call him a traitor.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
Kinda like his roundabout ways of suggesting Bush caused 9/11? Or that Bush flew the Bin Laden's out of the country before anyone else? Or basically anything from that movie?

Yea i see what your saying there Flasher.

His free speech isnt being violated. He still has the right to spout any traitorous crap that he wants without fear of his GOVERNMENT persecuting him. The people though have their right to free speech as well. I call him a traitor.

Your supposed to be above the fray. You don't need to suggest that he is supplying Hezbomarshmellowwhateverthefucktheycallthemselves with goods or money to make your case do you? Or call him a traitor? Believe me, if the GOP could prosecute him for treason they would!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Your supposed to be above the fray. You don't need to suggest that he is supplying Hezbomarshmellowwhateverthefucktheycallthemselves with goods or money to make your case do you? Or call him a traitor? Believe me, if the GOP could prosecute him for treason they would!

Incidentally it proved my point rather well that anyone can make a claim and if he gets enough media coverage, the claim, no matter how erroneous, becomes credible.

I still use my 1st ammendment rights to call him a traitor.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
Incidentally it proved my point rather well that anyone can make a claim and if he gets enough media coverage, the claim, no matter how erroneous, becomes credible.

I still use my 1st ammendment rights to call him a traitor.

Can I used my 1st Ammendment right to call Bush a EIHVWLEFVNBVFNDLFVNDLVNLDNV:LDGWJV:ROKJO:RVMWEFVSVMS><MV>DWFJBWRJBW:OJB:TRGLKB:FL<VMV<CV<?D>V<R:"LKB:#LRGKB:R#GLKJB#LFVM:LDM #CMV:"R#LGKB"#R:LGKB#":LKB#"RFLKBLR:KB:KB#DFLKB?

Cool, glad I got that off of my chest.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher

Originally posted by insein
Incidentally it proved my point rather well that anyone can make a claim and if he gets enough media coverage, the claim, no matter how erroneous, becomes credible.

I still use my 1st ammendment rights to call him a traitor.

Can I used my 1st Ammendment right to call Bush a EIHVWLEFVNBVFNDLFVNDLVNLDNV:LDGWJV:ROKJO:RVMWEFVSVMS><MV>DWFJBWRJBW:OJB:TRGLKB:FL<VMV<CV<?D>V<R:"LKB:#LRGKB:R#GLKJB#LFVM:LDM #CMV:"R#LGKB"#R:LGKB#":LKB#"RFLKBLR:KB:KB#DFLKB?

Cool, glad I got that off of my chest.

You sure can. And i can call you a weirdo.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by nycflasher
You don't get it.

Free speech is not traitorous.

The enemy might be "comforted" by the knowledge that I think Bush is an arrogant lunatic, but that doesn't make me a traitor. I would also snap the scrawny neck of a would be suicide-bomber if I had half a chance.

You have the right to your opinion, of course, just don't claim to fully understand patriotism.

Being patriotic is showing a love and devotion to your country.

In Moore's mind, getting Bush out of office is the most patriotic thing he can do.

Okay, I'm back. Went for a ride on the Gold Wing for about 400+ miles and my butt is sore and I'm grouchy. Figured that since I'm in a cantankerous mood, this must be a good time to talk to liberals. :spank3:

Liberals seem to think that patriotism revolves around the right of an individual to do as he pleases. Pigs like Moore make outrageous statements, many of these statements are distortions, some are patently false, and a precious few are actually true. I can't cut open Moore's head and look inside (although I would love to) so I cannot make a declarative statement regarding his motives. But I am extremely skeptical that patriotism or the good of the country factor into Moore's thinking.

Let's look at some "patriots".

Benedict Arnold was a super patriot, an exceptional leader and commander. Then he had a change of heart and tried to hand the country back to the British. By your definition, Arnold was a patriot in BOTH circumstances, since he apparently was doing that which he felt was best for the country. But history disagrees with you. Arnold has been branded a traitor.

Jane Fonda, by your definition, could be considered a patriot for her actions in North Viet Nam. But she too has been denounced as a traitor.

John Kerry, like Fonda, is viewed as a traitor by many Viet Nam veterans for jumping on the Fonda bandwagon and then accusing his brothers in arms of atrocities which kerry and company had brazenly fabricated. Somehow liberals do not hold kerry responsible for his actions. To the contrary, libs praise him with the convoluted logic that he somehow actually "saved" soldiers lives with his zany and unprincipled actions. Wonder what the liberal line would be if kerry had missed a few Guard drills and Pres. Bush had chaired the Winter Soldier circus.

Also, by liberal definition, the Walker spy clan could be considered patriots for selling the Russians US codes and other secret materials. After all, didn't they help maintain the balance of power through their actions?

