Bah....Moore is exactly what he wants to be; he's Bush on the other end of the spectum. That's not necessarily a good thing....he's somewhat radical in his views, though he does bring up good points, and his "truth" is incredibly bias. That, though not undermining whatever facts he's using, makes it harder to get a straight view of what's completely factual. And this is why I love the BBC
Everyone uses the fact that he's biased against him, but isnt that the whole point of the film 9/11 is to show the public whats happening and to get the moderates to vote for any other candidate besides Bush? (Im not attacking you, I'm just asking...I don't like how debates turn into attacks, so that's definately not what I'm doing)
Well, it's ultimately an opposing view...and what it's revealing is presented in a way that makes the government and Bush look foolish, which may, indeed, be the actual case, but when a film or bit of fact is presented like that, it becomes bias. There is almost no neutrality in American media.
I don't recall that happeneing. [/b][/quote] You're right. The Americans appointed Allawi (who;s also the head of a major Iraq oil company) as Prime Minister.
You're right. The Americans appointed Allawi (who;s also the head of a major Iraq oil company) as Prime Minister. [/b][/quote] He was only temporary, they are now holding their own elections over in Iraq very soon. They had to put someone in there to stabilize the government before they could ever begin to allow elections in Iraq. Don't you recall that being said? Because I sure as hell do. What makes me laugh is that any connection you bush-bashers can find to oil, even if its THE SMALLEST LITTLE DETAIL you use as proof that the war was about oil. So if we assigned someone in a country who's brother's distant cousin's father ran an oil company, you'd assume that's for oil too? Give me a break. I have not seen any evidence this war was for oil, and contradictory to the statement you said earlier that I wont have any 'impact', I'm starting to think your views areare more lopsided than mine ever could be. For now on in this debate, or any anti-bush arguement, I am going to start looking for sources to prove every little fact, because unlike some of you in this thread, the first few of my posts had actual links filled with information to support what I was saying. The only page you have ever produced is some nutcase conspiracy theory that claims our country bombed the pentagon, which no offense, has to be the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. I'll quote from someone on myspace who really shares my views on this matter and took the words right out of my mouth: "First off its not about Republicans or Democrats, its about the best choice for the country out of two people basically. If anyone has studied politics, no one in their right mind would vote for Kerry... Every couple years the U.S. reaches a surplus as in the Clinton Presidency, but that money was mainly through Money Laundering into Corporate businesses through the mob. The Clinton Administartion also didn't do much to protect our borders and thats why we have so many illegal aliens in the U.S. And listen to this scenario what would have you done during 911? Would you have sat on your ass and done nothing, like a cat or stand up for yourself and try to bring an end to these crazy suicidal Muslims that hate westerners. So based on the situation bush was thrown into I think he did a very admirable job. My Vote is for Bush." The Iraqis do not have to give us oil no matter what because they own it, so therefore if they refuse access..guess what? No war for oil. I don't care how much it pisses any of you off, if I could vote I would vote for Bush. I cannot stand Kerry and its funny that he has to lie about Bush's Guard service to try and cover up his own lies.
As fierce as they may seem that's what debates always are Maëlle. Any debate is a discussion/arguement between two people with sometimes very conflicting views. As heated as these debates can get, its good for the forums because it gives people a chance to speak their mind and invoke their right to freedom of speech (at least to an extent). Some might argue that debates are pointless, because in some cases (bible debates) they can never end, but without people speaking their mind and being passionate about their beliefs, I think the world would be a lot worse than it already is. The only end to this debate is on November 2nd. Debates like this cant be settled by heavy debating (even with proof), they can only be solved by a greater event..which is in this case the 2004 Presidental Election. We'll have to wait till then to see the final result, and all I can say is 'may the best man win'.
