I think this is wrong, because it totally screws up google, and messed up the search results, but since the idiots started this, I think it's time to join in and counteract their ignorance.
Click the name- Michael "Miserable Failure" Moore, and if enough people do this, we can reverse the lunacy from the left that has made the first google entry for the term "miserable failure" the white house homepage.
Speaking of the fat blubbering idiot- read Moore's nonsense reply to the many who have exposed the farce that is Bowling for Columbine. He admits he had facts wrong- but that's okay! He also admits that Lockheed Martin makes satellite rockets in Littleton, CO- instead of missiles used to kill people- which is what he blames the Columbine attacks on- claiming the kids lived so close to that military factory that of course they went on a killing spree! The goverment is to blame. In the film, Moore makes note of the missiles made there, but now admits rockets to launch intelligence sats are made there...but, he tries to twist the facts around to say he was right afterall. Read it for yourself, then read all the facts at www.moorewatch.com and decide for yourself whether this "whacko" is full of it or not.
Posted by Josh at December 19, 2003 11:45 PM | TrackBackHey Josh I'm curious, why don't you do a write up on Ann Coulter's books? There are plenty of webpages that expose her numerous fabrications you could link to. What about Rush Limbaugh? Why don't you post links to pages that expose them as the fanatical liars they are? It might make your attacks against left wing pundits a little more... credible.
Posted by: lowdown at December 22, 2003 12:31 PMlol. what lies what that be? i read high crimes by coulter, and theres a complete section of notes and a bibliography. i didnt see any lies within that book. as for rush, ive never read his book, but again- ive never heard of any lies.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 22, 2003 12:50 PMtho, im not sure how that would make the exposing of moore's lies more "credible."
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 22, 2003 12:51 PM"i read high crimes by coulter, and theres a complete section of notes and a bibliography"
- I'm sure Moore's book had a bibliography aswell. What's your point? If you're interested, type "Ann Coulter lies" in any search engine and you will be provided with an abundant amount factual contradictions found in any one of her books. You obviously have the time to do a great deal of research on Moore, why not perform a two minute task on Coulter? I mean, at least you've actually read her books.
"as for rush, ive never read his book, but again- ive never heard of any lies"
- I bet you didn't see Moore's movie either, but that didn't stop you from deriding it in your blog. You could come across any of Rush's ample fabrications by doing a quick search.
"tho, im not sure how that would make the exposing of moore's lies more "credible."
- Oh, of course you're not sure. I'm sorry I went over your head.
Okay, if you choose only to "expose" the lies of people who share a given political inclination, then you could be percieved as a hostile ideologue with a vendetta against people whose political view points are different then your own. This makes it difficult to take any of your opinions seriously. If your tirades were a little less selective, people might be less inclined to write you off as a bitter, right-wing acolyte. I'm afraid I can't make myself any clearer.
lol. so, because i havent written about any supposed lies from coulter...and i have done so on moore- that means that my credibility on moore is weakened? over my head? do you actually read what you write before you post?
as for moore- ive read a cpl of his books, and ive seen all of his movies but bowling.
i read high crimes by coulter, and from what i can see- it stands up. its factual...i didnt notice any lies...all stuff about clinton and wife thats available to all. moore, on the other hand, is a rabid liar.
you're not making any sense to begin with...since i dont recall attacking moore and saying that ann coulter and rush (two people you picked out of the blue, i guess) are saints. until i do such a thing, dont bring up others to try to say that im not credible in showing how moore lies. the two are in no way connected.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 22, 2003 02:24 PM"so, because i havent written about any supposed lies from coulter...and i have done so on moore- that means that my credibility on moore is weakened"
- Coulter is just one example of many, but because you haven't applied the same standards to the right as you do to the left, yes that does weaken your credibilty. Don't you find it kind of odd that every single one of your posts is critical of the left and none are critical of the right?
"over my head?"
- What else was I to think?
"do you actually read what you write before you post?"
- Yes, I do. I think my suprising lack of grammatical and spelling errors clearly demonstrates that.
"ive read a cpl of his books, and ive seen all of his movies but bowling"
- Yet, "BOWLING" was the one you commented on. Interesting.
