(the beginning of the article is very interesting, especially for republicans

Posted 17 September 2004 - 12:19 AM
Posted 17 September 2004 - 05:19 AM
Posted 17 September 2004 - 06:44 AM
Posted 17 September 2004 - 01:06 PM
Posted 17 September 2004 - 04:56 PM
do you know what college it is? cause i was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were having an announcement that MM was coming to UVSC (Utah Valley State College) and most all the students were pretty mad cause they didnt like MM and thought it was a waste of their tuition money. didnt hear anything about hannity though. but if it is the college, i bet hannity will draw the bigger crowd cause nobody wanted mm, only like 2 people that called in were actually happy that he was cominganyway, i heard something on the radio today that might have signifigant effect on this discussion: Sean Hannity (my favoite talk radio guy) has challenged Michel Moore to a debate, the prize being that the winner (decided by the audiance) will get to donate $5,000 (donated by a local college) to the childrens charity of their choice. the deal behind this is that this college was going to pay moore to come speak at their college and the students and community was outraged that they were going to have thier tuition spent on moore speaking weather they liked it or not, thus they called up hannity and voulenteered to pay for his expenses if he would come as well to counter moore. it was hannity who suggested that moore come "at cost" as well and donate the rest of his fee to be the prize for winning (to be donated to the charity), if moore refuses hannity will put up the money himself, but it will look bad for moore. if moore refuses to debate hannity he will not only look bad, but hannity will hold his own speach at the same time as moore and we will see who draws a bigger crowd. Hannity has forced moore to debate him and im sure the results will be interesting
Posted 17 September 2004 - 09:03 PM
Posted 17 September 2004 - 09:27 PM
For the most part it is worse.I think that a high percent of the information we receive isn't exactly the reality.
Posted 19 September 2004 - 04:41 AM
Posted 19 September 2004 - 06:16 AM
Posted 19 September 2004 - 07:00 PM
actually, the reason he is coming is because the college is paying himIt would be useless for MM to talk to people who already have understood the truth... :/ That prooves again that he is really trying to change something.
Posted 19 September 2004 - 08:37 PM
Posted 19 September 2004 - 09:33 PM
Posted 19 September 2004 - 09:43 PM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 01:50 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 07:27 AM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:18 AM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 02:49 AM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 03:12 AM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 04:31 AM
Posted 01 October 2004 - 06:02 AM
The problem with Hannity (if the debate happens) is that it won't convince people to vote for Bush but to not watch F911 (the result is the same of course).
Anyway, it would be stubid for both of you (Crimson and Bob) to watch the debate since you are "afraid to watch F911", you wouldn't have any chance to agree with Moore since you didn't watch his film.
Hannity's job is to talk so he will convince you that MM is wrong, and MM who's job isn't to talk won't have a chance...
It's like if MM invited Hannity to make a movie to proove his ideas, we already know that MM would win.
Posted 01 October 2004 - 12:15 PM
yes, and im still considering... if i have time over the weekend i may watch it.
i know MM is taking to colleges... i brought that up...
i looked at the headlines, the one by Eisenhower's son is pretty good (in fact i think its the most well-reasoned argument aginst bush, but in the end its still just opinion... Eisenhower simply disagrees with bush and thats fine)
that doesnt make any sense at all... ive just said that I thought that kerry did very well in his debate aginst the president, i always keep an open mind.
amoung other things it is MM's job to talk, what do you think hes been doing at those colleges? btw, hannity has made a movie, though its not in the same catagory as MM's movie (its a video of his last tour around the US).
if hannity and MM were to debate then only a small portion of that debate would concern MM's movie, hannity has already said that most of the movie is quite good and if not for a few misrepresentations it would have made an excelent documentary.
Posted 01 October 2004 - 04:02 PM
Well I meant, he is doing it right know (since 5 days), and I'm not sure that those colleges are paying him to come to talk.
Yes I agree with you but he is also saying that Bush & Co. didn't respect the republican principles that made him (Eisenhower's son) vote republican for the last 50 years, so if you vote for Bush & Co. you're not voting for republicans but for Bush special party.
Yes everybody can talk but Hannity is paid, loved and recognized for it, that's his main job so he is ncessarily more effective than any body else at talking and convincing in a public debate.
Yes but the main argument of MM is F911, all is thoughts about Bush & Co. are in this movie, so if you didn't watch it you may only have hearsays about MM to oppose to Hannity's arguments (and what MM says of course but he already said everything in F911, he can't say as much by talking only)... When I say 'you' I consider all the people who didn't watch F911 not you particularly.
About the few misrepresentations in F911, I must admit that there are a few but it may only represents 1% (or even less) of F911 arguments to prove you that Bush & Co. cannot have your trust nor deserve your vote.
