I think these guys are both generally considered the most pig-headed, fascist fucks of their own sides. So, here they are in a 10 minute or so head-to-head battle of...wits? (Not sure how to embed the videos, sorry) Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly Part 1 Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly Part 2 What do you guys think? I'm by far not a fan of either of these two, but I personally believe that if there was a "winner" of this, I think it would O'Reilly. I knew Moore was a giant dumbass, but... god damn. I mean, I'm not saying O'Reilly didn't make some blunders, but when I have to make a decision, it is clear (imo) that he beat Moore.
Also, Michael Moore is so full of shit. Like 99.9999999999999999999999% of liberals and progressives today, they have literally no idea that the progressive movement held Hitler and Mussolini in high regards, and they even held/hold most of the same ideals (not the Holocaust, of course). Moore would have totally supported Hitler, no doubt in my mind.
I dunno, I felt the opposite way myself. Only thing I really agreed with O'Reilly about was the collapse of the USSR. I was expecting Moore to spew socialist garbage but all he really did was complain about the war. That's just what I got out of it though..
It was stupid of Moore not to agree to some extent about Bush's advisors giving him this information. If he were better at debating, he would've shown some sympathy, and then counter-argued. It is an age old tactic. But if he were more intelligent, he would've countered with: "As the president, it is his job to not only take the responsibility if his information was not credible, but to do a better job of questioning these things that were fed to him. It is his job to make sure that he never does something that misleads the American public, and while it may not be his fault...as the figurehead of this country, he should be a man and be held accountable." I already know I'm going to be accused of being a flaming liberal in this thread, probably something about Obama involved, but know that I would and do say the same thing about Obama when he backtracks, lies, etc.
Who cares which one sounds less stupid/irrational/retarded? Regardless of whether one can argue a point better or not is irrelevant. You can make a great argument and still come up with a wrong conclusion. A person who is wrong does a greater disservice to those around him by arguing well. Emphasizing a person's ability to argue, rather than on the validity of the points made in any argument, and the subsequent conclusion, regardless of who presented the argument, enables those informed, perceptive, and powerful enough to manipulate the masses.
I think you will be surprised about how many of us dislike Bush just as much as we dislike Obama. A lot of people here who seem like right wingers are generally libertarians or some other such political label who have sympathies for the right, because the right generally kept the government small. The "right" hasn't kept the government small at all. Bush was a terrible president, and I don't think you will hear too much opposition to that statement.... Maybe I'm wrong, I can't speak for everyone. I didn't watch the video, but I honestly want to punch both Moore and O'Reilly in the face.
Ugh, I really dislike both O'Reilly and Moore. But I have to agree with Bill O'Reilly when, at the end, he says, "blind idealism is never good." I very much agree with that statement. I don't know if he follows that ideal himself all of the time, though.
What I want to know is if Bush wasn't lying, wouldn't he have come out and apologized after they didn't find the weapons of mass destruction? I guess his way was better:
I agree and totally understand. There are a few (we are talking like 2-3) on here that have neg repped me for trashing bush, even though if they had looked, I had harsh things to say about Obama as well in other threads. I'm not sure I can understate how frustrating that is. Sick of posters assuming they know my beliefs based on one post, I was spelling it out before things turned into that discussion. It has happened before, so that's where my comments came from. Totally agree with what you said though, just explaining where I was coming from.
I think Michael Moor is insane. Like he has some crazy shit going on in his head. I think Bill is just a step above Bush. So to boil it down, and some what of an interesting question, would you rather trust the insane guy or the dumb guy? I say the dumb guy because whatever he says I can safely assume that it's most likely false.
you honestly think moore would be okay with invasion of foreign countries, a permanent marshal law and the killing of 6 million innocents? If thats not what you mean explain the parts of Hitler's ideology that Moore WOULD support.
Obviously, no one agree with the holocaust. That was a terrible event. But, if you took everything that was Nazi Germany and subtract the holocaust, you'll find the liberals and nazi's and fascists have a lot of the same motives, goals, and ideals. Maybe less war, but I'm not so sure, because war was all t3h rage, and Moore would have supported Nazi ideals enough to support it's spread. I mean, guess who besides modern liberals supported free health care, abortion, spending vast amounts of money on public schools euthanasia, gun control, and generous pensions for the elderly? Who else besides modern liberals declared war on the private sector, the free market, and smoking? Who else wanted to purge the church from public policy, and maintained strict racial quota systems in their universities? Guess what country in the 1930's and 1940's led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine? Guess which strictly-vegetarian leader killed 6 million jews, and which animal rights activist commanded the SS? Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new order? Not at all. But it's impossible to deny that modern liberalism and classical fascism share the same intellectual roots.
the only way to truly know is to ask him. Don't put words in the guys mouth.. certainly, you wouldn't want others to do that to you.