I'd like to interject a few things in here before you guys go for each others' throats. 1: Fahrenheit 9/11, like Bowling For Columbine, is not meant to be taken as the literal truth. It is simply meant to get people thinking. Obviously you fellows didn't need much prompting. 2. Do you know that when George W. heard of the first attack on the Twin Towers, he was in a classroom? And instead of taking immediate action, he decided to finish reading the story because it was a good photo op? Maybe even because he didn't have his advisors with him and didn't want to make a decision on his own? He weaseled out of that. Kerry might not be the best man for the job, but do you want a president that can't do anything without his cabinet? I certainly don't. 3. This I agree with entirely. Terrorism is still very real. But there is the fact that NONE of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis, and Bush is claiming that this war on Iraq is a war on terror. As for WMDs, that's all bull****. Pure and simple. Bush got himself into a war that's costing hundreds of billions of dollars for false reasons, without UN support, and have any of you heard that there's going to be a new draft bill up in January? Both men and women can be drafted as soon as they turn 18, and you can't get out of it because of college. Married couples will be drafted together. Canada won't take draft dodgers. There's no getting out of this, unless you have a disability. Let's see...didn't Bush avoid combat in Vietnam? Doesn't that seem slightly hypocritical to you? I'm of age to be drafted now, and I'm not fighting Bush's war so he and his corrupt big business friends can have their dinner parties. I'm not even going to get into how much I hate how Bush has been weakening our environmental protection laws, or how much the No Child Left Behind program sucks. I will just say here that I am 18, I am a registered voter, and I am voting for Kerry. He may not be the best man for the job, but he is by far better than Bush. If you don't like that, you are free to vote for Bush. But when we're out of fossil fuels and our air is filled with smog, and our schools are slowly f***ed, and we've spent all our money on a war that doesn't even need to be fought, I will be the one of the people saying "I told you so." *prepares for several attacks from all sides*
As fierce as they may seem that's what debates always are Maëlle. Any debate is a discussion/arguement between two people with sometimes very conflicting views. As heated as these debates can get, its good for the forums because it gives people a chance to speak their mind and invoke their right to freedom of speech (at least to an extent). Some might argue that debates are pointless, because in some cases (bible debates) they can never end, but without people speaking their mind and being passionate about their beliefs, I think the world would be a lot worse than it already is. The only end to this debate is on November 2nd. Debates like this cant be settled by heavy debating (even with proof), they can only be solved by a greater event..which is in this case the 2004 Presidental Election. We'll have to wait till then to see the final result, and all I can say is 'may the best man win'.[/b][/quote] I am 100% for debates but if we look at previous debates (religion, vegetarism, etc) it will lead to conflicts coming in (on?) the forums. I don't know if either Mark, Will or you looked at your posts with an outsider point of view, but for me, it almost looks like your going to kill each others. And you say that the end of the debate will come on November 2nd? Let me laugh! No matter who's going to win those ####### elections, the loser's side will find a way to attack and to prove that America shouldn't have voted for the winner. And teh winner's side's gonna answer with fact proving they are the best, etc. And by the way, you (Will, Derek and Mark) are always complaining about the other not listening and ignoring your point, well read over the debate and you'll see both sides do it. So for #### sake, listen to each others before complaining! Now you will excuse my slightly PMSing French self.
I am 100% for debates but if we look at previous debates (religion, vegetarism, etc) it will lead to conflicts coming in (on?) the forums. I don't know if either Mark, Will or you looked at your posts with an outsider point of view, but for me, it almost looks like your going to kill each others. And you say that the end of the debate will come on November 2nd? Let me laugh! No matter who's going to win those ####### elections, the loser's side will find a way to attack and to prove that America shouldn't have voted for the winner. And teh winner's side's gonna answer with fact proving they are the best, etc. And by the way, you (Will, Derek and Mark) are always complaining about the other not listening and ignoring your point, well read over the debate and you'll see both sides do it. So for #### sake, listen to each others before complaining! Now you will excuse my slightly PMSing French self. [/b][/quote] Maelle, I applaud you. Despite the fact that I just got myself involved in this, that needed to be said.
Me, Will and Mark are always killing eachother. We're like the Three Stooges, just modernized. ....kidding of course.
