[quote]“The Bush-Cheney campaign is running one of the most negative and misleading campaigns ever.”
How is that not a negative statement? [/quote]
Okay, I have to admit you stumped me. I have no idea what your point is.
It’s a FACT that Bush has spent the vast majority of his advertising dollars on attack ads, making his campaign the most negative campaign in modern history. It’s not John Kerry who made the decision for Bush’s campaign to go negative so early.
It’s not “hate speech” to criticize the policies and record of your opponent.
I would like to see some corroboration that terrorist groups are officially distributing Fahrenheit 911? You say Michael Moore is working with terrorists? That kind of charge needs to be documented. Here is the list of countries F-911 will play in: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/fahrenheit911/worldwide.php
Please state exactly which countries terrorists are distributing F-911 in, and explain Michael Moore’s role. Post a link as documentation. Consider it a friendly “put up or shut up” challenge.
As far as the Democrats being far left and non-mainstream, you guys are just silly. SILLY!
Remember the free market? How could someone NOT mainstream be elected by the public to a national office? When you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity or read the National Review, then sure, Hillary Clinton seems far left. To me the Clintons are true moderates and firmly in the mainstream. The current candidate who is furthest left is Dennis Kucinich, who is a liberal, but certainly not a radical. If he was a radical he would have never won a seat in Congress. There aren’t enough radicals in Ohio to make that possible or logical.
As far as doing a switcheroo and hiding their true politics, you can’t trump the fast one that Dubya pulled. Dubya campaigned as a moderate, as a “uniter and not a divider” who promised to “change the tone in Washington.” Both of those campaign promises were quickly broken after the election.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
"
I would like to see some corroboration that terrorist groups are officially distributing Fahrenheit 911? [/quote]
this was covered on all the news websites…here is what i can find now
“Organizations Linked To Hezbollah Offered To Help Distribute Michael Moore’s Film In The Middle East. “Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn’t need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.” (Samantha Ellis, “Fahrenheit 9/11 Gets Help Offer From Hezbollah,” The [U.K.] Guardian, 6/17/04)”
Uhh maybe you didn’t know that big-talking Bill O’Reilly is an official Chickenhawk?
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Name: William “Bill” O’Reilly
Born: 1949
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill O’Reilly loves to come off as a straight-talking, blue-collar kind of guy. Funny, a lot of guys who fit that description and graduated high school the same year he did - 1967 - went straight to Vietnam. Not our Bill - he went to college. And he didn’t just go to college, he spent his junior year, 1969-1970, in London. He graduated in 1971, briefly exposing him to the draft again, but Bill was miraculously spared.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
I said
“O’Reilly claimed that he’d be willing to sacrifice his own life, in order to quiet the Fallujah uprising… what a load of bullshit!!”
Thunder said
I don’t doubt O’Reilly would serve his country if we needed him.
Uhh maybe you didn’t know that big-talking Bill O’Reilly is an official Chickenhawk?
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Name: William “Bill” O’Reilly
Born: 1949
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill O’Reilly loves to come off as a straight-talking, blue-collar kind of guy. Funny, a lot of guys who fit that description and graduated high school the same year he did - 1967 - went straight to Vietnam. Not our Bill - he went to college. And he didn’t just go to college, he spent his junior year, 1969-1970, in London. He graduated in 1971, briefly exposing him to the draft again, but Bill was miraculously spared.
Didn’t Bill Clinton go to school in London too? Around the same time??
Clinton was graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.
Lumpy,
Again, I’m not going to do your homework for you. Read a friggin’ newspaper! Your astounding ignorance is exceeded only by your vitriol. Here’s a quick research tip and a bit of advice. Tip: Use Google for research. I.E., enter Michael Moore and Hezbollah into the Google search bar and click the button. Wow, several thousand hits on the story! Whod’a thunk it? Advice: I think the old Ben Franklin quote goes something like, “It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak and prove it.” That’s the spirit of it anyway. Here’s some more research for you, check out a new book titled Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. It chronicles his lies throughout his career. Goebbles is an apt analogy as that chick who did “Triumph Of The Will” was a true believer, not a brazen liar.
That was a weak interview. A .22caliber brain is being generous. Calling the soldiers in Iraq children is insulting. They are adults who chose military service. Saddam and his clan had no redeeming qualities what so ever. Bush the first in an interview about the gulf war said he ended the war when he did because he had assurances from other world leaders that it was over for Saddam, he was wrong. Bush the second corrected his fathers mistake and he no longer has to guess what is coming next from Saddam. I think the democrats who voted for invading Iraq did so because Bush made sense when he said our first warning could be a mushroom cloud. I think they realized that Washington where they and their families live was a very likely target and all this talk about “we were lied to” is political bullshit.
