Bill O'Reilly vs Michael Moore
As to the interview, I think it was pretty evenly matched. I can say that even though I hate Bill O'reilly. That started when he spoke about rap music, even though I can't stand 90% of the rap music that is played on the radio. When he said that "rap music is just a fad that will die out soon." That made me realize that he didn't have a grip on the rest of society. And failing to realize that people said that about rap music 20 years ago, and rock music 50 years ago. But as to F 9/11 if he really had the fact that miskewed, where are the libel and slander lawsuits. Where is the Bush administration, saying where he is wrong. We have some two-bit webmasters out there trying to dig up facts to disprove Moore's claims. If it really that wrong, and that miskewed, the Bush adminstration should do something about it. Which at this point they have not. They can not deny the impact this movie is going to have on this election. That just leaves me to believe that whatever was said in that movie, was fact.
Last edited by the other on 31 Jul 2004 11:24, edited 1 time in total.
-
The Colonel
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 17 Jun 2004 12:02
I don't hate or love either one of them but can honestly say, Other, that your opinion is very skewed...and how does saying you hate O'reily help support your unbiased ness? O'reily had him backed in a corner early with the removing governments/Hitler statement and Moore had to bail out and change the subject...and did so very poorly I might add. And as I posted above, his question about "O'reily's kids" going to war meant absolutely shit. It was totally off base and unfounded. And when O'reily pointed out how there was terrorism in Iraq Moore had no comback. After that Moore proceeded to say how sure, America & France won their freedom from Tyranny through bloodshed, but who else did? Ummm, did you not just give us to GREAT examples of when it worked? And if 2 good examples were not enough to answer that question then why was his 1 example of South Africa good enough for his argument? So by my count, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were 3 main arguments in that interview and O'reily clearly won all 3.
Last edited by The Colonel on 31 Jul 2004 11:50, edited 1 time in total.
Am I the only person who noticed that Michael Moore stole his title from Ray Bradbury's book "Farenheight 451"? Am I also the only one who noticed that Moore didn't have the right to use or parody Bradbuy's title in any way? Bradbury gave an interview and said that, about a month after F 9/11 came out, he got a call from Moore. Moore was at a fucking party on the phone with one of the greatest authors of all time, whom he stole a title from, said, basically, "sorry", and hung up. (In the interview, Moore calls Bush a criminal. Last time I checked, plagarism is a crime.)
Michael Moore is an opportunist, plain and simple. Let's look at his two best-known films: Bowling for Columbine, and F 9/11. Columbine is about that rash of school shootings back in 1998-1999, which was one of the big issues of the time that everyone was worried about. Now along comes F 9/11, and holy shit, look was the movie is about and what the big debate is today. He's just taking advantage of the most popular issue today, which is the definition of opportunism. So, if he's so great at presenting issues, where are his films on AIDS in Africa, or child labor in Asia? Nowhere to be found, because those aren't front-line issues.
I thought this was interesting in F 9/11. Michael Moore says that Saddam never threatened the life of an American. But later in the film he says that one of the reasons Bush went to war with Iraq is because Saddam tried to kill his father, Bush Sr. Last time I checked, you had to be an American citizen to be President.
As to the "would you send your children..." argument, if you sign up for the military, you should know what you're getting yourself into. You sign a shitload of forms that say you are willing to die to protect the nation. No one forces you to. To join the military, you either have to be 18, when you're an adult and you're parents aren't responsible for the choices you make, YOU are, or you can join at 17 when you have PARENT'S PERMISSION. Henceforth, the "would you send your children..." argument goes straight out the window.
I just realized something. Moore says in the interview "I can think of nothing worse than lying to the nation." Perhaps some of you will know who said this: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky"
Edit: Spelling
Michael Moore is an opportunist, plain and simple. Let's look at his two best-known films: Bowling for Columbine, and F 9/11. Columbine is about that rash of school shootings back in 1998-1999, which was one of the big issues of the time that everyone was worried about. Now along comes F 9/11, and holy shit, look was the movie is about and what the big debate is today. He's just taking advantage of the most popular issue today, which is the definition of opportunism. So, if he's so great at presenting issues, where are his films on AIDS in Africa, or child labor in Asia? Nowhere to be found, because those aren't front-line issues.
I thought this was interesting in F 9/11. Michael Moore says that Saddam never threatened the life of an American. But later in the film he says that one of the reasons Bush went to war with Iraq is because Saddam tried to kill his father, Bush Sr. Last time I checked, you had to be an American citizen to be President.
As to the "would you send your children..." argument, if you sign up for the military, you should know what you're getting yourself into. You sign a shitload of forms that say you are willing to die to protect the nation. No one forces you to. To join the military, you either have to be 18, when you're an adult and you're parents aren't responsible for the choices you make, YOU are, or you can join at 17 when you have PARENT'S PERMISSION. Henceforth, the "would you send your children..." argument goes straight out the window.
I just realized something. Moore says in the interview "I can think of nothing worse than lying to the nation." Perhaps some of you will know who said this: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky"
Edit: Spelling
Last edited by Potee on 31 Jul 2004 12:07, edited 1 time in total.