"i read high crimes by coulter, and from what i can see- it stands up. its factual...i didnt notice any lies"
- By your own admission, you didn't even see Bowling, yet you somehow found plenty of lies in that. Do a quick search, and you'll find plenty of sites about Coulter that are like the one you posted about Moore. Again, apply your standards universally and you will be taken more seriously.
"saying that ann coulter and rush (two people you picked out of the blue, i guess) are saints"
- No, you didn't. And Coulter and Rush are just a few examples of right wing pundits who have lied on more than one occasion. The larger point, you once again have failed to grasp, is that your blogs are regularly critical of people on the left, while constantly omitting the errors of people on the right. Why is that?
you dont read the site much do you? in the past, ive been very critial of president bush on a number of issues. but you claim im not critical of the right? thats a joke!
i havent seen moore movie...ive seen the stuff from the film, quotes, scenes, etc- contrasted with the truth.
i actually did a search in google, and didnt come up with a ton of sites about coulters supposed lies.
you claim these people lied, but show no examples...i say moore has lied and quote him, point to examples, etc.
if you read my site in the past, youd see that i saw the film the big one (i believe thats the name) by moore and praised it...and i praised one of his books as well. that was based soley on the movie and the book, without checking to make sure it was all accurate. i cant be some right wing nut if i have praised moore in the past!
also...when have i omitted errors of people on the right? do you know anyone on the right thats as extreme in his lies as moore? if you find someone, let me know, so i can start writing about them. and dont say rush, because i dont even listen to rush. i do see moore all the time spouting out insane nonsense, so of course ill post about him.
my credibility on moore is solely based on the facts in comparison to moore's films/books, and their view of the reality. because i havent obeyed you and bashed coulter or rush- both of whom i barely follow, doesnt say anything of my criticism of moore!
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 22, 2003 03:59 PM"you dont read the site much do you? in the past, ive been very critial of president bush on a number of issues. but you claim im not critical of the right? thats a joke"
- Essentially, the only negative things you've had to say about Bush are that he isn't extreme enough in his conservativism. Bush has lied nearly as much as Moore, so why haven't you wrote about it (I'll post the evidence? You have not once called attention to the many fabrications the right is responsible for. So my thesis remains the uncontested, you do not hold the right to the same standard as the left.
" havent seen moore movie...ive seen the stuff from the film, quotes, scenes, etc- contrasted with the truth"
- Well duh. It's just interesting that you would rather regurgitate someone else's thoughts on a movie you haven't seen, than give your own on the several you claim to have watched.
"i actually did a search in google, and didnt come up with a ton of sites about coulters supposed lies."
- Strange.
"you claim these people lied, but show no examples...i say moore has lied and quote him, point to examples, etc."
- You know very well I could give you a plethora of evidence to support every last one of my arguments (as I have done so many times in the past). I just thought I would illustrate how easy it is to come across said evidence by suggesting you find your own. But since, for whatever reason, you were incapable of doing so, here it is:
http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/001330.html
http://www.anticoulter.com/
http://slannder.homestead.com/
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1050
http://www.coulterwatch.com/index.html (A site run by a conservative, I might add)
"if you read my site in the past, youd see that i saw the film the big one (i believe thats the name) by moore and praised it...and i praised one of his books as well. that was based soley on the movie and the book, without checking to make sure it was all accurate. i cant be some right wing nut if i have praised moore in the past"
- No, probably not. I'm curious, how long ago was this? Is it possible that your political views have changed since you first praised Moore? Or maybe you weren't even aware of his politics at the time of your review? I'm just wondering, but if neither of these statments are true, then you make a good point.
"also...when have i omitted errors of people on the right?"
- Well, when was the last time you ranted about Bill O'Reilly's various dishonesty? But it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, Josh. However, it seems unlikely that you would find the time to post a number of negative comments about the left but not find a single instance of fabrication from the right. Maybe this irregularity has something to do with your news sources?
"do you know anyone on the right thats as extreme in his lies as moore"
- Of course. Every group has it's fanatics, and since conservatives are such a sizeable group, logic would dictate that a generous portion of the group would be made up of people as bad as Moore. Ann Coulter would be a good start.