The only speech from the convention so far that was any good was Ron Regan’s. He might give new meaning to the term Regan democrat.
Uhh maybe you didn’t know that big-talking Bill O’Reilly is an official Chickenhawk?
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Name: William “Bill” O’Reilly
Born: 1949
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill O’Reilly loves to come off as a straight-talking, blue-collar kind of guy. Funny, a lot of guys who fit that description and graduated high school the same year he did - 1967 - went straight to Vietnam. Not our Bill - he went to college. And he didn’t just go to college, he spent his junior year, 1969-1970, in London. He graduated in 1971, briefly exposing him to the draft again, but Bill was miraculously spared.
Umm, I’m not a big fan of O’Reilly, but this strikes me as wholly unfair. You are saying you know O’Reilly wouldn’t go if called based on the fact he was in college, and thus ineligible for the draft, and then wasn’t drafted?
Well O’Reilly certainly didn’t volunteer for service, did he? A guy who claims he was a “blue collar kid”? What was stopping him? The whole definition of Chickenhawk revolves around a person who “rah-rahs” for war, but won’t serve himself. Clinton was hardly a hawk, was he? Compare that to Dubya, who pulled the trigger on a war of choice, witrh an arbitrary attack date.
ConservativeDud
It’s funny to see you accuse me of ignorance, and then turn around and misspell Goebbels. DUH?
Who the hell is “goebbles”?
Let me repeat my PUT UP OR SHUT THE HELL UP challenge:
Show me a credible source that says Michael Moore is connected with Hezbollah? You claimed Michael Moore is working with terrorists, a serious charge. Lets see some proof, or shut the hell up!
Moore does come across as being a bore, makes me wonder how does he make a living with his stuff. He just appears to be a regular on the IFC. O’Reilly, while I don’t know the guy, wouldn’t be able to survive in his perfect world. He wouldn’t have a successful job as he has now, because he’d still have nothing that doesn’t concern him to cry about.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Well O’Reilly certainly didn’t volunteer for service, did he? A guy who claims he was a “blue collar kid”? What was stopping him? The whole definition of Chickenhawk revolves around a person who “rah-rahs” for war, but won’t serve himself. Clinton was hardly a hawk, was he? Compare that to Dubya, who pulled the trigger on a war of choice, witrh an arbitrary attack date.
[/quote]
Same thing here man. Clinton came from a similar background. He grew up poor and became the President of the United States. What stopped Clinton from going to Vietnam? I don’t think Clinton would be considered a “Chickenhawk”, but neither would O’Reilly. If you think he is, then almost everyone who voted for the Iraq war would also qualify!
Let me say that I like Bill Clinton. He did so many good things for America. He was a good president that f’ed up with Monica. I really had no problem with that, but the far right pushed that to where it went.
O’Reilly is hated by the far left and far right. It’s really funny that you can’t come up with anything of substance so you resort to name calling.
Couple of off subject things!
I will never believe a damn thing that Michael Moore says.
I liked JK’s speech tonight. I thought it was positive and well spoken. We’ll see what the republicans come up with.
If any of you want to see the “truth” in the advertisements you’re seeing, check out http://www.factcheck.org
About the 16 words in the State of the Union address, which has been discussed here already:
Condoleeza Rice said she “forgot” to remove that section of the speech, after the CIA advised Team Bush that the evidence for that claim was weak. It was pulled from a previous speech, but it somehow ended up back in the State of the Union address. So we have to decide, as we do on several key issues, is Team Bush incompetent, or are they deliberately misleading us?
Bush apologized for including the 16 words (the only time he’s apologized for anything, as far as I remember). Why would he apologize if it wasn’t a mistake?
To ConservativeJud
You said: [quote]Moore has an explicit agreement to work with an enemy of the United States in the War on Terror. [/quote]
I looked at Google as you recommended, and didn’t see anything that substantiates this serious charge. I would like you to document this charge. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you’re a blatant liar.
[quote]
I looked at Google as you recommended, and didn’t see anything that substantiates this serious charge. I would like you to document this charge. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you’re a blatant liar. [/quote]
Right then… your post said [quote]According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.[/quote]
But ConservativeJud says [quote]Moore has an explicit agreement to work with an enemy of the United States in the War on Terror. [/quote] WTF???
Is ConservativeJud pulling a “Dubya”? Am I supposed to decide if ConservativeJud is just stupid, or is he a liar?