The term “Bushco” is a jape on the corporate nature of the Bush administration, just like Bushivik mocks the ideological severity of the Bush people in general, most especially the neo-cons. The “-co” part isn’t a ending meaning “beloved of Moloch, baby-eating disciple of Beelzebub”
These things lose a lot of their savor when you have to explain them.
Well, that was about as pointless as I expected. Two pontificating blowhards talk over each other for, what, a whole ten minutes? I listened mostly in vain for a valid point from either of those flaming assholes. What a complete waste of time.
Bush did or didn’t lie about Iraq’s WMD? So fucking what? To me it’s equally unacceptable if the administration, as clearly seems the case, either decided first to invade and only later to work up a case they could sell to the public, or, to be extremely charitable to its motives, lacked any reasonably basic knowledge of foreign affairs that would have allowed it to make a rational judgement on whether claims that Iraq possessed usable nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and intended to threaten the US with them were true.
O’Reilly avoids answering whether he’d accept his own child dying in the military action in Iraq? Big fucking deal. There were considerably more important issues, IMO, that Moore could have engaged O’Reilly on.
Well, at least after having seen that travesty, I remember why I never watch O’Reilly, and pay not much more attention to Moore.
That might fly if they’d had all these excuses at the start, instead of the “well, they didn’t buy that one, what’s next on the list?” presentation.
Careful, Reeder, or they’ll stick their tongue out at you.
The 9/11 commission can suck my dick. He fucking lied. Iraq was not a threat to the US. He started a war for nothing.
Moore didn’t say anything about military service, the question was whether he would sacrifice his child.
It’s my contention that he lied about the certainty of the evidence and that he definitely lied about Iraq’s ability to threaten the US. WMDs do not necessarily equal “imminent threat,” just so you know. Let’s not get too excited and assume that Russian assumptions about some fucking mustard gass somehow vindicates Bush or justifies a war.
He knew that evidence was caveated. He lied about its confidence. He also knew that even if Saddam had mustard gas or anthrax that he still posed no threat to the US. The contention that the US was immediately threatened by Iraq was big fat fucking lie. There’s also the fact that he basically ordered the CIA to contrive a case against Iraq and refuse to listen to any other conclusions but those he wanted to hear.
I’m glad you agree that Bush is a mad, brutal dictator and the only difference is that the killing of the innocents is even worse than the unnecessary sacrifice of military personel.
And Moore specifically cited the liberation of Fajullah.
Monstrous, of course. Only a complete fucking scumbag sociopath would kill his own child.
O’Reilly 1, Moore 0. Meh.
de·mon·ize PPronunciation Key(dm-nz)
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
<snip>
**3) To represent as evil or diabolic: **
Yeah…you’ve never done that, in any thread on the SDMB. :smack:
What? They put out all the reasons they had before going to war. What would you consider “at the start”? At the start of the war? At the start of the Presidency? At the start of Dubya’s life? When?
Demonize, schmeemonize! The guy’s arrogant, stubborn, belligerent and self-righteous, who needs evil? Who cares from evil, already.
The only legitimate reason for an invasion is self-defense. Everything else is fucking bullshit, both legally and morally. “Saddam is evil” just dosen’t cut either before or after the bombs start falling. If it was a legitimate reason in itself, Bush would not have had to concoct a phony “gathering threat.”
Instead of me? Dio, I’m hurt. Can I take that as a concession?
Which is an even DUMBER question, considering that Bush hasn’t required anybody to sacrifice their child.
An HONEST question would be “Would you support your child’s decision to put his life on the line for something he believed in?”
Congratulations. You have a contention. A contention, however, is very, very far removed from fact.
Damn that Bush, not being clairvoyant!
Strange… you support Michael Moore and think he did a good job, but Michael Moore clearly believes in pre-emptively attacking a country that poses no threat to the United States. How else would he have “prevented Hitler from coming to power”?
Y’know, Dio, every time I get my hopes up about your intelligence, you seem to be suddenly stricken with the desire to prove me wrong.
You keep playing that ethos card, chuckles, since you clearly wouldn’t know what to do with logos if it smacked you in the face.
Long after O’Reilly said that it was circumstance dependent. Don’t be dishonest.
Further, O’Reilly rightfully responded by saying that it would be his children’s decision, not his.
So, finally, Diogenes the Cynic… do you believe people have the right to make their own choices, or not? If so, I fail to see how you can justify following this “would you sacrifice your children” line of thinking.
Kill his own child? Or allow his child to make his or her own choices?
Why must you make all your arguments as emotionally laden as possible? Are they so flimsy they wouldn’t stand up without a few "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"s thrown in there?
I guess if someone fires a few thousand shots at you, you’re not allowed to defend yourself?
Apparently DtC in this thread…so take it up with those guys
Iv’e been jumping around this thread and I honestly can’t tell who you are talking about, or if you are right or left…
Since you said “evil” I’ll assume left.
For fuck’s sake, Spoofe, I’m talking about the CIVILIANS. Bush fucking slaughtered CIVILIANS by the boat load. The question is whether Bush or O’Reilly or anyone else who supported this war would be willing to drop a fucking bomb on their own kids to serve whatever fucking noble purpose you’ve all been brainwashed into thinking it serves.
It seems you’re avoiding the question.
Moore was alluding to diplomatic pressures in re: Hitler, btw, not a military invasion.
I’ll say it. I don’t take my marching orders from Ben fucking Affleck. Bush is evil. Evil I say. Evil, evil, evil. Fucking evil ass evil bastard.
Are you going to call Daredevil on me?
Well thanks for nothing, Michael, you just gave Bush apologists some points. That was awful.
I’ve always wondered why we didn’t give Hans Blix our WMD information & have his people ferret them out. I thought that was his job.
I agree Moore was a disappointment. O’Reilly did nothing either but I give Moore the decision just because O’Reilly went to the stupid “defender of Hussein” thing. It’s not like Moore really landed anything solid but at least he didn’t punch in the nuts like that.
Why would I…I never accused you of mis-representing your position. You represent your position honestly, I don’t think Reeder does…(and he was the one praising Afleck’s remarks…irony)
Fair enough. Carry on. 