"do see moore all the time spouting out insane nonsense, so of course ill post about him"
- Where do you see him, "moorewatch.com"? I mean, what do expect? There are people on the right "spouting out insane nonsense" who have their own TV shows for god's sake. Bill O'Reilly, for instance.
"bashed coulter or rush- both of whom i barely follow"
- Well who do you follow, Josh? Do you follow Howard Dean? Do you follow Micheal Moore? Don't you "follow" a single conservative? Why don't you follow and
Posted by: lowdown at December 22, 2003 10:15 PMRight wingers dont lie, they "mis-speak"...remember Lowdown?
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 23, 2003 10:57 AMlol. you and hoodlum are extreme liberals, and you make it clear all the time. that means that you refuse to be honest. you speak of o'reillys lies, yet you can't point to anyone, because he's an honest guy.
moore is EXTREME. rush and coulter, neither of whom i follow closely, so of course i woldnt talk about them much (and i dont), dont go to the oscars and claim a fictional president, taking an award for a documentary that is pure propaganda. youre logic is illogical. josh talked about high profile moore, who is so extreme he posts on his own site all the time about how bush lies about this (he didnt), there is no WMD and no one supported the war, everyone hates bush, etc etc. moore is dishonest, and is incapable of having real debate. he's a fat guy with bad hair who has made a living off of twisting the facts. i didnt know exactly what moores politics were, nor do i care. i care about honesty.
hoodlum, as always, cant get his facts straight. he says "right wingers" dont lie, and im sure hes talking about o'reilly, since thats who you mentioned in your last comment. yet, oreilly favors the death penalty and the legalization of marijuana...so, hoodlum is being dishonest in labeling anyone a right winger (hoodlum, dishonest, shocking! no, no, no, i never called anyone a racist- "racist"...well, you quoted me, but you added that yourself! i never said it!!)
as for oreilly, the only thing either of you have said is that he claimed he never won an award (a peabody in particular)...he didnt! you have posted quotes where he said no one can show where he said it. but, you always leave out the entire quote, twisting what he said around to suit your own weak agenda. its easy to leave out the part where he said he said "HE" never claimed he won an award, but rather THE SHOW (inside edition) WON THE AWARD. mistake...not lie. but, since youve both made it clear you despise oreilly, you conveniently turn a mistake into a lie in your own minds. its great!
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 23, 2003 03:58 PM[[lol. you and hoodlum are extreme liberals, and you make it clear all the time. that means that you refuse to be honest. you speak of o'reillys lies, yet you can't point to anyone, because he's an honest guy.]]
I’m not an extreme Liberal. I hate Michael Moore. I believe the man is a farce and an attention whore. I don't agree with his political views because he comes off just as harsh and misleading as does Bill on the Factor.
And you want a Bill lie? Last week I watched one of his talking points memos and he was talking about Saddams trial, and at the end he made a point of saying the civilian courts don’t protect you… For the record, the civilian courts are all that protect US citizens. He lied. He passed off his extremist opinion as fact. The US civil court makes the decisions that send criminals away and keeps them there so they don’t hurt the public.
It’s the civilian courts that help the innocent when they have been wronged. I can go on, but hopefully you get the point.
I can talk many points in many different points of view.
The war on terror. Yes. I'm all for it. Terrorism has to be eliminated. It is causing great instability within the worlds economies and security. It kills thousands of innocent people every year. So yes. I’m for the war on Terrorism. Does that make me right winged?
No, and why? Because I know the root of terrorism. I know the US foreign policy in the mid 80's to mid 90's are a major factor to hatred towards the west. I know the US unconditional support of Israel regardless of their human rights violations agaisnt Arabs is also a major cause.
Does that make me an extreme Liberal? No. Why? Because I will not hang on to the past as a justification for the acts committed now. It has to be dealt with regardless..
I also think the Palestinians should shape the f**k up and stop supporting Arafat if they ever truly want peace in the region. The man is head of an international terrorist organization.
Also, Israel should elect a different leader. Having a war criminal for a leader is not helping Israel’s chance at peace either..
I was for the war in Iraq. Although Bush said and did a lot of flip flopping in opinions during the war (at the beginning, it was to protect the US from Saddams WMD, only to later, after no WMD were found, say and I quote, "WMD are not important. The important thing is now the people of Iraq are free"...what happened to the whole WMD issue?)
