FoxNews gives Micheal Moore's F911 THUMBS UP

[OCA]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Lemme get this correct. OCA is saying that Moore, in the vein of Milli Vanilli, didn't actually produce or direct anything on this documentary or just what is it to earn the comparison? And somehow this is classic? I thought the article did a great service by offering a mention of prior critisisms of Mr. Moore's work, just for balance I presume, and then lending gratitude for the improvements in objectivity that Mr. Moore demonstrates in this most recent piece, Fahrenheit 9/11. Maybe I just mistook the meaning?

Psychoblues

No no Psycho Moore should get all the credit for all the half truths, mischaracterizations and outright lies in his past films and to which i'm sure this film is based. The comparison to Milli Vanilli is he bases his product on lies just as Milli Vanilli based their product on a lie that the recorded voices were their own.

Lies Psycho its all about lies.

Boy this should be an interesting election season leading up to the Bush landslide in November. Libs are frothing at the mouth and stopping at nothing to regain power.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
No no Psycho Moore should get all the credit for all the half truths, mischaracterizations and outright lies in his past films and to which i'm sure this film is based. The comparison to Milli Vanilli is he bases his product on lies just as Milli Vanilli based their product on a lie that the recorded voices were their own.

Lies Psycho its all about lies.

Boy this should be an interesting election season leading up to the Bush landslide in November. Libs are frothing at the mouth and stopping at nothing to regain power.

And you are frothing at the mouth and stopping at nothing to preserve the most corrupt and decadent administration as this nation has ever seen.

 

[Psychoblues]

Just to clarify, gop_jeff, I am not and have never been a big Micheal Moore fan but to off-hand call him a "lying windbag" without having seen the piece in discussion is not exactly objective either, is it? Having been born colorblind, I need a better description than "blue" as it relates to the appearance of the sky, can you dig it?

Psychoblues

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
And you are frothing at the mouth and stopping at nothing to preserve the most corrupt and decadent administration as this nation has ever seen.

Even though its not the case with this admin. I would prefer that to a socialist Democrat. Hell i'd rather have Charles Manson as president than any of the current socialist Democrats, well except maybe Zell Miller. At least with Manson you'd know where he stood.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
Psycho i'll watch the movie, for free when I download it because why would I want to contribute to the coiffers of a traitor. Yes I did follow the link but given his past history of falsifying facts and twisting the truth I didn't put much stock into the article. Really all Moore does is lie and twist in order to line his own pockets. He's just another whore. But hey the left has never been known to follow pillars of virtue, have they?

Again hit the link I provided and follow for yourself the lies propogated in his last film or better yet go to Littleton, CO and see just how loved he is there.

Or better yet have another beer and some pills and escape further away from reality, that is what you do best right Psycho?

The only traitor I see is the one sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Captain_Steel]

When Micheal Moore feels he can get away with it, he calls his works "documentarys" but when he knows he can't back up his claims he calls them "satires". Have you noticed this? Why should anyone take a guy like that seriously?

 

[Psychoblues]

So it's true, OCA, conservatives would support a demonstrated murderer and kook just so long as they understood where that person might stand? The prosecution, defense and the followers of Charles Manson are still wondering where he stands on ANY issue, but you have confidence in him. Thanks for your explanation. I find it very telling, myself.

I certainly don't believe that most conservatives would support Charles Manson but the intimation by one that would clearly demonstrates a very poor and regretful mindset. Thanks to actions of the Democratic Party and a few forward thinking Republicans help is available to you.

Psychoblues

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Psycho, the thing is that Michael Moore has already cemented his reputation as a lying windbag who cares about nothing but making money by saying the most inflammatory remarks possible about the Right. So to say "well, his first four movies were all BS, but this one is not"... it's too late. Michael Moore could put out a press release stating that the sky is blue and I'd still have to stick my head out the window before I believed him.

So by that reasoning, I can say the same thing about people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. That all they care about is making money by saying the most inflammatory remarks possible about the Left. Am I correct by thinking this?