Remember that the movie isn't against Bill O'reilly but against Bush. When it came to the interview. Both Mike and Bill made very strong points and if you look at it as just an interview, and pretend that you don't know either one. You can say that it was pretty evenly matched. It is true the Moore had to stutter and was backed in a corner because he was the one answering the questions, not asking them. But kind of defense is this "It's not a lie if you believe it's true." But the whole dictatorship argument is too played out now. I am not worried about the WMD anymore. But when people used that Saddam was a dictator. Who gives a shit really about Saddam, after the Gulf War you rarely heard about him except some "no fly zone" violations. He was not a threat to our way of life. Bin Laden did not need to backed by Saddam he by himself was worth over 400 million dollars. If you want to talk about countries run by dictators, and threats to America, try North Korea, and China. China the "sleeping giant" enough said. North Korean, admits it has nukes, launches missiles into the Sea of Japan. Tells America that they are developing a nukes. But nothing, no invasion. I'm sorry but if anybody knows anything about geography, that North Korea could kick some ass major right now. But for some reason the 30,000 troops that were at the DMZ is not around 10000, and 40% of them are not what you would call fighting soldiers. Kim Jong Il is off his rocker, and if he launches anything, and including his own country, all hell will break loose. And don't even say he isn't stupid enough to do that. Cuz you are talking about a 60 year old asian man with an afro. But back to Saddam, we say that Saddam violated to many human rights of his own people, and the kurds. But when was that 20 years ago. Why didn't we stop him after the first gulf war, if what he did prior to that was so bad? Why didn't we stop him when first took power? These are all questions that I need to be answered. This is done being a republican/democrat thing, this is a I want justification thing. To this day I say the war in Iraq is futile to the rest of world problems. And you ask about terrorism in Iraq, how come you didn't hear about it before the war? Why? Because THERE WASN"T ANY.The Colonel wrote: I don't hate or love either one of them but can honestly say, Other, that your opinion is very skewed...and how does saying you hate O'reily help support your unbiased ness? O'reily had him backed in a corner early with the removing governments/Hitler statement and Moore had to bail out and change the subject...and did so very poorly I might add. And as I posted above, his question about "O'reily's kids" going to war meant absolutely shit. It was totally off base and unfounded. And when O'reily pointed out how there was terrorism in Iraq. After that Moore proceeded to say how sure, America & France won their freedom from Tyranny through bloodshed, but who else did? Ummm, did you not just give us to GREAT examples of when it worked? And if 2 good examples were not enough to answer that question then why was his 1 example of South Africa good enough for his argument? So by my count, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were 3 main arguments in that interview and O'reily clearly won all 3.
no thats was all over the fucking news. Plus he didnt steal it he just took-off on it and i thought it was quite clever the way he used it!Potee wrote: Am I the only person who noticed that Michael Moore stole his title from Ray Bradbury's book "Farenheight 451"? Am I also the only one who noticed that Moore didn't have the right to use or parody Bradbuy's title in any way?
The main reason we didn't take Saddam out during the first Gulf war was because we weren't there to take Saddam out, we were there to liberate Kuwait. Technically, we're not suppoused to assassinate leaders unless we announce we are there to take them out.
Personally, I think another reason we didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War was because if we had, one of his sons would have taken power (the younger one, whatever his name is, the one who didn't get shot and suffer brain damage) and things would have gotten a shitload worse.
And you're right, Kim Jockstrap Il is definetly a few fries short of a Happy Meal. But we can't take him out either because North Korea will go nuts and one of his generals, who also has his finger on the big red button, will launch nukes against us and South Korea. That's also why we don't take out Yasser Arafat or Modamar Khadafi (head of Libya); the whole fucking mideast will go nuts and start launching everything they have against Isreal.
Personally, I think another reason we didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War was because if we had, one of his sons would have taken power (the younger one, whatever his name is, the one who didn't get shot and suffer brain damage) and things would have gotten a shitload worse.
And you're right, Kim Jockstrap Il is definetly a few fries short of a Happy Meal. But we can't take him out either because North Korea will go nuts and one of his generals, who also has his finger on the big red button, will launch nukes against us and South Korea. That's also why we don't take out Yasser Arafat or Modamar Khadafi (head of Libya); the whole fucking mideast will go nuts and start launching everything they have against Isreal.
Last edited by Potee on 31 Jul 2004 12:35, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jubba43605
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 07 Jul 2004 07:03
How did O'Reily kick his ass? Please point out where Moore lost the battle... O'reilly had to studder his way through that interview.Observant wrote: Moore is a liar, O'Reilly kicked his ass, end of story. I am so tired of Michael Moore and his bullshit I wish everyone would learn to ignore him already. He's a pleague of lies infesting the weak minds of America's dumbed down youth.
well said man. If i was black and you were too i'd be like " you my nigga'"Potee wrote: The main reason we didn't take Saddam out during the first Gulf war was because we weren't there to take Saddam out, we were there to liberate Kuwait. Technically, we're not suppoused to assassinate leaders unless we announce we are there to take them out.
Personally, I think another reason we didn't take Saddam out during the Gulf War was because if we had, one of his sons would have taken power (the younger one, whatever his name is, the one who didn't get shot and suffer brain damage) and things would have gotten a shitload worse.
And you're right, Kim Jockstrap Il is definetly a few fries short of a Happy Meal. But we can't take him out either because North Korea will go nuts and one of his generals, who also has his finger on the big red button, will launch nukes against us and South Korea. That's also why we don't take out Yasser Arafat or Modamar Khadafi (head of Libya); the whole fucking mideast will go nuts and start launching everything they have against Isreal.
Doesn't matter. The whole book is copywrited to hell and back, and to warp the title of Bradbury's book, or to use the idea of the title, which is what Moore did, you have to get expressed written permission from the publisher, who has to get permission from Bradbury's agent, who has to get permission from Ray Bradbury. So yes, Moore used it illegally, but he's been diefied by the media so no one dares attack him except Fox News and Dennis Miller.speakEz wrote:no thats was all over the fucking news. Plus he didnt steal it he just took-off on it and i thought it was quite clever the way he used it!
And I still say we did the right thing going into Iraq (although it would be nice if at least 1 intellignce agency could wipe their own asses without a instruction manual), and that Moore is an asswipe.
Last edited by Potee on 31 Jul 2004 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests