Michael Moore is Going To Be on Bill O'Reilly's Show Tommorow (Tuesday)!!!!!

[RXL]

^^ Okay, okay, I'll give you credit for that

[Real American]

I don't know what the big deal is. Machiavelli might be 14 but everything he has said so far is true.

[RXL]

I don't know what the big deal is. Machiavelli might be 14 but everything he has said so far is true.

Including the "apples and oranges" comment?

[Montana00]

But i think moore got oreily in a corner on some of the arguements. But i dont know how you could agree with oreily. I was backing moore through the whole interview, even though i hate moore. For instance.

OReiley told moore that the Iraq war was not bush' fault. He said that bush got faulty inteligence, and so he should not be held accountable. Moore basically said that bush is the president and therefore it is his fault. imo, i think that when you take the job as president, any faults that your administration makes, is your fault. Bush needs to take responsibility for the Iraq war.

Everyone around bush has admitted that they have made mistakes with the whole iraq situation, and bush has yet to say anything. Bush still stands by his argument that "America and every other country are safer because saddams evil regime are gone." Thats complete bs.

Bush needs to accept responsibilty, even if he was given faulty inteligence.

[RXL]

Bush needs to accept responsibilty, even if he was given faulty inteligence.

I agree with you there.  The interview wasn't really that interesting to me, but I'm not much of a Moore fan myself, and he defended himself adequately.

[Machiavelli]

OReiley told moore that the Iraq war was not bush' fault. He said that bush got faulty inteligence, and so he should not be held accountable. Moore basically said that bush is the president and therefore it is his fault. imo, i think that when you take the job as president, any faults that your administration makes, is your fault. Bush needs to take responsibility for the Iraq war.

OReilly told Moore that Bush didn't LIE about WMDs. Which is true. And BTW your right about that bush needs to take responsibility about the WMD thing being a mistake.

Bush still stands by his argument that "America and every other country are safer because saddams evil regime are gone." Thats complete bs.

So you don't believe that taking out Saddam made America and other countries safe, even tho saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east.

[Trauma-san]

This whole interview as well as this thread is useless.  Nobody's learning anything or changing minds.  Moore believes one way, people support him, and O'Reilly believes another way, and people support him.  There's no use in arguing about it, nobody's looking to learn, all they're looking to do is defend their position.  Fuck that, it's a waste of time. 

[Montana00]

So you don't believe that taking out Saddam made America and other countries safe, even tho saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east.

America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.

saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.

[Lincoln]

can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol

I am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.

Canada is not a "left wing socialist" country, I don't know who is misinforming you on this.

[Machiavelli]

America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.

saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.

So your saying neighboring countries weren't any safer with saddam out of office and it would be better if he was still in office? How could this be true if Saddam was committing mass murders on  neighboring countries? Also Iraq would allways threat attacks on countries such as Israel or Kuwait.

You are right about how saddam wasn't a threat to America since he didn't have WMDs..but if he got a hold of one, don't you think he would use it on us or neighboring countries.

[Maradona]

America was 100% not any safer.
Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.

saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.

So your saying neighboring countries weren't any safer with saddam out of office and it would be better if he was still in office? How could this be true if Saddam was committing mass murders on  neighboring countries? Also Iraq would allways threat attacks on countries such as Israel or Kuwait.

You are right about how saddam wasn't a threat to America since he didn't have WMDs..but if he got a hold of one, don't you think he would use it on us or neighboring countries.

So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.

[Machiavelli]

So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.

Well Initially we went into Iraq for WMDs right? Since we didn't find no WMDs, this war was about taking out the brutal dictator Saddam, and helping Iraq rebuild its country.

[Maradona]

So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.

Well Initially we went into Iraq for WMDs right? Since we didn't find no WMDs, this war was about taking out the brutal dictator Saddam, and helping Iraq rebuild its country.

So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.

[Machiavelli]

So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.

No we didn't change it as we went along. We allways had that reason, except we didn't use it because the WMDs reason was much more serious, that using that reason was just an alternative reason to go to Iraq, but then it became a primary reason after we found out there were no WMDs.

[Maradona]

So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.

No we didn't change it as we went along. We allways had that reason, except we didn't use it because the WMDs reason was much more serious, that using that reason was just an alternative reason to go to Iraq, but then it became a primary reason after we found out there were no WMDs.

So we switched our "main" reason for going there. So why didn't we hold any grudges before he nationalized the oil fields? In case you're wondering, he's always been a ruthless leader, so please answer that Sherlock (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, since you're probably too dumb to figure even that out)