Funny how one is traitor when they don't agree with the president. I didn't hear many Democrats calling Republicans traitors during the Clinton administration, just because they didn't agree with him. How is it okay to call one side a traitor and not the other?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The only traitor I see is the one sitting in the Oval Office.

Obviously you arent looking in the mirror. i mean you are the one who has said he is going to rebel if Bush is reelected.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
So it's true, OCA, conservatives would support a demonstrated murderer and kook just so long as they understood where that person might stand? The prosecution, defense and the followers of Charles Manson are still wondering where he stands on ANY issue, but you have confidence in him. Thanks for your explanation. I find it very telling, myself.

I certainly don't believe that most conservatives would support Charles Manson but the intimation by one that would clearly demonstrates a very poor and regretful mindset. Thanks to actions of the Democratic Party and a few forward thinking Republicans help is available to you.

Psychoblues

Its an analogy you old drunk. It means that i'd rather support anybody other than a Democrat. Hell i'd support a communist, wait communist and Democrat are almost the same thing, forget it.

 

[Psychoblues]

I'm not about to defend anyone's promise to "rebel if Bush is re-elected" other than to say that most within the left don't believe that he was ever elected to begin with and we have as much proof of that as anyone to the contrary. His reappointment, however, by the USSC or anyone else will not be taken lightly by the American patriots.

Many conservatives are hugely disappointed and even horrified by a man that ran so hard as being one thing but has governed by proving he was exactly the opposite of the as advertised version.

Psychoblues

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Many conservatives are hugely disappointed and even horrified by a man that ran so hard as being one thing but has governed by proving he was exactly the opposite of the as advertised version.

but I notice that these same conservatives apparently arent horrified enough since they would rather sit at home and not vote than to vote outside of the republican party.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

than to say that most within the left don't believe that he was ever elected to begin with and we have as much proof of that as anyone to the contrary

Still crying about that I see. He won. Gore didn't. Gore didn't even carry Tennessee, he wanted to not count many absentee ballots (many were from people in the armed forces), I've seen many recounts done by many sources and they say Bush should have won time and time again. Also, liberals seem to love the Supreme Court when they rule in their favor.

Many conservatives are hugely disappointed and even horrified by a man that ran so hard as being one thing but has governed by proving he was exactly the opposite of the as advertised version.

But with Kerry, it's hard to know what he is because of all the flip-flops. He's been on both sides of about every issue you can imagine.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
but I notice that these same conservatives apparently arent horrified enough since they would rather sit at home and not vote than to vote outside of the republican party.

I think I may be one, though not the only one on the board, who has been less than happy at times with GW. I worked hard on his 2000 election and I am again.

The summer of 2001, I was participating in a series of Constitutional classes at various universities. I remember being dismayed that when I had a chance to check the news it was all about Gary Condit and the weather in Chicago. At least I was interested in Chicago. I remember thinking that Bush was just not connecting to the problems overseas. Truly I expected that he would respond to the USS Cole, albeit belatedly. Considering the elections I thought the administration should 'be out there' to show where they stood.

I was also concerned that the Iranian students were creating a problem at home and nothing was forthcoming from State to support them. I could not understand how we could not step up. Really, I was very disappointed.

I returned to Chicagoland from LA about 2 weeks before school began. Luckily all my elderly relatives had made it through the 'heat wave'. As had most people here, seems the media was as desperate to get off Condit as we were to hear something else. School began, 9/11 happened. Bush changed.

I will say from a historical standpoint, FDR KNEW that we should be involved with Hitler sooner than we were. To this day, I don't think the GW administration was serious enough with the threat from radical Islam until 9/11. In either case, not enough was done to preempt the problems.

Since then, I think this administration has kept their eye on the goal. They KNOW they will not see the end, reelection or not. THIS is a long term crisis, which they have tried to make clear. With all the noise in an election cycle, nothing is clear. Successes outweigh the failures, but our society wants instant results, no casualties and to move on. It can't happen that way. I am hopeful that we will prevail and that when he leaves 5 years from now, things will be a bit safer.

