The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

chech this out:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I am not sure I am impressed with this documentary review web retort where the website publisher was an intern for Dan Quayle. Go Figure!!!

I am sure I don't want George W. in office for another 4 years, so getting him out is even more important than who replaces him. Isn't that a sorry state of affairs.

Just my opinion.

Out of curiousity . . . have you seen the movie tx_skins_fan?

NC43Hog wrote:I am not sure I am impressed with this documentary review web retort where the website publisher was an intern for Dan Quayle. Go Figure!!!

I am sure I don't want George W. in office for another 4 years, so getting him out is even more important than who replaces him. Isn't that a sorry state of affairs.

Just my opinion.

Out of curiousity . . . have you seen the movie tx_skins_fan?

I wasn't impressed either. I thought he would use more facts to back up his claims. He blasts the "liberal media" for being untruthful when in fact he uses the same tactics in his article. I'm with NC43Hog on this one.

Good read. Very long. I have no desire to see this film. It's good to read an article from someone who has. Yes, this article was written by someone who dislikes Michael Moore and that is disclosed from the beginning. But it also contains facts to back up his arguments, unlike I have heard from any of the Hollywood politicians. I have never been able to figure out why it is that the majority of Hollywood is Democrat. I am a huge Jack Black fan, but everytime you see him these days, he is wearing a Vote for Kerry shirt, but I have not heard nor read any quotes from him stating why he feels that way. Maybe I will never know. The same as I will never now why the education system always votes Democrats. In my home state of Maryland, we recently elected the first Republican Governor in 60 years. He put in his budget, the largest increase in education spending in the history of the state. A few weeks later, all of the schools had a protest and allowed students to leave school early to attend and use the time as their mandatory community service credits.....where were these protests when Spendenning slashed the budget in the first place. I am a Republican and I support Republicans. That is how I was raised to believe. At the same time, I have voted for Democrats over Republicans. I base my vote on which candidate I think will best represent me. In this day in age, there are very few liberal and conservatives. Almost everyone is in the middle with a slight lean in one direction or the other. Sorry for the long rant, but people like Michael Moore who abuse their station in life to cram their point of view down your throat really get under my skin.

NC43Hog wrote:
I am sure I don't want George W. in office for another 4 years, so getting him out is even more important than who replaces him.

Can I ask why? I hear this argument from a lot of people, but no one ever says why they feel that way. I don't understand how replacing George Bush with someone who voted for every initiative that President Bush is lambasted for is such a popular point of view. At least President Bush made a decision and stood behind it all the way. I have caught fish that flopped around less than Kerry. Do we really want someone who is wishy-washy making the decisions that effect every Americans safety and well-being?[/quote]

JansenFan wrote:people like Michael Moore who abuse their station in life to cram their point of view down your throat really get under my skin.

How is making a movie, craming their viewpoint down your throat. You have already stated you won't see it, so it's mute.

Let's face it, either you like and agree with MM or you don't, but you have to admit he is pretty funny - I mean most of his movies are in the comedy section.

I loved in "The Big One" where he says we should change the national anthem to "We Wil We Will Rock You", and change United States of America (just too descriptive) to "THE BIG ONE".

The guy makes you think and that is something more americans need to do. Don't let others do it for you.

JansenFan wrote:Can I ask why? I hear this argument from a lot of people, but no one ever says why they feel that way.

If I see you at camp, we can have a long civil chat and try to enlighten each other. This may be too complicated a subject to just bounce messages back and forth.

Yes, I did see the movie. It's filled with what David Letterman calls "unfair edits". It's propaganda at it's finest, and ignores the facts that Michael Moore doesn't want you to know, which is why I posted the link. Documentaries are supposed to be objective and full of FACTUAL information, yet he won't, or probably can't, name any sources from which he got his information. That leads me to believe that he made this crap up. Michael Moore is nothing but the Rush Limbaugh for the left. He's not credible at all.

NC43Hog wrote:How is making a movie, craming their viewpoint down your throat. You have already stated you won't see it, so it's mute.

I won't see it, but I hear about it everyday on the news, on the radio. And of course there is his Oscar speech last year, in which I didn't have the option not to watch because I didn't know it was coming. That's my only point as far as the movie is concerned.

As far as the thought that anybody is better than Bush, we can certainly discuss our points of view at training camp. I just keep hearing the argument, but none of the reasons why so I want to know the reasons.

There can't be any reasons, because Kerry hasn't even mentioned anything about his policies or the issues in the campaign. All he's done is said "I'm not Bush", and people are somehow suckered in by that.

tx_skins_fan wrote:Yes, I did see the movie. It's filled with what David Letterman calls "unfair edits". It's propaganda at it's finest, and ignores the facts that Michael Moore doesn't want you to know,

Ignores the facts??????????

So President Bush didn't sit there reading a children's book for seven minutes while his people were dying?

Please tell me Michael Moore got that one wrong. I'm still sickened by it.

Would you rather he jump up screaming, and scaring the crap out of the children? He did what he was advised to do. That's why he has advisors. Seven minutes is a bit of an exaggeration also.

One thing that bothers me is, I think his "advisors", especially Cheney, are running the show, not Bush.

Nuff said...

That's the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Why is a dissenting view un-american. What are you people afraid of?

MM's whole premise is that we have diverted our attention from the real threat of Bin Laden, to Iraq.

