'Michael Moore Hates America' -- reviewed.

[othello]

Great, now that you've found all those words, you can shove them.

Stop being so petulant as to accuse everyone of being stupid just for disagreeing with you. It's childish and does not make you look intelligent.

I know you have at least some smarts. Stop putting them to waste by being so pompous and "holier than thou".

it has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, nothing at all. you could be totally and 100% in agreement with me, and if you dont know why, or are ignorant to the facts, id still do my best to reveal what i know from experience and research. for instance, those that think bush is perfect or whatever... bush passed a bill allowing illegal immigrants to receive jobs... i highly disagree with that. bush has also made some not-so-great educational reforms (the TAKS?!?!?... that things is ****ing bullshit) that i think were a bit overdone, and a little unnecessary in some regards, but i believe he had honest intentions behind it.

i know bush isnt perfect, and i dont, for one second at all, suppose him to be. i do know that bush didnt lie to send us to a war for oil. i do know that bush hasnt 'destroyed our economy'. i do know that bush isnt our 'worst president ever omg omg!'. and when people start ignorantly parading these misconceptions around, i do my best to counter them. do i come off cocky? sometimes im sure... but i am also confident in what i know and how i came to those opinions and beliefs. its kinda like in athletics, when you know you can perform a certain task better than someone else, and you say so... is that being cocky? in some ways, sure. is that being confident in your abilites? absolutely.

 

[hiln]

How old are you othello?

 

[othello]

How old are you othello?

before i answer let me ask 2.5 questions.

1.why do you ask?

2.how old do you think i am and why?

 

[KidRock]

it has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, nothing at all. you could be totally and 100% in agreement with me, and if you dont know why, or are ignorant to the facts, id still do my best to reveal what i know from experience and research. for instance, those that think bush is perfect or whatever... bush passed a bill allowing illegal immigrants to receive jobs... i highly disagree with that. bush has also made some not-so-great educational reforms (the TAKS?!?!?... that things is ****ing bullshit) that i think were a bit overdone, and a little unnecessary in some regards, but i believe he had honest intentions behind it.

i know bush isnt perfect, and i dont, for one second at all, suppose him to be. i do know that bush didnt lie to send us to a war for oil. i do know that bush hasnt 'destroyed our economy'. i do know that bush isnt our 'worst president ever omg omg!'. and when people start ignorantly parading these misconceptions around, i do my best to counter them. do i come off cocky? sometimes im sure... but i am also confident in what i know and how i came to those opinions and beliefs. its kinda like in athletics, when you know you can perform a certain task better than someone else, and you say so... is that being cocky? in some ways, sure. is that being confident in your abilites? absolutely.

I concur.

 

[Raziaar]

I wonder if anyone here even cares that a little over 2/3rd of the United States military supports bush. I stand by my country's troops, and am glad they have the same political view I have.

Besides, on a lesser note, when civil war breaks out i'll be on the side that has all the big military weapons. :sniper: Heh, just kidding.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Actually, most of them are neutral in their politics. I know many Army personel who refuse to have political affiliations.

 

[Raziaar]

Military Overwhelmingly Supports Bush
From Military.com.


In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)
….
“You can’t dismiss” the results, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who for years has studied the political leanings of the U.S. military. Feaver said it’s unlikely that Bush will receive 70% of votes cast by military personnel. But the results suggest it will be difficult for Kerry to make substantial gains among a group that has strongly supported Republican presidential candidates in the post-Vietnam era.

Feaver said he suspects Kerry is losing support among those in uniform because he seems less committed than Bush to prosecuting the war in Iraq.




And on my comment: I'm interested to note, that there are so few democrats in the military, if the poll is actually any indicication as the army as a whole.

EDIT: And to kerberos. No, that's not true. Read what I said, and there are many many other sources that I can dig up if you wish, saying that majority of the united states military supports bush.

 

[blahblahblah]

Military Overwhelmingly Supports Bush
From Military.com.