I believe the US did a good thing, although not short term as there is a lot of chaos currently in Iraq, but rather long term for the region. After a stable government is in place, hopefully Iraq can re-take its place as the most industrialized Arab nation in the Middle East and the people can once again prosper.
I also know Saddam had an endless supply of money and had he ever got the chance of obtaining a nuclear weapon through the black market, he would have not hesitated to use it either on the US, Israel or any other US allies.
I am glad he is gone.
Now, for my stance on Israel. I don't fully agree on the terms of how the country came about, but I support their right to exist peacefully.
I don't like a lot of the pre-emptive actions of their government or the IDF because I believe it's just as bad as a suicide bombers in terms of destroying chances for peace.
Both sides need to smarten the f**k up.
I don't mind Bush. I think he a stand up guy. He is willing to go the extra mile to protect the US despite what his critics say.
I am for the Missile defense shield. Why should the US deprive the right to defense because it would piss off a potential enemy? That doesn't make sense.
Come to what ever political conclusion you want about me, but I know I am neither an extreme Liberal nor extreme conservative.
I prefer to do my own thinking and not suck up all the extreme sides and regurgitate it on a web log...
[[its easy to leave out the part where he said he said "HE" never claimed he won an award, but rather THE SHOW (inside edition) WON THE AWARD. mistake...not lie.]]
Ok. He made a mistake. He said they won a peabody (a poke really).
Even though they won it while he wasn't even there, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
But why on his show, did he deny ever saying he won it?
Why on his show did he do such a thing?
He made a "mistake"...then lied about making it...
Can you explain that?
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 23, 2003 07:30 PM"And you want a Bill lie? Last week I watched one of his talking points memos and he was talking about Saddams trial, and at the end he made a point of saying the civilian courts don’t protect you… For the record, the civilian courts are all that protect US citizens. He lied. He passed off his extremist opinion as fact. The US civil court makes the decisions that send criminals away and keeps them there so they don’t hurt the public.
It’s the civilian courts that help the innocent when they have been wronged. I can go on, but hopefully you get the point."
-------------
nonsense. i doubt youve watch one episode of the show...and you call his supposed (i never heard him say this) opinion a lie. how can an opinion be a lie? its impossible. but, nice try. like i said, admit you hate the man and cant be honest about him. and i love how you call his views "extremist." im not aware of one sane person who would claim oreilly is an extremist in any sense of the word.
as for him lying about saying he won the award...you clearly dont watch the show (again). he was accused of saying HE...(H-E)won a peabody...on his program (twice!) he said HE never said HE won an award...that his old program inside edition won the award, after HE left. he denied saying HE won the award, because he never claimed HE won the award...he was simply defending his old show, when someone attacked it as tabloid garbage. ive gone over this numerous times, so ill help you out - (HE, HE, HE, HE, HE) different than (THE SHOW, THE SHOW, THE SHOW, THE SHOW) got it? btw, the show won a POLK, or as you call it, a "poke"
bush never said the sole reason for war with iraq was WMD. the main reason was his defiance of 1441, which called for SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...and the UN refused to put action behind those words. WMD hasnt been found? its only been 9 months!!! these are weapons and components to weapons that are easily hidden in a country the size of california, and the regime has had 12 yrs of practice in hiding it!! thats beside the point tho, since no one on the sec council disagreed that iraq had WMD- they have, numerous times in the past, admitted having WMD...the inspectors have found and destroyed WMD, hussein USED WMD on his own people. blix himself said that after1441, iraq still didnt fully comply and much of the WMD iraq claimed to have destroyed was unaccounted for, and tho they kept meticulous records- there was no record of large quantities of WMD being destroyed. so, don't give me some BS about bush "flip flopping." from this comment, and many others youve made, its clear you despise bush (despte the fact that you claim hes a liar, then try to say you actually think hes an okay guy) as well- which lends credence to your liberal views.
israel's human rights violation? poor you. and im the one who cant think for myself and just reguritates stuff from the extremist POV. i hate to break it to you, but the opinion that israel violates the human rights of arabs is nonsense, and is almost exclusively extremist left opinion.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 23, 2003 08:01 PM[[nonsense. i doubt youve watch one episode of the show...and you call his supposed (i never heard him say this) opinion a lie. how can an opinion be a lie?]]