If Kerry is elected, we'll see. I wouldn't make predictions one way or another, but do know that in the world crisis that confronts us, we will have to back whoever is elected.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
but I notice that these same conservatives apparently arent horrified enough since they would rather sit at home and not vote than to vote outside of the republican party.

Who are these conservatives? I don't know of any who are just going to sit at home and not vote in fact it is quite the opposite, they are galvanized like never before and united in their opposition to the socialist Kerry despite whatever difference they may have with Bush. There will be a massive turnout of Republicans to vote for Bush unlike Demos who wil have votes siphoned off by Nader and which like 2000 will spell defeat.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I'm not about to defend anyone's promise to "rebel if Bush is re-elected" other than to say that most within the left don't believe that he was ever elected to begin with and we have as much proof of that as anyone to the contrary. His reappointment, however, by the USSC or anyone else will not be taken lightly by the American patriots.

Many conservatives are hugely disappointed and even horrified by a man that ran so hard as being one thing but has governed by proving he was exactly the opposite of the as advertised version.

Psychoblues

Lol Psycho that crap has been thouroughly debunked about a hundred times here so give it up, will ya?

Even if Bush was to win 50-0 Demos will still say the fix was on because you see thats just the type of folks they are.

L0L who in the **** are these American patriots you speak of? Or are they a figment of your warped imagination?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
no offense, but I don't put alot of stock in sites supported by organizations that do nothing but vehemently deny, contradict, attempt to expose, or otherwise ridicule something that may or may not expose an embarrasing account of political parties.

great comment

 

[nycflasher]

""Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families...."

-can't wait to see this, just for curiousity's sake

 

[Psychoblues]

There continue to be many unanswered questions concerning dumbya's selection/appointment, OCA. The Republicans often accuse the Democrats of being quick to seek courthouse remedies for their problems, but who was first in line to seek courthouse interference in the election of 2000? No question about that. Who wanted federal intervention because they knew the state laws would require a full accounting? No question about that either. Who goes about promoting states rights then ignoring them when those rights interfere with their own objectives? I don't have any questions about any of that. I know.

In addition, isn't it clear, regardless the very wrong USSC opinion, that MOST Amercan Patriots prefer a liberal federal branch as is evidenced by the collective numbers of 2000? And isn't it clear that although dumbya advertised himself as a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter, not a divider", against nation-building, pro-American manufacturing and other American jobs, even against unilateralism when it comes to serious things like World Peace/War, that he is "not as advertised" when it comes to these issues and a lot more? It is clear that many here ignore much of that but I don't think the collective American Patriot voters will ignore these things and a few more in November of this year. The prez has lied so many times, why on Earth would anyone want to believe him now?

Psychoblues

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
There continue to be many unanswered questions concerning dumbya's selection/appointment, OCA. The Republicans often accuse the Democrats of being quick to seek courthouse remedies for their problems, but who was first in line to seek courthouse interference in the election of 2000? either your memory or facts are faulty: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/magtimeline.htm

No question about that. Who wanted federal intervention because they knew the state laws would require a full accounting? No question about that either. Who goes about promoting states rights then ignoring them when those rights interfere with their own objectives? I don't have any questions about any of that. I know.

In addition, isn't it clear, regardless the very wrong USSC opinion, that MOST Amercan Patriots prefer a liberal federal branch as is evidenced by the collective numbers of 2000? And isn't it clear that although dumbya advertised himself as a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter, not a divider", against nation-building, pro-American manufacturing and other American jobs, even against unilateralism when it comes to serious things like World Peace/War, that he is "not as advertised" when it comes to these issues and a lot more? It is clear that many here ignore much of that but I don't think the collective American Patriot voters will ignore these things and a few more in November of this year. The prez has lied so many times, why on Earth would anyone want to believe him now?

Psychoblues [/B]