In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)
….
“You can’t dismiss” the results, said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who for years has studied the political leanings of the U.S. military. Feaver said it’s unlikely that Bush will receive 70% of votes cast by military personnel. But the results suggest it will be difficult for Kerry to make substantial gains among a group that has strongly supported Republican presidential candidates in the post-Vietnam era.

Feaver said he suspects Kerry is losing support among those in uniform because he seems less committed than Bush to prosecuting the war in Iraq.




And on my comment: I'm interested to note, that there are so few democrats in the military, if the poll is actually any indicication as the army as a whole.

EDIT: And to kerberos. No, that's not true. Read what I said, and there are many many other sources that I can dig up if you wish, saying that majority of the united states military supports bush.

FYI: The reason why the military is that way is that most Repulicans are strong advocates on increasing the military. That is a very big issue with military personnal and family members. That explains why Bush is so popular with military families.

I believe that poll is accurate.

 

[OCybrManO]

If you blame the result as a breakdown of the system rather than the will of the American system then I am calling you insane. I have valid reasons to disagree, even hate, John Kerry. Doesnt mean I will think any less of his supporters, nor does it mean I wont give his Administration a chance. It surely doesnt mean I will blame the result on the system and whine about it.

When a candidate wins the popular vote by half a million, yet still loses the election... I call that a breakdown of the system. A system that is designed to allow the people to choose their leader has broken down (by definition) when it does the opposite of what they decide. The American voters as a whole chose Gore, yet Bush won the presidency. The Electoral College system is a system designed to make elections easier while sacrificing accuracy. That's fine in a landslide victory but when it is actually a tough decision... when accuracy is of the utmost importance... the system breaks down.

Also, I think the media should be banned from showing any information regarding the current state of the voting results until all voting districts have been closed.

but i am also confident in what i know and how i came to those opinions and beliefs.

Even though I do a lot of research I'll be the first to admit that my research and my interpretation of "facts" presented by the media or even straight from the candidates themselves is inherently biased. I can not possibly say, for sure, that my opinions are correct and that yours are wrong. Political information, statistics, and "facts" aren't that straightforward. There are very few things in government that are no left up to opinion. There is nothing I can do about it. I try to remain as centrist as possible and think as logically as possible... but I will never claim my views to be the gospel truth. We all receive biased information and filter it through our biased opinions... coming to biased conclusions. Saying otherwise shows ignorance.

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

Simplified, that article says "Republicans support Bush." Notice that there are about 4.5x as many self-proclaimed Republicans as there are self-proclaimed Democrats (and the "Independents" probably lean in those directions in a similar proportion) in the military... and there are 4.0x as many votes for Bush as there are votes for Kerry. What does this mean? Honestly, it doesn't mean much for either candidate. All I can see is that they (as a whole) are mostly ambivalent toward either candidate... because they pretty much just stick to their already-formed party affiliations.

If you want to try to read too much into it, the proportion of Bush votes to Kerry votes is actually smaller than the Republican to Democrat proportion. That could hint at a slight amount of discontent with Bush... but it probably just means that the left and right leaning Independents aren't in the exact same proportion as the people that gave a political affiliation.

 

[Raziaar]

Simplified, that article says "Republicans support Bush." Notice that there are about 4.5x as many self-proclaimed Republicans as there are self-proclaimed Democrats (and the "Independents" probably lean in those directions in a similar proportion) in the military... and there are 4.0x as many votes for Bush as there are votes for Kerry. What does this mean? Honestly, it doesn't mean much for either candidate. All I can see is that they (as a whole) are mostly ambivalent toward either candidate... because they pretty much just stick to their already-formed party affiliations.

Actually what it shows me, is more Republicans are more responsible in supporting their country and are willing to serve time to protect it. You would think that out of 4000 randomly polled military people, you'd find more than a measly 1/5th of them being democrat.

 

[OCybrManO]

Why would you expect people that don't support our country going to war to support the war by joining it?

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I think we should make a rule that if you are going to debate about "liberals" and "concervatives" in America, you should have to live there(ie. we don't want people whose only info on this great country comes from the media, which is horrible, IMO).