A quick remark: For those who believe Moore spews forth lies and slander, here is his proof for basically the entirity of the film. Fah. 9/11 Facts Most are from very reputable news/government sources. CBS/CNN/NPR/New York Times etc. For those of you who like to slam Kerry for his flip-flops, which I don't deny exist, but see them as the lesser of two evils, this should make you think for a second. Bush vs. Bush Watch Bush vs. Bush, and then ponder whether it isn't a bit hypocritical to call either party a 'flip-flopper' Obviously its meant to be funny (its on the Daily Show afterall) but Jon makes a very good point in the first two minutes. After that its just humor though. And for those of you who just can't let Kerry have his damn purple hearts and like to believe Bush did anything of worth in Vietnam (other than possibly saving the life of the person who would've gotten his spot had he not been shoved in by his dad). Here's something else to digest. Shrub Smear
"First off its not about Republicans or Democrats, its about the best choice for the country out of two people basically. If anyone has studied politics, no one in their right mind would vote for Kerry... Every couple years the U.S. reaches a surplus as in the Clinton Presidency, but that money was mainly through Money Laundering into Corporate businesses through the mob. The Clinton Administartion also didn't do much to protect our borders and thats why we have so many illegal aliens in the U.S. And listen to this scenario what would have you done during 911? Would you have sat on your ass and done nothing, like a cat or stand up for yourself and try to bring an end to these crazy suicidal Muslims that hate westerners. So based on the situation bush was thrown into I think he did a very admirable job. My Vote is for Bush." [/b][/quote] I'm late as anything, but I have to say something about this. This election year, you will elect a corporate puppet. That is for sure. Bush and Kerry have their own flaws, their own identities, but it's not about one man versus one man, it's what their parties are going to do through them. That is what will affect what we think of them while they're in office. Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative; Bush and Kerry are simply figure-heads of something much larger. And that is the corporations that's backed them. This is why I despise American politics so much, there's FAR too much corporate involvement (also, the reason I like Ralph Nader). Do you honestly think Bush OR Kerry will do anything about this? Of course not, because they already "owe" something to these corporations. This something will most likely be paid back in tax breaks. Imagine it like this....all the odd number houses on your street are corporations, and the even ones are middle income workers. Now, let's say you make the odd number houses exempt from taxes. Is the government going to recieve half the money? No, they're going to double the taxes on the even number houses to compensate. This is basically what the government has been doing with corporations for at least 15 years, and why middle or lower income household have been pretty much violated up the rear by their government. Moral of the story, neither of the big party candidates will change this. Bush and Cheney are already in bed with Halliburton, I wonder what corpration Kerry will bend over for. Lastly...wow, this dude is ignorant. I'm sure you know better, but whoever you just quoted completely generalized and stereotyped the Islamic faith. Arguably, they have a historically more peaceful following than Christianity, and the VAST majority of Muslims aren't suicidal, aren't extremists, and are indifferent to Westerners. What shame, that dude just lost all my respect in his 3rd to last sentence.
I am 100% for debates but if we look at previous debates (religion, vegetarism, etc) it will lead to conflicts coming in (on?) the forums. I don't know if either Mark, Will or you looked at your posts with an outsider point of view, but for me, it almost looks like your going to kill each others. And you say that the end of the debate will come on November 2nd? Let me laugh! No matter who's going to win those ####### elections, the loser's side will find a way to attack and to prove that America shouldn't have voted for the winner. And teh winner's side's gonna answer with fact proving they are the best, etc. And by the way, you (Will, Derek and Mark) are always complaining about the other not listening and ignoring your point, well read over the debate and you'll see both sides do it. So for #### sake, listen to each others before complaining! Now you will excuse my slightly PMSing French self. [/b][/quote] As far as I'm concerned, I look at all Derek's points and say teh contrary. You might want to re-read my posts. Now, as for Derek, I make alot of valid points but none of them get recognized.