But I'll have to give you a little credit (as much as it pains me to do so). After pussyfooting all around it, you finally did manage to stumble over the principle of true patriotism when you wrote "Being patriotic is showing a love and devotion to your country." Congratulations. Exactly right. A patriot evaluates the effects of his actions on the nation. A patriot views his actions within the context of the problems the nation may be experiencing at the time. Now here is the principle of patriotism that most liberals fail to grasp: A patriot subordinates his desires and actions if he feels that he may harm his country through his actions. If you want to call the president a %$#*&^+! you should consider if doing so would harm the nation. If it would, then you should defer that pleasure until a more appropriate time.

Once can work to defeat President Bush in November and be a patriot. It depends on how you go about it. Denigrating the President of the United States through hateful name calling, vicious lies, specious half-truths while at the same time praising those who attack us is NOT patriotic no matter what the motivation may be. Had Moore produced a documentary which relied solely on factual truth and unbiased reporting, he might be considered a patriot. But if he did that, he would not have been able to make his point to the lunatic fringe to which he caters. So he lied in his piece of crap movie both by commission and by omission. Like kerry before him, moore gives aid to the enemy by encouraging them to continue their attacks upon us because moore's distorted propogandist filth causes the likes of Al-Qaeda to believe that we are weakening in our resolve.

Patriotism is not all about "me". Patriotism is about the nation and how my actions may affect it. During the Democratic primaries, the liberal freak show of candidates fought to outdo each other by hurling the most terrible accusations and outrageous lies about Pres. Bush that their twisted, shriveled little brains could concoct. That was not patriotic. That was self-serving baloney which hurt our cause and supported our enemy. Liberals love to hurl verbal bullshit bombs at the President. When criticized for their vituperations, they wrap themselves in the flag, puff up like blowfish and indignantly sneer at comments accusing them of damaging the country.

Seeking to stifle or censor moore is unpatriotic because it violates the principles on which the founders built this nation. Pointing out that moore is an unpricipled liar and a self-serving pig is not unpatriotic. If it is anything, it is belaboring the obvious.
:usa: :usa: :usa:

 

[007]

Originally posted by Bonnie
Can anyone figure out why Hollywood is so socialistic? Do they get corrupted when they get famous? Or are they just so weak minded that they are afraid to not go along with the crowd for fear of being outcasts? I find myself perplexed by this.

It never used to be like it is today Bonnie. Once upon a time in Hollywood, stars could be looked up to, because they were genuinely good people.

The wacko's we got there now are nothing short of fucking WIERD!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
It never used to be like it is today Bonnie. Once upon a time in Hollywood, stars could be looked up to, because they were genuinely good people.

The wacko's we got there now are nothing short of fucking WIERD!

Vietnam changed all that. The greatest generation (WW2) was replaced by the whining generation.

 

[JohnRHS]

Originally posted by Merlin1047



Let's look at some "patriots".

Benedict Arnold was a super patriot, an exceptional leader and commander. Then he had a change of heart and tried to hand the country back to the British. By your definition, Arnold was a patriot in BOTH circumstances, since he apparently was doing that which he felt was best for the country. But history disagrees with you. Arnold has been branded a traitor.

All of you never fail to disappoint.... what Benedict Arnold did was, under the American legal doctrine, illegal. Espionage, as I'm sure all of you know (whether it be from actual scholarship, or just watching a lot of movies), is an act that is not condoned by any detail of American law. Michael Moore has excercised his constitutional rights, in a perfectly legal setting. So your half-witted comparisons can end there.

As for all of you who replied to my message by saying "Oh well I have the right to disagree with you!", congratulations, you missed the entire point of my little monologue.

Finally, let me just point out that many of you seem to be redefining the word 'patriotism.' It does not mean supporting our elected leaders under all and any circumstances, it means loving this country, and trying to look out for the best interests of this country. Michael Moore, via his films and political speeches, has been trying to ensure that, in the future, our leaders will be more responsible in their actions, and hopefully, avert future disaster.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by JohnRHS
All of you never fail to disappoint.... what Benedict Arnold did was, under the American legal doctrine, illegal. Espionage, as I'm sure all of you know (whether it be from actual scholarship, or just watching a lot of movies), is an act that is not condoned by any detail of American law. Michael Moore has excercised his constitutional rights, in a perfectly legal setting. So your half-witted comparisons can end there.

As for all of you who replied to my message by saying "Oh well I have the right to disagree with you!", congratulations, you missed the entire point of my little monologue.

Finally, let me just point out that many of you seem to be redefining the word 'patriotism.' It does not mean supporting our elected leaders under all and any circumstances, it means loving this country, and trying to look out for the best interests of this country. Michael Moore, via his films and political speeches, has been trying to ensure that, in the future, our leaders will be more responsible in their actions, and hopefully, avert future disaster.

