Michael Moore Is Alright,but...

[KCFlyer]

Colmes provides little or no balance, he isnt allowed to debate with hannity. Crossfire is a much better show. When hannity lies, colmes cant do anything about it, on crossfire, hannity would get his ass handed too him.

Hannity and Colmbs kind of reminds me of Penn and Teller. In each pair, one is a loudmouth, the other a mute.

 

[sentrido]

Of course! James Carvelle... talk about beacons of truth. Please.

The difference between people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore is that at least Rush is accountable for the things he says... he doesn't pull facts out of thin air. There is no question to the fact that he does not have a biased program, I don't know why you are debating that. We agree with you. Sean Hannity as well, but don't knock Hannity simply because his sidekick can't come up with a decent argument. I'd put him (or O'Reilly) on Crossfire in a heartbeat... except they probably wouldn't shut up long enough for him to get a word in.

Bottom line, if you truly want "fair and balanced" news, you're not going to get it from CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. Try NPR.

The reason I like crossfire is that if somebody isnt being the beacon of truth, the person on the other side of the table gets to call them on it. Aslo i find the guests much more entertaining than the hosts.

Rush is not accountable for the things he says, and he does pull things out of the air. Where the heck have you been? Heck, theres been books about it.

Also , Regarding hannitiy and colmes, maybe I wasnt totaly clear, It doesnt matter if colmes can come up with a good argument, HE ISNT ALLOWED TO DIRECTLY DEBATE SEAN. ITS NOT ALLOWED. Is it a shame that colmes would put up with that? yes, But I guess he likes his paycheck.

I love to see either of those guys in a real debate with somebody, or even each other, And NOT on thier home turf.

None of the people we are talking about have antything to do with reporting the news or being a journalist, Cable news today is just one big OP/ED marathon.Even NPR can be a sham sometimes.

 

[sentrido]

Holy crap! I saw O'reilly debate krugman on meet the press! Krugman kicked his ass!

 

[diogenes]

Holy crap! I saw O'reilly debate krugman on meet the press! Krugman kicked his ass!

[post="166585"][/post]​

O'Really did get a bit testy, didn't he?

 

[sentrido]

Whats that old lawyers saying? If you have no facts or evidence, pound on the table and yell really loud?

 

[USAir757]

Whats that old lawyers saying? If you have no facts or evidence, pound on the table and yell really loud?

Afterall, that's why Michael Moron did when he debated O'Reilly!

 

[sentrido]

True, trying to get O,reilly to say if he would sacrifice his own son to secure faluja really didnt add anything to debate. But it was fun.

 

[FredF]

Moore seems to be living on the adage "If you ignore the truth, you can get away with anything"

He seemed to have forgotten that the military is ALL voluntary. So Bill or anybody else are not sacrificing thier own children. The administration is sending volunteers to do a job that they volunteered for.

Amazing isn't it.

Of course, it really helps if he completely ignores the vast outpuring of support and respect for the President from, wait a minute here, the very same military volunteers that are over in Iraq.

Wow, can you imagine that? The actual ones over there, doing the fighting, support both the cause and the man that sent them over there. They actually see what is going on daily and believe that they are doing the right thing and that the President is doing the right thing and that he supports them, not before he did not support them before he suppored them again.

 

[KCFlyer]

Moore seems to be living on the adage "If you ignore the truth, you can get away with anything"

Bush seems to believe this adage as well.

He seemed to have forgotten that the military is ALL voluntary. So Bill or anybody else are not sacrificing thier own children. The administration is sending volunteers to do a job that they volunteered for.

This is true (for the time being anyhow). Perhaps Mr. Moore would have been better off asking if a Senator would have any problem with his kids volunteering to join up and go over.

Of course, it really helps if he completely ignores the vast outpuring of support and respect for the President from, wait a minute here, the very same military volunteers that are over in Iraq.

That sort of depends on who you talk to. Even here in conservative Kansas (a place that Rush managed to diss, even though they'd vote for Hitler if he was a Republican) there are several folks who had kids who've told them (not the media - their parents) that they ain't thrilled to be over there.

They actually see what is going on daily and believe that they are doing the right thing and that the President is doing the right thing and that he supports them, not before he did not support them before he suppored them again.

That sort of gets back to the belief that one can support the troops, but not support the reason that they are over there. I fly a flag outside my house. It's up every day. But it ain't out of support for Bush - it's to show that even a dirty old liberal (I guess I have to fall into that despised group because I don't support Bush, despite the fact that I hold many "conservative" values...just not neoconservative values) can love this country.

 

[sentrido]

I know im drifting a bit, but...