I know I never hold a grudge after a debate, which is really the important thing. I've gotten into it with Will once or twice, but I have respect for his opinions, his debating skills, and role as a member of the staff. Now someone reply to what I said about corporations
He was only temporary, they are now holding their own elections over in Iraq very soon. They had to put someone in there to stabilize the government before they could ever begin to allow elections in Iraq. Don't you recall that being said? Because I sure as hell do. What makes me laugh is that any connection you bush-bashers can find to oil, even if its THE SMALLEST LITTLE DETAIL you use as proof that the war was about oil. So if we assigned someone in a country who's brother's distant cousin's father ran an oil company, you'd assume that's for oil too? Give me a break. I have not seen any evidence this war was for oil, and contradictory to the statement you said earlier that I wont have any 'impact', I'm starting to think your views areare more lopsided than mine ever could be. For now on in this debate, or any anti-bush arguement, I am going to start looking for sources to prove every little fact, because unlike some of you in this thread, the first few of my posts had actual links filled with information to support what I was saying. The only page you have ever produced is some nutcase conspiracy theory that claims our country bombed the pentagon, which no offense, has to be the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. I'll quote from someone on myspace who really shares my views on this matter and took the words right out of my mouth: "First off its not about Republicans or Democrats, its about the best choice for the country out of two people basically. If anyone has studied politics, no one in their right mind would vote for Kerry... Every couple years the U.S. reaches a surplus as in the Clinton Presidency, but that money was mainly through Money Laundering into Corporate businesses through the mob. The Clinton Administartion also didn't do much to protect our borders and thats why we have so many illegal aliens in the U.S. And listen to this scenario what would have you done during 911? Would you have sat on your ass and done nothing, like a cat or stand up for yourself and try to bring an end to these crazy suicidal Muslims that hate westerners. So based on the situation bush was thrown into I think he did a very admirable job. My Vote is for Bush." The Iraqis do not have to give us oil no matter what because they own it, so therefore if they refuse access..guess what? No war for oil. I don't care how much it pisses any of you off, if I could vote I would vote for Bush. I cannot stand Kerry and its funny that he has to lie about Bush's Guard service to try and cover up his own lies. [/b][/quote] The US got rid of Saddam, and now Iraq owes them something. What will the US ask for? Oil. It doesn't make you one bit curious that they put the head of a massive Iraqi oil company in charge of the country? This is the head of the company, not your abstract look at a "brother's distant cousins father". It is an immediate link to a company, not a distant one. You did not acknowledge that fact, you just brushed it off and made it something less than what it is. Let's look at Republican government ties to oil; -- Enron, Texas' massive energy trading firm was the Bush campaign's single biggest sponsor for the 2000 campaign. -- Richard Cheney, vice-president, was the head of the massive energy company, Halliburton. Although his apparent ties to Halliburton have been severed, he still receives payments from them. Source -- The Army has given Halliburton over $1.7 billion in contracts to restart oil productiuon in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars. Source -- Halliburton was given this no-bid contract by the Bush administration without any allowed competition from any other companies. -- In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, US-appointed prime minister of Afghanistan was a top advisor to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL corporation who was negotiating the creation of a afghanistan-turkmenistan-pakistan oil pipeline. Source -- Karzai was a key player on the Bush Oil team. During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Source -- In Iraq, US-appointed Prime Minister Allawi was the head of a massive oil company. He still continues to serach for oil pipeline deals with other places, like Jordan. Source I could go on, but eh...I've got a life. If all this Pentagon conspiracy stuff is nonsense, answer me a few questions and tell me I'm wrong. I want direct answers. -- Why did a "jumbo jet" make such a small hole in the pentagon? And please don't give me that "smaller plane" crap because a smaller plane wouldn't of been able to create such devestation because they don't fly as fast nor do they carry as much fuel. A massive plane would have created more damage than was done. -- Please explain how terrorists trained at an amateur flight school in Arizona were able to hit a two-story high building at 500mph in a plane, when expert pilot for airlines can't even do that? A single inch of error and they miss. Only absolute ace pilots can do that. -- Where's any evidence of plane debris? -- Why was taped footage from a nearby hotel of the crash immediately confiscated by the FBI, who have refused to release the video? I'd like to see evidence of money laundering by the Clinton administration, thank you. As a person with such a high respect for credit, where's that? Clinton had a high surplus because among many other things; he created millions of jobs (which Bush has helped peddle away). Clinton was also one of the closest presidential allies with the Mexicans. In fact, he gave training, equipment, and advice from the CIA to the Mexicans to help in their anti-drug efforts. Source. It's true that Mexicans have continued getting into your country, but of course security was going to be stepped up over the paranoia caused after Bush let 9/11 happen. But did you know thousands of miles of coastline in Oregon are left unguarded except for by one police officers? (Fahrenheit 9/11, the officer confirmed this himself). If you want to talk about security flaws, that's one. All the terrorists need to do is drive their boats into land and escape into the forest. All I'm saying is that the Iraqis, whos oil fields are now being produced by Halliburton, owe the Americans something. And what do you think the Americans will want? For a guy who's usually fair, you should not be attacking me or democrats for our opinions and factual backups. I'd rather you disagree with my points than disagree with me as a person and call me blashpemous titles, thank you. I have not done that to you, so I expect the same.