I don't want to debate people from Canada and Russia, I want to ask people from the US their opinions, because, face it, you don't live here and would have to have an obsession about American living to know as much as an American about current issues in America.

hmm, I wonder how much I'll pay for not reading the last 13 pages..

On Topic: I liked your review, although I would say it's futile to attempt to be nice to liberals, as they turn on you as a general rule.

 

[Shadowlands5325]

Who gives a shit about this guy. He is a moron.

 

[Raziaar]

Why would you expect people that don't support our country going to war to support the war by joining it?

Umm, people didn't start being republican and democrat since after the iraq war. These are much of the same people as well that have been in the military before the war.

 

[Raziaar]

I think we should make a rule that if you are going to debate about "liberals" and "concervatives" in America, you should have to live there(ie. we don't want people whose only info on this great country comes from the media, which is horrible, IMO).

I don't want to debate people from Canada and Russia, I want to ask people from the US their opinions, because, face it, you don't live here and would have to have an obsession about American living to know as much as an American about current issues in America.

hmm, I wonder how much I'll pay for not reading the last 13 pages..

On Topic: I liked your review, although I would say it's futile to attempt to be nice to liberals, as they turn on you as a general rule.

Heh, that'd never happen. A large majority of these boards are non americans, yet they have an insane fixation on our politics, thinking they know more than we do about issues regarding our country. America is obviously the greatest country on earth if we get the entire world debating on what we do or what we don't do for much of their lives<flexes>

 

[OCybrManO]

Umm, people didn't start being republican and democrat since after the iraq war. These are much of the same people as well that have been in the military before the war.

As a whole, liberals prefer for our (USA citizens... not liberals) country to not go to war... period. They are more likely to want to try to use diplomacy and other peaceful means of solving problems. I'm speaking generally, here. I'm not talking about Iraq. That's just part of being a liberal.

On Topic: I liked your review, although I would say it's futile to attempt to be nice to liberals, as they turn on you as a general rule.

Like it or not, that is true of both parties. Actually... conservatives are, historically speaking, slightly more likely to "go negative" during campaign speeches and ads.

EDIT: I can't say the same about regular political discussions, because there are obviously no statistics on those.

 

[Raziaar]

As a whole, liberals prefer for our (USA citizens... not liberals) country to not go to war... period. They are more likely to want to try to use diplomacy and other peaceful means of solving problems. I'm speaking generally, here. I'm not talking about Iraq. That's just part of being a liberal.

Like it or not, that is true of both parties. Actually... conservatives are, historically speaking, slightly more likely to "go negative" during campaign speeches and ads.

Well you see, the military is not solely for going to war. That's not why we have militaries. The Liberals may be against going to war, which is fine, but then how do they feel about having a standing army? Our army is what gives us security, in knowing that foreign armies will not invade us. The fact that liberals are against the war should not excuse them from joining the military. Honestly, if you have no love for the military, you have no love for the country, since the standing army of a country is what keeps it a country. I mean look back in the middle ages. If you didn't have a standing army, you were assimilated into larger empires, and if you did have a standing army, chances are you were still at risk of invasion, but thats one reason you have an army, to defend against invasion, not nessesarily enact invasion.

 

[CptStern]

anyone who believes the justification for the war in iraq has little to no knowledge of the history of the US and their 30 years of allying themselves with Saddam

what's the justification this week? anyone care to enlighten me?

 

[qckbeam]

what's the justification this week? anyone care to enlighten me?

The war was a result of a divine command issued from the mouth of God.

 

[FortisVir]

what's the justification this week? anyone care to enlighten me?

Didn't you hear? Saddam had aluminum tubes of mass destruction, and apple-pies laced with anthrax!

It was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Raziaar]

anyone who believes the justification for the war in iraq has little to no knowledge of the history of the US and their 30 years of allying themselves with Saddam

what's the justification this week? anyone care to enlighten me?

Other countries continued to support him, like france, so what's the point you have?

 

[Raziaar]

The war was a result of a divine command issued from the mouth of God.

Heh, kinda like the middle eastern jihad against the western world?