What do you guys think about replacing the income tax with a sales tax? Its been poping up in the news now, but i first heard the idea many years ago from Frank Zappa of all people! I kinda like the idea cause things like milk and bread, things that we know poor people need just wouldnt be taxed at all, and things like porches would be super taxed.cause nobody "needs" a porche to survive.

 

[USAir757]

Bush seems to believe this adage as well.

So do Kerry and Clinton, what's your point?

This is true (for the time being anyhow). Perhaps Mr. Moore would have been better off asking if a Senator would have any problem with his kids volunteering to join up and go over.

Perhaps he could start with the distinguished Senator from Massachussetts, who voted in favor of this war. Although I'm not sure he's flopped on that issue by now.

That sort of depends on who you talk to. Even here in conservative Kansas (a place that Rush managed to diss, even though they'd vote for Hitler if he was a Republican) there are several folks who had kids who've told them (not the media - their parents) that they ain't thrilled to be over there.

Nobody is "thrilled" to be over there. They are doing a job they signed up for. Whether they're from "Conservative Kansas" or "Liberal Massachussetts", they are there for the same reason. To protect this world from brutal dictatorships who kill at will, and have interests in nuclear and biological weapons.

Just because you're a liberal, doesn't mean you don't love this country. It's sharing the same sort of ideas that Mr. Moore has created and endorsed that shows a disdain for what this country stands for.

 

[KCFlyer]

Just because you're a liberal, doesn't mean you don't love this country. It's sharing the same sort of ideas that Mr. Moore has created and endorsed that shows a disdain for what this country stands for.

[post="167557"][/post]​

Where did I say that I agreed with everything that Michael Moore has said? Unlike many conservatives, I do not take what comes from someones mouth as the gospel truth. But a lot of what Mr. Moore says is right on the money. Did he embellish? Most likely yes...but no more so than Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or even GWB do. Yet most on the right view them as "100% right on the money".

You think I have a disdain for what this country stands for...far from it. I disdain what the leadership of this country has done to it, both at home and around the world. That's my right as a citizen of the United States. That's what my forefathers fought for. But I honestly do not see how this war in Iraq does one single thing to "protect the liberties" of US citizens. If anything, it has resulted in a reduction of many of those liberties that my forefathers fought for.

 

[AA-MCI]

So do Kerry and Clinton, what's your point?

[post="167557"][/post]​

They didn't mislead this nation to justify a war that has done nothing to make America safer but much to make it less safe.

 

[FredF]

They didn't mislead this nation to justify a war that has done nothing to make America safer but much to make it less safe.

[post="167610"][/post]​

Hold it Right there.

What did Mel Brooks say, "The affiars of state must take precidence over the Affairs of State".

In 8 Years of Slick Willie in the white house he was too busy getting Monica'ed to worry about anything else except to launch missles at an asprin factory in the Sudan and moan and groan about Sadam.

There was a bombing of the world trade center towers underground. He did nothing.

There was the bombing of the USS Cole. He did nothing.

There was an embassy that was bombed. He did nothing.

Iraq continually launched missles at US fighter planes enforcing the UN no-fly zones in Iraq. He did nothing.

Sadam kicked out UN weapons inspectors, in stark violation to multiple UN resolutions. He did nothing.


So you are corect. Clinton did nothing. In 8 years in the White House, he did nothing to make this country stronger and better defended. He allowed, by his continued inaction, others with hostile intent towards America to continually attack and kill US Soldiers, Sailors and citizens yet he did nothing.

He DID of course LIE under OATH to a Federal Grand Jury. He did weaken the military.

 

[KCFlyer]

So you are corect. Clinton did nothing. In 8 years in the White House, he did nothing to make this country stronger and better defended. He allowed, by his continued inaction, others with hostile intent towards America to continually attack and kill US Soldiers, Sailors and citizens yet he did nothing.

He DID of course LIE under OATH to a Federal Grand Jury. He did weaken the military.

[post="167618"][/post]​

Well, as I recall, he did bomb Baghdad, but the neocons said that it was to divert attention from Monica. Can't win, can he?

And Fred...if you were in front of a grand jury, and your wife was in the gallery, staring at you, and the grand jury asked "did you have sex with that woman"? How would you answer? Yep, he lied. I daresay that 99% of the population might lie to a grand jury, especially on a question that had NOTHING to do with a criminal act.

IIRC, it was about a year after Clinton left office that his "weakened" military was ordered to attack Iraq...are you saying that GWB turned it around in that first year? Indeed, I'd say his "weakened" military performed admirably. The really sad part is that their leadership hasn't.