You can say nonsense all you want. I saw it. He was talking about a strict US controlled military tribunal was the only way fighters at Guantanimo bay could be tried.
Since they were non combatants because there was no official declaration of war, they should be entitled to civilian lawyers, which Bill disagreed with saying that the Civilian courts don’t really look out for or protect the people. That was a lie based on his extreme opinion.
I don't care if you didn't see that. Apparently I watch more of Bill than you then....what a surprise?
[[bush never said the sole reason for war with iraq was WMD.]]
Never said it was, but it was the driving factor behind the war AND resolution 1441...
[[the main reason was his defiance of 1441, which called for SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...]]
Yeah, it called for Saddam to give up his WMD and allow inspectors un-conditional inspection access.....nowhere does it mention the freedom of the Iraqi people, so you are basically proving me right when I said WMD was the main factor...and NOT the freedom of the Iraqi people, because you mentioned res 1441 which was based predominately on Saddams WMD...
[[WMD hasnt been found? its only been 9 months!!! these are weapons and components to weapons that are easily hidden in a country the size of california, and the regime has had 12 yrs of practice in hiding it!!]]
Yeah, and Saddam had a 12 years practice hiding too, and look at how fast he was caught...
Apparently they aren't as good at hiding things as you say...
[[israel's human rights violation? poor you. and im the one who cant think for myself and just reguritates stuff from the extremist POV. i hate to break it to you, but the opinion that israel violates the human rights of arabs is nonsense, and is almost exclusively extremist left opinion.]]
Not to mention the opinions of those at the recieving end of those violations.....but let me guess. they’re liars right?
[[its clear you despise bush (despte the fact that you claim hes a liar, then try to say you actually think hes an okay guy) as well- which lends credence to your liberal views.]]
Think whatever you want. You know how I feel....despite how hard it may be to swallow considering the hard opinion you had towards me....but anyone with half a mind reading this knows I’m no extreme Liberal...
lol. bill "lied" with that comment? i watch bill everynight...hes said before, he doesnt believe the american criminal courts should be used for the terrorists, because itll become a circus, and look at the OJ trial- these guys would hire high priced attorneys who would get them off by using the race card or some other ridiculos defense, and wed have to let terrorists go on american soil. that's his opinion- tho not very extreme...since i havent heard one person call for the terrorists to be tried in civilian courts, where theres a chance the system could let them free!
as for iraq. believe it or not, the US makes decisions independent of the UN. and we chose to remove hussein for a number of reasons. im sure you can find bush's speeches online, and youll see, as we all know, that he had a number of reasons for going into iraq.
hussein himself had 12 yrs to practice hiding? actually, he didnt...since a number of people have met with him, and there werent forces in his country, trying to oust him until this yr. and, darned if it aint harder to hide a person than some anthrax or some mustard gas. with your logic, well all be dead at the hands of terrorists.
--------------------
"Not to mention the opinions of those at the recieving end of those violations.....but let me guess. they’re liars right?"
--------------------
yasser arafat? lol. yeah...his word is dead solid!
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 23, 2003 08:27 PM[[as for iraq. believe it or not, the US makes decisions independent of the UN. and we chose to remove hussein for a number of reasons. im sure you can find bush's speeches online, and youll see, as we all know, that he had a number of reasons for going into iraq.]]
No argument there, but you can't deny the fact that the most stated reason was his violation of 1441, his hidden WMD, and his defiance of the UN over the past 12 years.
All which relate to his WMD...and NOT the freedom of the Iraqi people.
[[yasser arafat? lol. yeah...his word is dead solid!]]
Not Arafat. I just told you how I feel about him? Why go and use him against me as if I was refering to him? I was talking about the Palistinians still being pushed from their land to create Israeli settlements, which Sharone himself even said is not helping the situation.
Type in "Israeli Land Grab Campaign" in Google and see what I'm talking about.
[[hussein himself had 12 yrs to practice hiding? actually, he didnt...]]
Actually, he DID..