Posted 01 October 2004 - 09:01 PM
yeah... and kerry was the star of his highschool debate team, yet bush still debated him and did a pretty good job. heck, if kerry and hannity were to debate that would be fine... it would still come to the same. besides, MM is a pundit above all else, he would be good in a debate because he could get out of a situation wih hummor whereas most people could not.
now, if i had a transcript of the movie that would be perfect... then i could read MM's opinions but not watch the movie. however, if MM has already said everything in F911 tell me, what has he said about kerry? has he answered the questions about kerry's unamerican actions? has he explained all of kerry's lies? has he acually be able to tell up what kerry's position is? did he explain his own behavior at the democratic primaries? did he even mention anything good at all about whats happened and is still happening? F911 is not MM's brain served on a silver platter, im sure hannity could come up with a hundred more things not in F911 that bear looking at, but my memory isnt as good as his; most of what hannity talks about are the things MM and others wont talk about.
Posted 02 October 2004 - 02:02 AM
Posted 02 October 2004 - 07:35 PM
Posted 02 October 2004 - 08:43 PM
Edited by Bob Vila, 02 October 2004 - 08:50 PM.
Posted 02 October 2004 - 10:33 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 12:52 PM
i dont know why you guys keep calling bush "stupid" when the only other person who has a chance of getting in the white house got at least 1 of his purple hearts from self inflicted wounds! now that is stupid. and none of the wounds caused him to lose any action or spend anytime in leave.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 03:11 PM
If ever it's true, that's still better than what Bush did during this war, far away from the conflict in a no risk duty (Thank to his father's protection). At least Kerry knows what is war, maybe he'll think twice before sending soldier to death.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 04:31 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 04:59 PM
I would like to know how this forum feels about the fact that there are two members of the same secret society that are vying for control over the most powerful nation in the world.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 05:02 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 05:16 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 05:29 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 06:31 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 07:01 PM
Of course this is not true ... then show me ONE picture where Bush is shown durring the war with at LEAST one other soldier on the pic prooving it!
(I don't want to sth. like the movie when he was "ending" the war against iraq IN FRONT OF THE US COAST! pretending to be near to the battles)
bush has never been caught in a lie, kerry has. everything that bush said that people say is a lie kerry is also on record as saying... so in terms of honesty bush is relativley 100% more honest than kerry.
Damnit how blind can you possibly be?!??!?!
[CITE]Iraq HAS wapeons of mass destruction[/CITE]
[CITE]Saddam helped Osama Bin laden and is housing El Quaida[/CITE]
...
After I saw what bush did there is no doubt for me that kerry MUST be the better
choice. If he is not vote for nader
I'm afraid your country would NOT have violated international treaties and have attacked a souvereign nation that DID no harm to them and DID not intend to.
I'm afraid you would NOT have murdered people that are not quilty for a crime they did not AND I'm afraid you would not have a thing like Guantanamo (spelling?) where you hold people in prisson violating their human rights, without any proof and without ANY trial.
He might not have enchanted the people to believe things WITHOUT proof and to tollerate an attack on a souvereign state. He might have THOUGHT before acting.
He might have been RESPECTED IN THE WORLD
Hitler was tooBush is a man of action.
hitler was also a great speaker. he influenced those that couldnt/wouldnt think for themselves.He is not as charasmatic and well-spoken as Kerry, but I trust what he says.
Then I feel with your nation and will pray for all americans that think like you.
May God bless you and save your souls ... hold on ... he won't you declated a war
in his name ... but you can still hope
Posted 03 October 2004 - 08:30 PM
Posted 03 October 2004 - 09:21 PM
and your average response "go watch f911" is the best possible answer for everything we have said?you have bad answers to everything.
oh right, we need another terrorist attack to "open our eyes" give me a break. if the eiffel tower was taken down with a suicide bomber killing thousands of innocents, maybe you would see from our point of view.Maybe USA need a big crisis to understand what we are trying to tell you, to open their eyes and understand why some people on Earth have developed such a hatred against your country to decide to kill 3000 persons on 911.
Posted 03 October 2004 - 09:39 PM
OK, this discussion will lead nowhere, you have bad answers to everything. You are afraid to watch f911 (and now I'm 100% sure that you won't see it after what said Bob' sister - she has thought for you)
Im a nerd, i grew up not caring what others thought of me, wont change now. as long as i feel confident in my ability to make rational choices I wont blindly follow the views of others. for the x^99 time i do not think that bush is a saint, but i think kerry is a self-serving fool and worse, a politian. If you want me to think you are right you are going to have to prove it, or failing that induce reasonable doubt that i have made the right choice. and let me remind you, im an independant, not a republican.Maybe USA need a big crisis to understand what we are trying to tell you, to open their eyes and understand why some people on Earth have developed such a hatred against your country to decide to kill 3000 persons on 911. The problem if Bush is elected again is that the image of USA around the world won't have any chance to change at all...
the terrorists hate us because we are the only ones (apparently) with the backbone to fight them, you all would sit down and die. they hated us when our "world image" was idealic, and they hate us now, and they will hate us 100 years from now! they hate because they are to stupid to see the truth. they hate because they want what we have but dont want to work to get it. they hate because its easyer to blame someone else for your problems than it is to do something about them.to open their eyes and understand why some people on Earth have developed such a hatred against your country to decide to kill 3000 persons on 911. The problem if Bush is elected again is that the image of USA around the world won't have any chance to change at all...
Posted 03 October 2004 - 10:52 PM
[CITE]Iraq HAS wapeons of mass destruction[/CITE] (btw, we actually did find WMD's but nothing nuclear)
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users