Respectfully, MM is NOT looking out for the best interests of his country when he advocates the things he does. Calling for the "Freedom Fighters" in Iraq to kill more of our Soldiers is NOT looking out for the best interest of our country. Trying to establish a socialistic nanny state where the people DEPEND on the government to survive is NOT looking out for the best interests of this Country. Saying he will leave this country if Bush wins the election is NOT looking out for the best interests of the Country.

So he can say what he wants and have sheep like you back him up 100% but the bottomline is that he's NOT Looking out for the Best interests of this country.

 

[JohnRHS]

If you can offer me a link that can bring me to the news source that quoted Michael Moore saying that he'd like Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" to kill more American soldiers, I'd be MORE than happy to rescind all of my written support of Michael Moore.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by JohnRHS
All of you never fail to disappoint.... what Benedict Arnold did was, under the American legal doctrine, illegal. Espionage, as I'm sure all of you know (whether it be from actual scholarship, or just watching a lot of movies), is an act that is not condoned by any detail of American law. Michael Moore has excercised his constitutional rights, in a perfectly legal setting. So your half-witted comparisons can end there.

First, my post addressed NYCFlasher not you.

Second, you apparently failed to comprehend the point I was making since I never called moore a traitor. I was taking issue with actions considered by some to be patriotic.

Third, if we are all so disappointing to you, why do you post on this forum? You can find like-minded fruit flies to entertain you on the Slate and Yahoo boards.

Fourth, I can't recall having insulted you or even addressed you directly. But somehow you seem to feel obliged to call me a half wit.

Finally, since Benedict Arnold is under discussion, allow me to quote a passage from my encyclopedia regarding him; "Scholars have not found that Arnold was a callous soldier, but they disparage his character - not simply because he was a traitor, but rather because he frequently made himself the measure of all things while trampling the moral standards of others. He compounded his arrogance by personalizing disagreements, oversimplifying complex problems and browbeating opponents."

You know, I'm wondering if he's part of your family tree. You two certainly have much in common.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by insein
Respectfully, MM is NOT looking out for the best interests of his country when he advocates the things he does. Calling for the "Freedom Fighters" in Iraq to kill more of our Soldiers is NOT looking out for the best interest of our country. Trying to establish a socialistic nanny state where the people DEPEND on the government to survive is NOT looking out for the best interests of this Country. Saying he will leave this country if Bush wins the election is NOT looking out for the best interests of the Country.

So he can say what he wants and have sheep like you back him up 100% but the bottomline is that he's NOT Looking out for the Best interests of this country.

Actaully Insein...Id be thrilled beyond belief if MM left the country and if he took most of Hollywood with him........I would even consider packing his suitcases.......

 

[insein]

Originally posted by JohnRHS
If you can offer me a link that can bring me to the news source that quoted Michael Moore saying that he'd like Iraqi "Freedom Fighters" to kill more American soldiers, I'd be MORE than happy to rescind all of my written support of Michael Moore.

Not even more than a page Earlier had you read, you'd see that a direct quote from his OWN site had said this.

originally posted by insein
Moore is a traitor. He gives DIRECT Aide and Comfort to the enemy while denouncing his own country.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/m...Date=2004-04-14


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not ?contractors? in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.

Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You tell me. Does that not AIDE the enemy by calling them the legitimate force while demonizing not only the American troops but the civiliains sent there to make life better for the millions of Iraqis who want them there?

 

[JohnRHS]

Originally posted by Merlin1047


Second, you apparently failed to comprehend the point I was making since I never called moore a traitor. I was taking issue with actions considered by some to be patriotic.

Actually, if you read my post (which, unlike yours, has not been edited since my new post... strange), the point of my rant about Benedict Arnold is not that he was a traitor. My point was that you cannot compare his offenses to Michael Moore's and try to show that they were both unpatriotic, because Arnold did something illegal, Moore hasn't.

All of you never fail to disappoint.... what Benedict Arnold did was, under the American legal doctrine, illegal. Espionage, as I'm sure all of you know (whether it be from actual scholarship, or just watching a lot of movies), is an act that is not condoned by any detail of American law. Michael Moore has excercised his constitutional rights, in a perfectly legal setting. So your half-witted comparisons can end there.

There's my unedited response, for all of you to see. Interesting... the word traitor isn't even used once.


And finally, to address the quote from Michael Moore's site that some claim shows him cheering on the insurgency.... I'm impressed everyone. You have outdone yourselves! What he says in that quote is that the insurgency will win, since circumstances don't point to good things for American soldiers. He never actually says that he wants the "Freedom Fighters" to kill American soldiers!

However, I will give you a point... Michael Moore has not been overtly supportive of American soldiers to a degree which I believe is necessary. But he has not called for them to be killed, which is an important distinction.