Thats why he had so many palaces. Ari Flicher (spelling?) even made the comment of saying he was very elusive due to the fact that he had hundreds of palaces that he would use to the extent on not staying in one for more than 12 hours to elude detection.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 23, 2003 08:36 PM"you speak of o'reillys lies, yet you can't point to anyone, because he's an honest guy."
- I have in fact pointed to several of his lies. I have done so numerous times. I did so no more than 4 months ago. Here is the link: http://www.thebluesite.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=7
Since your arguing that I can't point to any "one", I will provide you with "one" of my favorites: http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html
That's from the Danish Embassy. Yeah, those wacky liberals.
I can be forgetful too, but I resent the fact that you are so sure that I never pointed to a single fabrication of Bill's when I had in fact done so not too long ago. You can imagine how fustrating it feels to offer evidence in a discussion and be completely ignored.
"moore is EXTREME."
- Agreed. So are some conservatives. Why don't you write about them?
"rush and coulter, neither of whom i follow closely, so of course i woldnt talk about them much"
- Fine, they were just examples. Why don't you ever write about the many other radical, lying, conservatives?
"josh talked about high profile moore, who is so extreme he posts on his own site all the time about how bush lies about this (he didnt), there is no WMD and no one supported the war, everyone hates bush, etc etc."
- Please try to be a little more coherent.
- "High Profile"? What, you see Moore at an awards show and that's enough to set you off? I mean, look at Bush, how much higher of a profile can you get! You're obviously familiar enough with his speeches, and there are plenty of fabrications in those. I could provide you with examples, but why don't you do a search just like you did for Micheal Moore (unless you came across "moorewatch.com" completely by accident)?
"yet, oreilly favors the death penalty and the legalization of marijuana..."
- Actually, O'Reilly is AGAINST the death penalty. That is a traditionally liberal idea, so your point stands. This is the first I've heard of his pro-legalization stance, I'm hesitant to ask, but would it be much of a bother to post a link that supports that assetion? Besides, just because he falls on the left side of like 2 out of 50 issues doesn't negate the possibilty of him being a conservative. We have already posted convincing evidence to this effect which, to my knowledge, you have yet to refute.
"as for oreilly, the only thing either of you have said is that he claimed he never won an award (a peabody in particular)"
- I have to admit, I can't help but feel that my intelligence is being insulted here. Did you not expect me to remember a conversation I had less than 4 months ago? As I stated above, this statement is beyond senseless and I grow tired of repeating myself.
"claimed he won an award, but rather THE SHOW (inside edition) WON THE AWARD"
- Actually, as Al Franken pointed out, he used the pronoun "WE.. won a peabody", which obviously has a different connotation than the above quotation. But, we've already been through this. If you'd like to know more, I advise you to take a look at the link I provided at the beginning of my reply.
I'll try to make myself very clear so there's no confusion. I have noticed that virtually all your blogs are critical of liberals, and none, with the single exception of the Bush one, are critical of conservatives. Why is that? You seem to specifically target liberals who lie, and I know for a fact that there are extreme conservatives who also lie, so why are they never brought up. Don't ask me for a link to them since you had no trouble finding links to "liberal liars", and that is my point.
Posted by: lowdown at December 24, 2003 12:36 AM"Since your arguing that I can't point to any "one", I will provide you with "one" of my favorites: http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html"
lie? no. mistake. we have all made mistakes...doesn't make us liars. i have always heard that child porn and everything under the sun is legal in denmark, so i would have made the same comment...and i would have been MISTAKEN, not a liar. your hatred for him is showing already.
sorry, but al franken is a dope. bill never said HE won the award, he referred to his show, i can try to see who sells the transcripts, and purchase them...but i watch oreilly everynight, and i remember all of this. franken is a moore wannabe...you cant deny that he himself is extreme in the same sort of way moore is. no reasonable person goes to a howard dean rally and yells, 'brit hume is a fucking shame. a fucking shame' to a crowd of supporters.
so, you have one mistake (denmark), and one misquote from franken who screams obscenities at political rallies. nice. and you call oreilly a liar...which shows you cannot stand him. just say it, it's okay. i cant stand moore or franken, now you can say you cant stand oreilly! go on.