 

[qckbeam]

Heh, kinda like the middle eastern jihad against the western world?

Yes, which is why it happens to scare me so.

 

[FortisVir]

Ah yes, it scares me as well qckbeam, which is we must take preventive measures to protect America.

Like, you know, invading countries that didn't attack us and have no ties to Al-Qaeda, while inflaming anti-American sentiment around the world in the process.

I feel a lot safer.

 

[qckbeam]

Ah yes, it scares me as well qckbeam, which is we must take preventive measures to protect America.

Like, you know, invading countries that didn't attack us and have no ties to Al-Qaeda, while inflaming anti-American sentiment around the world in the process.

I feel a lot safer.

If that was directed towards me, I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing on the similarity between our President and so-called Terrorists.

 

[OCybrManO]

Well you see, the military is not solely for going to war. That's not why we have militaries. The Liberals may be against going to war, which is fine, but then how do they feel about having a standing army? Our army is what gives us security, in knowing that foreign armies will not invade us. The fact that liberals are against the war should not excuse them from joining the military. Honestly, if you have no love for the military, you have no love for the country, since the standing army of a country is what keeps it a country. I mean look back in the middle ages. If you didn't have a standing army, you were assimilated into larger empires, and if you did have a standing army, chances are you were still at risk of invasion, but thats one reason you have an army, to defend against invasion, not nessesarily enact invasion.

By joining the military you give up your free will to choose whether or not to fight in any given conflict... and pacifists don't want to fight unless it is in self-defense. That's a conflict of interests. They might want to help defend the country, but they still don't join because they might be forced to fight people that did not (and are not about to) attack us. Another part of their reasoning is that we already have a rather large army. They could enlist and complete enough training by the time they are needed if we do get attacked (or we learn about the attack before it happens).

 

[Raziaar]

By joining the military you give up your free will to choose whether or not to fight in any given conflict... and pacifists don't want to fight unless it is in self-defense. That's a conflict of interests. They might want to help defend the country, but they still don't join because they might be forced to fight people that did not (and are not about to) attack us. Another part of their reasoning is that we already have a rather large army. They could enlist and complete enough training by the time they are needed if we do get attacked (or we learn about the attack before it happens).

Dude, your logic is so far off, its unbelievable. A country without a ready army is just asking to be conquered. In the event of an invasion, there is really no time to prepare and organize a military force. I mean, you COULD do this, but history has proven that peasant armies(what we would *BE* if you didn't want to maintain an army) get squashed mightily easily. If we didn't maintain an army, we wouldn't have military equipment flowing around, and without that military equipment, we wouldn't have very effective means of defending ourselves should the time arive.

 

[othello]

so cyberman, its acceptable to refuse to defend your country because its a conflict of interest. why not join the army to defend your right to have a conflict of interest in the first place? thats the problem with most liberals, they want everything handed to them on a silver plateer (i.e., healthcare) but arent willing to do shit about it... except bitch and moan. thats the real why 75% of our armed forces are republican. but apparently, judging by the fact that 25% arent, there are some decent lefties out there after all. so maybe theres hope for you liberals yet!

 

[CptStern]

Other countries continued to support him, like france, so what's the point you have?

hmmmmmmm france bought oil from saddam (during sanctions), the US supplied saddam with the chemical weapons that killed thousands of iranian soldiers and kurdish civilians. Choose the lesser of the two evils

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh, so you're not saying mistakes are bad. You're calling Moore liar again, with your only basis being that it would be 'impossible' for him to make a mistake.

Did I say liar?

Yes, and I think the single biggest detriment to the system is the fact that a huge chunk of the voting population is massively under-informed. If you think that the system has nothing to do with the voters, then maybe I'm not the insane one.

The canidates visit many cities, visit small states, hold huge rallies, go door to door at times, hold debates on television, campaign offices call people's houses, create websites, show television ads, and many more things. If people arent hearing the message, it isnt the fault of the system. Do you propose that we force people to watch the canidates talk? It is their choice to listen or not.

You have too much faith in your ability to hurt my feelings.

