Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This for you Dochter!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    This for you Dochter!

    Here the match-up we've been waiting for: O'Reilly vs. Moore!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

    #2
    Who is O'Reilly? What is his political leanings?
    :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

    Comment


      #3
      Ha!

      The funny part is that fans of both sides probably see their horse as winning.

      This is gold though:
      Moore: Why did they die?
      O'Reiley: To remove a brutal dictator
      Moore: That's not the reason we were given
      O'Reiley: Weapons of mass destruction were a mistake
      Moore: Then why did they die?
      O'Reiley: To remove a brutal dictator
      Moore: That's not the reason we were given
      ad infinituum. two robots stuck in a feedback loop.

      That and the fact that he apparently would hold no ill will against someone who mistakenly killed his child. That right there seems like enough of a reason for there not to be a second term.


      How O'Reiley stuck by things that have been fairly well refuted by the 9/11 commission was a little sad though.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Dochter
        The funny part is that fans of both sides probably see their horse as winning.
        That about sums it up.

        Comment


          #5
          I'm trying to be objective. They both use pretty circular logic but it still seems to me that O'Reiley buries his head in the sand more and when he raises it simply says: Oh it was an honest mistake.

          Neither of them are exactly model representatives of their avowed parties.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Dochter
            I'm trying to be objective. They both use pretty circular logic but it still seems to me that O'Reiley buries his head in the sand more and when he raises it simply says: Oh it was an honest mistake.

            Neither of them are exactly model representatives of their avowed parties.
            Agreed, Moore seemed to put up a slightly better arguement.

            Though I wonder how much of Moore maintaining that Bush lied intentionally, has to do with him worring that will affect his movies profits.
            :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

            Comment


              #7
              At this point I don't think it matters. His film has already made more than anyone anticipated.

              I personally feel that the administration purposely overstated the case for war, to the point of culpability. That is however opinion, basically along the lines of not turning around and seeing all the people on the floor and like any administration deniability is the cornerstone of all policy decisions. Proving a deliberate lie is not an easy thing to do.

              The biggest weakness in Moore's contentions is that it clearly is a lie. It isn't clear because accountabilty never reaches the top. People have learned since Nixon.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Dochter
                At this point I don't think it matters. His film has already made more than anyone anticipated.

                I personally feel that the administration purposely overstated the case for war, to the point of culpability. That is however opinion, basically along the lines of not turning around and seeing all the people on the floor and like any administration deniability is the cornerstone of all policy decisions. Proving a deliberate lie is not an easy thing to do.

                The biggest weakness in Moore's contentions is that it clearly is a lie. It isn't clear because accountabilty never reaches the top. People have learned since Nixon.
                Agreed.
                :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

                Comment


                  #9
                  Raven=Parrot


                  :D

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Heh.

                    Bastard, I got nothing. :D
                    :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Just type: Agreed

                      Comment


                        #12
                        NO.
                        :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Question for Punchingdummy or (other?) Republicans

                          On the link you posted O'Reiley admitted that the decision to go to war on Iraq, and the justification for doing so, was based upon faulty intelligence that the president then presented to the legislature and the American people. And that american and civillians of other nations have in result died.

                          Given that there aren't really any doubts about where O'Reiley's bias lies on the political spectrum this seems to me to be a pretty large admission.

                          While I personally think that Bush and his administration purposfully overstated the evidence available, to the point of lying and culpability (possibly criminal) let's set that aside for a moment.

                          Even if you assume that Bush earnestly believed the intelligence presented to him, his actions were still wrong in the end and the resulted in the death of American soldiers. That sort of failure seems more than enough justification for Bush to not be put into office for a second term. Mistakes like that do not warrant a second term. As president the "buck" stops with you and decisions made are your responsibility. You make the call, its your responsibility.

                          Agree or disagree?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Crap thought that was a new thread.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Question for Punchingdummy or (other?) Republicans

                              Originally posted by Dochter
                              On the link you posted O'Reiley admitted that the decision to go to war on Iraq, and the justification for doing so, was based upon faulty intelligence that the president then presented to the legislature and the American people. And that american and civillians of other nations have in result died.
                              Regardles of whether or not the inetleeigence was faulty, the end result is the same, people died. So to me that is a moot point. As to Bush lying, I have my doubts that the President did not have all the facts. It seems unlikely to me that the head of the country does not have access to all that information, as to whether or not you can prove that as you stated earlier, will be difficult. I found it curious though, as to why Canada and other forces did not support the War in Iraq, which leads me to believe the whole thing stunk from the begininng.


                              Given that there aren't really any doubts about where O'Reiley's bias lies on the political spectrum this seems to me to be a pretty large admission.
                              I need clarification, I'm not 100% what your talking about. Do mean when O'Reiley admitted that Bush was mis-informed, he basically played semantics, and admited that Bush lied?

                              Or do you mean that with O'Reily conceding that Bush was misinformed, he basically admitted that bush lied, even if it was uninitentional by O'Reily.

                              To be honest, I'd never heard of O'Reily before, and assumed he was right based on this article, but I wanted to be sure.

                              While I personally think that Bush and his administration purposfully overstated the evidence available, to the point of lying and culpability (possibly criminal) let's set that aside for a moment.
                              I'm not an expert, but this IS an important point. I believe if Bush DID promote this war, when he knew there was no threat, nor weapons of mass destruction, could he not be considered a war criminal? If that is the case, could that not be ahuge factor in the plausable deniability?

                              Even if you assume that Bush earnestly believed the intelligence presented to him, his actions were still wrong in the end and the resulted in the death of American soldiers. That sort of failure seems more than enough justification for Bush to not be put into office for a second term. Mistakes like that do not warrant a second term. As president the "buck" stops with you and decisions made are your responsibility. You make the call, its your responsibility.

                              Agree or disagree?
                              Whether or not Bush lied, I never believed he should have had office in the first place. That is one of the few things, based on what I've read that I agree with Moore on.

                              Take my answers as an agreement or disagreement. The reason I agreeed with you intially, because you said what I was thinking, and said stuff I wasn't but still agreed with.
                              :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X