please do point out a conservative extremists. since my views (morally) lean very much to the conservatie viewpoint (christianity, morality, true concrete ideas of right and wrong- not "progressive" do what you think is right for you morals, traditional values, etc)...so why wouldn't i mostly write about the extreme left?
finding liberal liars? i watch oreillys show, this is how i know about franken...and moore is on tv making a fool of himself all the time. not hard to notice them, and no searching needs to be done to find them.
fabrications in bush's speeches? interesting. funny as it is, i can only find some faulty intelligence, which is in no way a fabrication by its definition. unless bush is working for the cia, and he knew 100% that fault intel was indeed faulty. ive seen no evidence of such.
and no moores speech didnt set me off- not that ive been "set off" at all. hes a buffoon who refuses to be honest about any serious issue. and thats that. as for moorewatch, i actually saw that on moores on site if i remember correctly.
oreilly is AGAINST penalty, yes...that's what i meant to say. he supports the idea of labor camps for prisoners, an idea which i agree with. and he supports the legalization of marijuana...he talks about this in his interview with NPR's terry gross. id upload it to the site, but its 40+ mins long. its still on the npr site tho, i think.
not to mention, oreilly has said a number of times that he doesnt care what homosexuals do with their lives, if they adopt or whatever, their private behavior, more rights, etc- but he doesnt support gay marriage.
then, you have the fact that he's not ultra conservatie in terms of religion either. hes a catholic but believes that those who dont follow jesus can get into heaven too. fairly liberal on that matter if you ask me.
plus, you have his criticism of bush appointees in the cia- he wants tenet to resign. and, hes been critical of the president in regards to the issue of WMD.
he's more conservative in a lot of his thinking, but id have to agree with him when he says that he sees each issue on its own merit...and doesnt follow the party line. to do that, and to make decisions based on each issue that comes up, is, in itself, a pretty independent way of seeing things.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 24, 2003 01:34 AM[[lie? no. mistake. we have all made mistakes...doesn't make us liars. i have always heard that child porn and everything under the sun is legal in denmark, so i would have made the same comment...and i would have been MISTAKEN, not a liar. your hatred for him is showing already.]]
Good "reporters" don't make mistakes like that...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 24, 2003 06:51 AM"lie? no. mistake. we have all made mistakes...doesn't make us liars"
- If it was a mistke, then why hasn't he apologized for it?
- What would it take to convince you that Bill has lied? I mean, if he said "Bush never invaded Iraq", that could easily be a mistake or a lie. Since he claims to be a reporter, and has never apologized for his "mistakes", I think it's reasonable to consider them lies. But it doesn't matter what I think.. what would I have to do to prove to you he lied?
"have always heard that child porn and everything under the sun is legal in denmark, so i would have made the same comment"
- Would you have done so on NATIONAL TV? Would you have said so after calling yourself a JOURNALIST? Would you have done so on a NEWS BROADCAST? Would you have NEVER CORRECTED YOUR ERROR? If not, then what you have "heard" is irrelevant.
"bill never said HE won the award, he referred to his show, i can try to see who sells the transcripts, and purchase them...but i watch oreilly everynight, and i remember all of this."
- He did, in fact say "we" won a peabody. Please see the link I already gave you.
"so, you have one mistake (denmark), and one misquote from franken"
- I have much more than that. I already gave you the link to several individual peices of evidence you've chosen to ignore. You have yet to prove that Franken misquoted anybody.
"please do point out a conservative extremists"
- I've already done so. I even gave you links that offered substantial proof of there fanatacism. I'm afraid I will not repeat myself.
"lean very much to the conservatie viewpoint (christianity, morality, true concrete ideas of right and wrong- not "progressive" do what you think is right for you morals, traditional values, etc)...so why wouldn't i mostly write about the extreme left"
- Well there you go. You finally got around to answering my question. So basically, because you're a conservative, you restrict your negative blogs to liberals. I suspected as much. This brings me back to my original point which was: don't you think it would be easier to for people to take your left wing criticisms more seriously if you were more even handed in your approach?
"and no searching needs to be done to find them"
- Then how did you come across Moore's site?
"ive seen no evidence of such"
- Have you searched? Or is Micheal Moore the only political figure worth searching for?
"id upload it to the site, but its 40+ mins long. its still on the npr site tho, i think."