Nah, I think your therapist will tell you I am doing a damn good job. :thumbs:

I swear I will blame you if an Iraqi terrorist attacks my country in revenge against the west because of the War in Iraq.

Yeah, like someone is going to hit Canada. :upstare:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh boy, not the 'slam dunk' argument again.

I know for a fact that you have no clue what he is referring to.
What evidence is he calling a 'slam dunk'? He must be referring to something.

You don't happen to know what that something is, do you?

Ask your boy Kerry, he read the same evidence and came to the same conclusion. Sadly I am not privy to the same intel given to the President and Senator.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Yeah, like someone is going to hit Canada. :upstare:

lol seriously! canada doesn't make enemies around the world with criminal foreign policy lol...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Even though I do a lot of research I'll be the first to admit that my research and my interpretation of "facts" presented by the media or even straight from the candidates themselves is inherently biased. I can not possibly say, for sure, that my opinions are correct and that yours are wrong. Political information, statistics, and "facts" aren't that straightforward. There are very few things in government that are no left up to opinion. There is nothing I can do about it. I try to remain as centrist as possible and think as logically as possible... but I will never claim my views to be the gospel truth. We all receive biased information and filter it through our biased opinions... coming to biased conclusions. Saying otherwise shows ignorance.

I applaud this. First time I have seen a Democrat/Liberal do this on this board. This is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Neutrino]

I applaud this. First time I have seen a Democrat/Liberal or republican/conservative do this on this board. This is a breath of fresh air.

Fixed it for you.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Fixed it for you.

Whoa whoa, I say that my views are no better than Kerry supporters all the time. Maybe you have missed them in your time away at the religious discussion. Come to think of it you have too. Blah seems pretty independent so he doesnt count. :cheers:

 

[Neutrino]

Whoa whoa, I say that my views are no better than Kerry supporters all the time. Maybe you have missed them in your time away at the religious discussion. Come to think of it you have too. Blah seems pretty independent so he doesnt count. :cheers:

I was just messin' with you. I just mean that both sides are similar and both sides have some moderates and some extremists. I just don't like one side inaccurately singled out over the other.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What a way to misplace your fear. It was declared long before Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Huessein, that if Westerners lead another crusade like attack in the middle east, Jihad would be waged against...WESTERN civilization.

That includes you. Infact, many terrorists dont disclude any countries, even their own out of this ability. Canada was always in danger. But im glad she has'nt been attacked.

Live your fullest Mecha.

Thanks for the sentiment, but I hadn't discounted the Al-Queda threat either. That threat has been there ever since 9/11.

What I am opposed to, however, is now having the Al-Queda Jihad and the Iraqi people hating the west.

One group was enough, thank you very much. But two is obviously worse. Especially since it is clear to me that Iraq should not have been given a reason to hate the west.

This is why I would have much preferred dealing with Al-Queda effectively before spending ten times as much on a seperate conflict. Saddam needed to go, but definitely not like this.

 

[blahblahblah]

Whoa whoa, I say that my views are no better than Kerry supporters all the time. Maybe you have missed them in your time away at the religious discussion. Come to think of it you have too. Blah seems pretty independent so he doesnt count. :cheers:

lol. You haven't seen me discuss economics or taxes, have you? Or abortion and military spending? I'm very republican on those issues.

 

[Raziaar]

Thanks for the sentiment, but I hadn't discounted the Al-Queda threat either. That threat has been there ever since 9/11.

What I am opposed to, however, is now having the Al-Queda Jihad and the Iraqi people hating the west.

One group was enough, thank you very much. But two is obviously worse. Especially since it is clear to me that Iraq should not have been given a reason to hate the west.

This is why I would have much preferred dealing with Al-Queda effectively before spending ten times as much on a seperate conflict. Saddam needed to go, but definitely not like this.

Middle easterners already hated the west since long before this particular war.

 

[Neutrino]

Middle easterners already disliked the west since long before this particular war.

This war didn't help matters any in that respect and is probably responsible for worsening that dislike and increasing the risk of terrorism in my opinion.