Gimme a Break, PLEASE!!!!

NC43Hog wrote:That's the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Why is a dissenting view un-american. What are you people afraid of?

MM's whole premise is that we have diverted our attention from the real threat of Bin Laden, to Iraq.

Gimme a Break, PLEASE!!!!

well, apparently you didn't read that slate.com article that you said that you said you were unimpressed with...the article states near the beginning that moore claimed bin laden should be innocent until proven guilty...one of moore's many contradictions....here's that paragraph:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

tx_skins_fan wrote:Would you rather he jump up screaming, and scaring the crap out of the children? He did what he was advised to do. That's why he has advisors. Seven minutes is a bit of an exaggeration also.

No....I would rather him be a President. I would rather him put that gosh dang book down and be a freaking President!!!!!

Jumping up and down screaming is what is exagerated. Seven minutes is not. All he had to do was walk out of the room. That wouldn't have scared the children. Or he could have excused himself politely. THAT SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T HAVE SCARED THE CHILDREN.

Ok first of all I try to stay out of political discussions here. That being said I felt as a parent I had to jump in here. I can tell you that children are VERY intuitive. They would have instantly known something was wrong. And if it was my child, my niece, my neighbor's child, I would have wanted him to continue. Let these little children have a few more moments of peace in their lives. Lord knows that hours later their parents would be trying to protect and shelter them, no doubt they'd know then. Secondly did you hear any of the 911 board's discussion. President Bush did not get the proper notification of what happened. He heard about this and the possiblities of more attacks from an agent placed inside of an agency for another purpose. A secret service agent. The FAA did not notify him until it was too late for him to do a darned thing. So blame someone else for him not doing anything!

"Mr. President, a second plane has it the world trade center. America is under attack."

Those were the words said to President Bush in the classroom. Those words are enough for me to think President Bush needs to get up and start doing something.

I respect your views as a parent. Your absolutely right they would have known something was going on, but that other guy saying that President Bush should have leaped up and screamed, drastically exagerated it.

What would you rather have. Children seeing a very serious look on the President's face for seven minutes or Children seeing a President get up and walk out of the room and do something. Either way the children had to know something was going on.

What would you have expected the President to do at that point? Our own agencies had no clue what was going on. It is documented that after he did get up no one could give him solid information. That no one knew what the heck was going on. Even after he left he wanted to stay in Washington but no one would let him. I guess you see the points of the story you want to here. If he had jumped up and ordered all planes off course shot at or anyone invading Washington's airspace or New York's for that matter shot, he'd been lambasted for acting too swiftly. In other words it is easy to critize him for doing the wrong thing here. Either way this would have happened. What do you think that Bill Clinton would have done in this situation? When the USS Cole was bombed Clinton didn't do much of anything. So I cannot imagine his reaction being any swifter or better then Bushes reaction here.

I don't think that it's quite fair to keep pointing to that one instance of bush with the children...ok, let's think about this. the planes just hit the buildings and bush continued on what he was doing for 7 minutes or so...ok we're talking about a matter of minutes...is it possible to assume that his staff was getting transportation together for him to leave or maybe arranging a meeting of important people...the point is that there is a lot of things happening behind the scenes that none of know about...especially not


i just think it's absurd to assume because he didn't leap into action like superman that he didn't care.

NikiH wrote:What would you have expected the President to do at that point? Our own agencies had no clue what was going on. It is documented that after he did get up no one could give him solid information.

Noone offered him any information in the morning and noone knew what was going on............I knew what was going on then. I knew America was under attack. I knew there were airline planes that collided with the World Trade Center buildings.

Could not offer him solid information when he did get up is bullcrud. I know that for a fact because all of the networks were offering enough information for him to know we were in trouble.

To answer your question about what I would expect him to do. I would expect him to be a President. By that I mean I would expect him to find out what is going on then do something about it.

You can't find out what is going on when you are reading a children's book.

Crucifying Bush over this one fact is ridiculous. It's dodging the issues and frankly it is a low blow. For the record, the Administration did try to do something; Cheney had given orders to have the second plane shot down, but everyone was so unprepared they couldn't execute it in time...

Ok obviously the only one besides me who listened to the 911 commission here is Steve. No one had a clue Redskins Rule. They were reporting planes everywhere that were going to attack various places. We heard reports of a plane headed for the FAA headquarters in Leesburg and reports of another plane leaving Dulles. So the media reported some of what was right and some of what was wrong. To put it all out there and let the President assume our media is right is completely insane. He would have shot down for one a news helicopter which was almost taken out for flying in Washington's air space. Listen to the commission and you may have a different view. I was amazed by what I learned listening to the interviews.

Right. So when he was informed the second plane had hit, what else was he to do? Order the planes to be shot down again? At that point there wasn't a lot he was capable of doing.

I have mixed feelings about "Farenheit 9/11". On the one hand, it is Moore's right to make such a film and I have to respect a man who does what he can to make changes in the world. On the other hand, it is propaganda. If it wasn't so blatantly abusing the facts, then I would have no problem with it. But Moore is not simply presenting facts, he is contorting the facts to create something to influence people, and I have no doubt that people will vote entirely based on what they saw in that film, which is sad.

I have not seen the film, because I have excercised my right as an American to not support the film financially. I will illegally download it off the internet at some point, because I would like to see it for myself...