- All I asked for was a link.
"ultra conservatie in terms of religion either. hes a catholic but believes that those who dont follow jesus can get into heaven too. fairly liberal on that matter if you ask me"
- I never said he was "ulta-conservative".
- Wow, your definition of "fairly liberal" is someone who doesn't believe people who don't follow his personal religion won't burn in hell for eternity. For someone who posts regularly about democrats and liberals, you know very little of them.
"you have his criticism of bush appointees in the cia- he wants tenet to resign. and, hes been critical of the president in regards to the issue of WMD"
- What's liberal about this? Several conservatives said the same thing. None of this refutes O'Reilly's conservative bias.
"he's more conservative in a lot of his thinking"
- Well there you have it. Bill is conservative in his thinking. And he's either a liar, or an incompetent journalist. But you will never write anything negative about him in your blogs because you are a conservative. Now do you understand what I meant about being "credible"?
Posted by: lowdown at December 24, 2003 02:39 PMdo you realize how stupid you sound? if i said black, youd say white. just admit as much! its not that hard.
you didnt post any links to extremist conservatives. you posted to coulter and rush...neither of whom i follow very closely, as i mentioned before.
bill never lied about the polk...get over it. say it with me, "i dont like bill, and i want to attack him."
----------------
Well there you have it. Bill is conservative in his thinking. And he's either a liar, or an incompetent journalist. But you will never write anything negative about him in your blogs because you are a conservative. Now do you understand what I meant about being "credible"?
-----------------
that is just that dumbest thing ive heard all day. everyone has OPINIONS and BELIEFS...so, youre saying that someone who has both of these (everyone on earth) cannot be credible? lol. thats great. incompetent journalist? or a liar? how about neither? hes a NEWS ANALYST...a journalist in the broad sense of the word, since he covers the news. he does a show of analysis...if he said one thing that was factually inaccurate, or even a hundred things, and he didnt correct himself (i dont know if he ever has or hasnt) doesnt make him a liar or a fool. like everyone on earth, we make mistakes, and if we dont correct ourselves on everything, were liars or idiots- your logic as almost as genius as "hoodlum's."
i never said you said he was ultra conservative. but you constantly want to paint the picture that hes some right wing nut who cant be trusted because of some crazy extreme opinions you think he must hold. you never posted any links to a number of lies oreilly told. you constantly bring up franken...tho bill didnt lie about that, and any honest person knows this. he was talking about his old show...he never claimed he won the award...i dont know the exact pronoun he used, but i watch him everynight, and he was talking about his show, not himself personally. but, im glad youre perfect in every single way and have never made a mistake, im proud of you.
------------
- Wow, your definition of "fairly liberal" is someone who doesn't believe people who don't follow his personal religion won't burn in hell for eternity. For someone who posts regularly about democrats and liberals, you know very little of them.
------------
you wouldnt call that a somewhat liberal view of christianity?! i think you need to learn what liberal means yourself, because thats definitely more on the liberal sideof thinking in regards to religion! anyone who believes in god goes to heaven is conservative? thats funny!
as for the npr interview...sorry, you can go to npr.org and find it yourself. you could easily do that and see that he does support the legalization of marijuana, but you wont, because you cant stand the man and want more than anythign to attack him and his positions.
"Well there you go. You finally got around to answering my question. So basically, because you're a conservative, you restrict your negative blogs to liberals."
thats pretty funny too, since i have been critical of bush a number of times. hes conservative right? cause, gosh darn it if i dont get confused and im only critical of liberals. nope, i just looked that feller up, and hes definitely conservative. ive already mentioned this before, but you chose to ignore it.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 24, 2003 06:23 PM[[if he said one thing that was factually inaccurate, or even a hundred things, and he didnt correct himself (i dont know if he ever has or hasnt) doesnt make him a liar or a fool.]]
No, but like Lowdown said, it makes him an incompetent journalist/news analyst, or whatever he's calling himself these days..
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at December 25, 2003 07:54 AMhttp://www.bowlingfortruth.com
Scene by scene lies in Bowling for Columbine & Michael Moore the miserable failure.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dude.htm
Moores book
http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko.htm
http://www.lyingliar.com