|
Bush a moron or not? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EvilDust |
I did hear that he donated some of the profits to charity.
Also, a couple of guys wrote a book called Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man
I know Moore does a lot of word manipulation but hey, his agenda is to try to make the country a better place. What's worse? That or exaggerating to people about terrorist threats so they can fight and lose their lives? And for what? for freedom? or for oil?
Whose ends really justify the means?
Just watch the movie (or download it, Moore says he doesn't mind), then read up on some more books, looking at both sides, and see who has the right idea to make the world a better place. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
^^ OH okay well that's more like it...:D
With regards to your comment though about making the country a better place...well I don't know about that...US's popularity is pretty much at an all time low...and the movie doesn't help IMO. :) Hopefully lessons will be learned however. |
|
|
| Orko |
Moore always states, that yes his movie gives only one side of the argument. I think he is correct to do so. you have heard the other side for the last 4 years coming from the white house.
i was watching an interivw with him, where somebody stated that they though the movie was fair to bush, after Moore exclaimed:
| quote: | | even I dont think its fair to Bush! |
enough said. |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
With regards to your comment though about making the country a better place...well I don't know about that...US's popularity is pretty much at an all time low... |
It'll be even lower if Bush gets re-elected... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
Haven't the Bush and his administration been doing that same thing as well? NOT mentioning that Bin Laden actually worked for US government, NOT mentioning that US government actually sponsored all kinds of terrorist actions in the past, etc, etc... |
How do you figure?
The "US government" in power now is not the same "US government" that was in power when these things actually happened. And saying that the US government sponsored terrorist actions is highly dubious, unless you (like so many others) have extended your definition of terrorism to something far broader than it was ever meant to reflect. They bring this up about Saddam all the time - yes, he dealt with the US government, so what? Nobody's ever heard of people becoming corrupt or betraying another person or country's trust? There is absolutely no sense in equating Bush to Moore - Bush has not been attacking anyone politically, but he certainly has the right to defend himself (not that he needs to).
The difference is that Michael Moore is fighting a partisan battle (or put more succinctly, a Liberal anti-Bush battle). If it were as simple as honest political criticism, that would be okay - unfortunately, he wants to put Bush in the meat grinder for doing several of the same things that he had no problem with when Clinton and previous presidents were doing it. And on several occasions, he wants to crucify Bush for doing two things that are exact opposites - not reacting swiftly enough, and reacting too swiftly. Not paying enough attention to U.S. intelligence, and not scrutinizing it enough. Well you can't have it both ways. Either a government waits 'til the last minute or it launches pre-emptive strikes. Either a government is more concerned about security, or it is more concerned about privacy. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too!
Michael Moore's criticism of Bush, and indeed many of the Liberal and Democrat criticisms of Bush, seem to have no underlying philosophy or flow. A political philosophy needs to be based on a concrete set of ideals expressing the relative importance of issues like national defense and national security, privacy, tradition, economic policy, immigration policy, religious freedom, even basic things like taxes and social spending. But the anti-Bush bandwagon has no such philosophy - their philosophy consists mainly of saying, at every turn, that Bush has done EVERYTHING wrong. That and asking ridiculously inane questions like "would you send your children out to die in Iraq" - well what the kind of a question is that, it's not up to the parents to "send" their kids to war!
Well surely he must have done SOMETHING right? Americans may be a little bit on the uneducated side but they aren't THAT stupid. If they truly felt that Bush had endangered their lives, or lowered their quality of life, then they would not be re-electing him. That's the point of democracy. In reality, Americans can be pretty keen sometimes - they have good instincts about who to trust and who to give the finger to, and they've done a remarkably good job of seeing through the lies of people like Moore. I sincerely hope Bush DOES get re-elected, because Kerry has no game plan - he's based his entire campaign on saying that Bush was wrong about everything, but never bothered to tell us what the RIGHT answers were.
For those of you who continue to insist that Farehneit 9/11 had "no bias", you might want to consider that MOORE HIMSELF admits that it's one-sided and has openly expressed his sentiment that a conservative counterpart would be good for the country.
EvilDust, the USA's popularity is no lower than it has ever been. America-bashing has become more intense in insecure countries that already hated it, like Canada, but I don't think I've heard China or the UK expressing their public hatred lately. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Chretien was a bigger moron than Bush IMO.
and Martin... well he's just a slimeball
 |
|
|
| EvilDust |
it's all about voting the lesser of two evils. What exactly is Bush's gameplan? Continue the "Star Wars" missile shield?
While I watched the movie, I was kinda feeling sorry for all the cheap ass shots at Bush and thinking what the whole point of that was (it's to make Bush look stupid, I get it haha. It was funny the first time). But when Bush says "I'm a war president. I make policies based on war", that doesn't exactly make me want to trust him.
