Bill O'Reilly vs Michael Moore
I want to slap O'Reilly.
<li><A HREF="http://67.19.85.90/~richard/oreilly_moore.htm" target="_blank">The interview</A>
<li><A HREF="http://67.19.85.90/~richard/oreilly_moore.htm" target="_blank">The interview</A>
Last edited by Justin on 04 Dec 2004 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 18 Jun 2004 03:36
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 19 Jun 2004 11:51
- Location: Western Canada
-
- Posts: 185
- Joined: 17 Jun 2004 09:45
- Location: Dallas TX
-
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 18 Jun 2004 03:36
Because you're gay.reservrdg8 wrote: In reality I hate them both. Why do people believe Michael Moore? 9 times out of 10 he's spinning the truth to meet his agenda. Thus, it is no longer truth. I will never understand this.
Even if your hypothetical statistics were correct (and we all know you just made them up), 1 time out of 10 is better than spinning the truth 10 times out of 10, which all politicians do. Not that I agree with your little theory.
Moore might embelish on the truth, but he's not a liar. He just takes proof and facts, and tries to make it entertaining, and is beacuse of this, he is sometimes found out to be "filling in the blanks".
[edit] I'd still vote for him. MICHAEL MOORE 2093!
Last edited by Dex on 31 Jul 2004 10:02, edited 1 time in total.
He's got Justin in his back pocket, or so it seems.Observant wrote: He's a pleague of lies infesting the weak minds of America's dumbed down youth.
Edit: Where'd my post about Moore changing the headline of the Bloomington newspaper go???
Last edited by kennypua on 31 Jul 2004 10:25, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 18 Jun 2004 03:36
Don't you dare say I'm gay Dex. I'll fight you! I'll lose but I'll put up a valiant effort!Dex wrote:Because you're gay.reservrdg8 wrote: In reality I hate them both. Why do people believe Michael Moore? 9 times out of 10 he's spinning the truth to meet his agenda. Thus, it is no longer truth. I will never understand this.
Even if your hypothetical statistics were correct (and we all know you just made them up), 1 time out of 10 is better than spinning the truth 10 times out of 10, which all politicians do. Not that I agree with your little theory.
Moore might embelish on the truth, but he's not a liar. He just takes proof and facts, and tries to make it entertaining, and is beacuse of this, he is sometimes found out to be "filling in the blanks".
[edit] I'd still vote for him. MICHAEL MOORE 2093!
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 17 Jun 2004 12:02
So you made fun of him for making up statistics and tried to prove your point by making up your own? smooth move dick face. Get a clueDex wrote:Because you're gay.reservrdg8 wrote: In reality I hate them both. Why do people believe Michael Moore? 9 times out of 10 he's spinning the truth to meet his agenda. Thus, it is no longer truth. I will never understand this.
Even if your hypothetical statistics were correct (and we all know you just made them up), 1 time out of 10 is better than spinning the truth 10 times out of 10, which all politicians do. Not that I agree with your little theory.
Michael Moore is merely entertainment, and as far as labeling Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine "Documentaries" I would tend to disagree...unless they were documentaries on how to stretch truths and molest statistics to prove your own point of view...
Edit: And wasn't Hitler Wolrd War <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>II</span> ??
Last edited by The Colonel on 31 Jul 2004 10:46, edited 1 time in total.
It's called SARCASIM. Look it up.The Colonel wrote:So you made fun of him for making up statistics and tried to prove your point by making up your own? smooth move dick face. Get a clueDex wrote:Because you're gay.reservrdg8 wrote: In reality I hate them both. Why do people believe Michael Moore? 9 times out of 10 he's spinning the truth to meet his agenda. Thus, it is no longer truth. I will never understand this.
Even if your hypothetical statistics were correct (and we all know you just made them up), 1 time out of 10 is better than spinning the truth 10 times out of 10, which all politicians do. Not that I agree with your little theory.
Anyone can come up with a statistic.. 8 out of 10 people know that.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 17 Jun 2004 12:02
Did anyone else see the easy argument to Moore's ever-present question "Would you send your kid??" Is it just my imagination or do people still voluntarily join the military at the age of 18 when they're legal adults who agree their job is to fight where ever and whenever needed? I have yet to see one service man or woman say they shouldn't be there. I actually know several marines who have not only been in Iraq but fought there and they have never questioned (and I have asked) if they should have been there. So everyone else who speaks for "the kids we're sending off to war" should possibly shut the fuck up until they have actually spoke to these "kids" they're so worried for.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests