movie was crap by the way... lol I remember watching it during an english class comparing it to the book.

The real problem is that we do have "real" things to deal with in this world but in the meanwhile every power-monger, narcissist  and closeted agenda opportunist wants to take real issues and divert them to "their issues".

If we were trapped at sea and realized we didn't have enough food for everyone to eat whenever they wanted, we'd all work out a way to balance it so none of us starved.  People with agendas pick in advance the "side" they want to starve--the food is already theirs in their own minds and its all about getting rid of opposing views by winning enough others over in the life boat so they can toss overboard the ones they don't like.

Pretty much describes 99% of politics and internet postings.   How ironic.

Michael Moore does little more than either, get the facts completely wrong, or misuse and/or twist the facts he does have, which is a very bad combination.

What overload of US government lies are you talking about? Sure they are by no means perfect, but come on, what does Michael Moore is far worse, because he edits the facts to fit his view point, which gives it virtually no merit in any kind of serious intellectual discussion.

I've said it before but Edward Bernays' book Propaganda is a fascinating read. Bernays lays it all out in his first paragraph:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

Here's another gem regarding World War I (the book is full of 'em):

"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group —persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."

Bernays is writing this as someone who not only believes in the need of this shadow leadership; he helped craft it. See any similarities today? The left/right or Democrat/Republican arms all swing on a crafted pendulum of propaganda. Understanding this is akin to Neo unplugging from the matrix.

You insufferable, arrogant ass! How dare you claim that the people who disagree with you are "mental midgets"! You are the most arrogant person I have ever run across, and I've met some really nasty people. You think you're so high-and-mighty, so intellectually superior?

THEN NAFFING PROVE IT, YOU NAFFING IDIOT!

Um, I think that was a horribly failed attempt at humor...

You have to remember to adjust to the intelligence of the poster when trying to decipher intent.  When they're really gullible and come away from a Moore movie thinking they saw a documentary, the bar needs set somewhere below zero.  In which case, his horribly worded post becomes potential sarcastic agreement.

A few points to consider.

Countries that were the opposite of happy about our intervention therein still agreed with the intelligence findings.

This country has shown itself completely incapable of keeping secrets, catastrophic intelligence leaks doing irreparable damage to war efforts and diplomatic relations are a regular occurrence.

The CIA might as well be the Mickey Mouse Club.  For evidence, one need only point to Fidel Castro still being alive.  The excessively long string of utter failures for assassination attempts were well in advance of the suicidal gutting of their capabilities brought about by later administrations.  By the time Carter and Clinton were through restricting the types of people they could have dealings with, they weren't good for anything.

Last, and most definitely not least.  Saddam Hussein was apparently convinced he had WMD as well.

Which is more probable?

The US government, with a long standing history of embarrassing failures in intelligence, was unable to correctly identify a shell game put on by the military to fool their own leader into thinking they were successful in keeping their stockpiles safe from the bombing campaign.

The US government, with a long standing history of embarrassing leaks that still continues today, has masterfully kept in total secrecy a massive lie over several years time that would have necessarily included tens of thousands of people keeping their mouths shut, many of whom were in the opposing political party, with quite a few of them having leaked other information over the duration.

I just can't see that collection of morons managing to pull off such an impressive feat.

You know, I started out writing, and I raged against you, because you're pretty much a bitch, but I decided that that would be detrimental to me, because I don't think I'd like to have that floating around about me.

So I'll leave it at this: you're a bitch, you're an idiot, and you're fucking doomed because you'll never realize it.

I'd like to point out that the two of you aren't interested in what other people have to say, unless said people agree with you.

To tell truth, I'm not that interested in what Michael Moore has to say, because I think he's an idiot. Do I think that the Republicans and the government are flawless, truth-loving paragons of virtue?

Nope.

But for you guys, there's no other view than "you agree with me, so I'll talk to you" and "you don't agree with me, so you're a simpleton".

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Or in this case, more than one way to call out a spineless bitch and a whiny bastard.

1. I trust Bush over Moore because Bush is at least a moderately competent leader. You can't say that he was totally inept at the presidency when he was reelected.

2. I called BoobzTwo a bitch because that's what she's acting like. She posts crap like this, and then refuses to consider the oppositions' opinions to be valid, to the point of considering people with the opposite or differing opinions simpletons. I don't know what you would call that, but I'd say that that's pretty bitchy.

3. Prove that Bush is incapable of leaving the country on the basis that he fears arrest for war crimes of any kind.

4. Prove that Moore is actually honest and competent.

woah woah woah.  

ok.

lets all calm down.  I dont need you all ripping apart our already patheticly small community.

Ok.  Proper debate procedure puts the effort on the affimative side to prove that the statues quo is wrong.

This means, boobztwo, and wbino, its your move.   get some credible links and back stuff up.  I think i count 4 links in this thread, neither by either of you, aka, its your move.

If I do not see yellow clickable text.  I will make arguments of my own... for the closing of this thread.

I think this would be the best option.

I wasn't trying at civility, so chalk one more up to your naffing stupidity. And, TBH, I wasn't the first person to bring up the Bush/Moore comparison. What I'm trying to point out is the fact that you've provided no proof for your claims, and continue to dismiss your opposition as "simpletons" for having a view that differs from yours.

Further, me figuring out for myself is not the naffing point of a debate; you are supposed to convince me that my view is wrong and yours is correct. Not for me to prove my own naffing view wrong. You fail at basic debating and rhetoric.

Additionally, I'll point out that:

1. My "gutter language" was because I was (and still am, for that matter) supremely pissed off that you consider me a simpleton for holding the view I do. It was also intended to further drive home the point that I consider you to be pretty naffing stupid for claiming your opposition are simpletons simply because they disagree with you.

2. I am not trying to demonstrate my intellect is superior. I am trying to demonstrate that you're an idiot, because you think your opposition is/are simpleton(s) for disagreeing with you.

So here's my challenge to you:

Prove that my disagreeing with you makes me a simpleton, or STFU and GTFO, bitch.

Pbhead – If you are one of those moderators or whatever … why haven’t you? I have quickly reviewed my article and all my responses and the only place I can see where a link could have been placed is to my reference to the actual movie Fahrenheit 451 (but didn’t see the point) and of course it doesn’t have anything at all to do with this article anyway? If you could tell me what I need to link, I would be more than happy to? otherwise ... But until I actually post something that may require a link … you won’t be getting any of those yellow whatever’s from me. Proper debate procedures … it’s my turn … this has got to be a joke. Personally I do not care what you do with this link as these miscreants have made it virtually impossible to talk about the movie. Just let me know and I will shut it down in a heartbeat otherwise, I am going to see how long it takes for them to actually stop insulting me, get tired of insulting me and go away or actually discuss the movie … wouldn’t that be just novel  My vote is for closing!