I do have to agree that the Democrats aren't that much better. All they're better at is telling you one thing and doing another. They'll say "We'll do the opposite of what Bush did" but in fact will just continue where he left off. |
|
|
| cono_sur |
| Hilarious! :haha: |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
Haven't the Bush and his administration been doing that same thing as well? NOT mentioning that Bin Laden actually worked for US government, NOT mentioning that US government actually sponsored all kinds of terrorist actions in the past, etc, etc...
Come on, bro... Michael Moore is making his point, and he's only throwing proofs that will support that point in the movie. |
well said man - perfect actually |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How do you figure?
The difference is that Michael Moore is fighting a partisan battle (or put more succinctly, a Liberal anti-Bush battle). If it were as simple as honest political criticism, that would be okay - unfortunately, he wants to put Bush in the meat grinder for doing several of the same things that he had no problem with when Clinton and previous presidents were doing it.
|
uhh...did Clinton ever send his troops for oil? And Moore was against with the inactions of the Clinton administration. Which was why he endorsed Ralph Nader.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
And on several occasions, he wants to crucify Bush for doing two things that are exact opposites - not reacting swiftly enough, and reacting too swiftly. Not paying enough attention to U.S. intelligence, and not scrutinizing it enough. Well you can't have it both ways. Either a government waits 'til the last minute or it launches pre-emptive strikes. Either a government is more concerned about security, or it is more concerned about privacy. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too!
|
ok it really depends on the situation when you act swiftly and when you wait. When your country gets attacked by terrorists, you should definitely act swiftly and go after the prime suspect, not give him a month headstart. When you don't have any solid evidence yet that a country has WMD, you really should wait for real proof before attacking that nation.
So here's the question. Why take your time going after a guy who attacked your country and then why rush into going after a guy that never did and has no proof of being capable of? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
uhh...did Clinton ever send his troops for oil? |
What a stupid question. That's rhetoric if I've ever heard it. There's more oil in the good ole' USA than there is in Iraq. No legitimate critic has ever used the hackneyed oil argument, and when someone says that, it's usually a pretty good indication that they don't have much to contribute on the subject that's relevant.
| quote: | ok it really depends on the situation when you act swiftly and when you wait. When your country gets attacked by terrorists, you should definitely act swiftly and go after the prime suspect, not give him a month headstart. When you don't have any solid evidence yet that a country has WMD, you really should wait for real proof before attacking that nation.
So here's the question. Why take your time going after a guy who attacked your country and then why rush into going after a guy that never did and has no proof of being capable of? |
Wow, you just don't get it do you? It's okay though, you're one of many.
Bush's critics after 9/11 insisted then and continue to insist that they had the intelligence before 9/11 itself to prevent the attack if they had launched a pre-emptive strike. This has nothing to do with reaction time AFTER 9/11 (I don't even know what you're talking about there), it's about the period BEFORE 9/11.
So the administration took a lesson from that and looked at the intelligence on Iraq and decided that they should launch a pre-emptive strike BEFORE things got ugly. Now his critics insist that that's no good either. So what IS good?
Oh of course, they should have somehow KNOWN that the Iraq intelligence was wrong. :rolleyes: Even though almost EVERY SINGLE democrat in Bush's term and Clinton's term and just about every authority in the U.N. also thought it was credible, and even though the 9/11 commission report has indicated that a lot of the evidence was stronger than people like Moore would like it to have been.
If you want to say that Bush wasn't vigilant enough before 9/11, fine. If you want to say he was too vigilant about Iraq, fine. But if you insist on both, it's nothing more than a display of hypocrisy and ignorance. It makes no sense - you can't just criticize *everything*, there has to be some sort of underlying principle here. And I don't think anybody can deny that regardless of the "real" reasons why they went into Iraq, he did the world a favour by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Or are you going to tell us that we're not better off?
As for your earlier comment about "lesser of two evils", most Americans feel that Bush and Kerry are about equal in everything except for national security, where Bush is the clear winner. So there you have it - that's the reason he'll be re-elected. |
|
|
| TDL |
He isnt the smartest Pres. we have ever had but we have had worse. But no Pres. has ever had as much to deal with as he. It's real easy for everyone to stand on the outside and be critical of everything he does. I think that he has done ok, considering.
| quote: | Originally posted by aarontrance
lol wow... Bush can't really think on his feet :(. I'm not a bush hater though. It's like everyone has jumped on the "cool to hate bush" bandwagon after Farenheit 9/11 (the biggest piece of slander/propaghanda BS I've EVER seen) and even before. Especially amoung younger people 16-22. |
|
|
|
|
|
