Texsox Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m/2007...sen_at_war.html Filmmaker Michael Moore is calling out White House hopeful Fred Thompson for refusing to debate him. The director and the former senator have been trading shots since May 2, when Thompson weighed in on the Treasury Department's investigation into whether Moore violated the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba by seeking free treatment on the Communist isle for sick 9/11 responders. Writing in the National Review, Thompson chided Moore for "gushing" over dictator Fidel Castro. I am certain everyone that called Carter chicken for not wishing to debate will now side with Michael Moore, which is just so frickin' funny. For the record, I remain consistent. I didn't think Carter had any obligation to debate and I do not believe Thompson does either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2007 -> 08:45 AM) http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m/2007...sen_at_war.html I am certain everyone that called Carter chicken for not wishing to debate will now side with Michael Moore, which is just so frickin' funny. For the record, I remain consistent. I didn't think Carter had any obligation to debate and I do not believe Thompson does either. Carter was asked to debate the specifics of his book, with someone who could be considered an expert in the field. Thompson was asked to debate the merits of the Cuban healthcare system, by someone that could only be considered an expert in lying and eating. he was also called out because an article about Fred said that he had 'boxes and boxes of Cuban Monticristos' in his office. Actually they were Dominican Monticristos. I saw a funny 'response' from Fred posted somewhere, if I can find it again, I will link. Oh, and ya gotta love Moore's paranoia about having the movie in a safehouse in case the governemtn tries to confiscate it. Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 So Thompson can take a few shots at Moore to get votes, but shouldn't have to back it up in a debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) So Thompson can take a few shots at Moore to get votes, but shouldn't have to back it up in a debate? I believe Thompson REPLIED to Moore, so there isn't anything for him to backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Moore's point is well made... and will be enforced when the movie comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ May 16, 2007 -> 09:08 AM) Moore's point is well made... and will be enforced when the movie comes out. That depends on how loose Mr. Moore plays with his facts in this film compared with his recent work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 16, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) I believe Thompson REPLIED to Moore, so there isn't anything for him to backup. Really, I thought Thompson was responding to the Treasury Department's investigation and used it as an opportunity to attack an easy target that would help Thompson with moderates and conservatives. Only the far left and loony tunes left cares about Moore and they would not vote for Thompson. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 16, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) That depends on how loose Mr. Moore plays with his facts in this film compared with his recent work. I think we can expect a less that scientifically valid film that will veer into fiction if it proves his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 http://www.vimeo.com/clip:190627 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Really, I thought Thompson was responding to the Treasury Department's investigation and used it as an opportunity to attack an easy target that would help Thompson with moderates and conservatives. Only the far left and loony tunes left cares about Moore and they would not vote for Thompson. I think we can expect a less that scientifically valid film that will veer into fiction if it proves his point. You say far left and looney tunes left like there is a difference. Yes, Thompson used it as an easy way to score points with conservatives and moderates. That's still no reason to dignify the far left Moore with a debate. It would only serve to legitimacize him. No one right of San Francisco would bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(YASNY @ May 18, 2007 -> 12:48 AM) You say far left and looney tunes left like there is a difference. Yes, Thompson used it as an easy way to score points with conservatives and moderates. That's still no reason to dignify the far left Moore with a debate. It would only serve to legitimacize him. No one right of San Francisco would bother. Yet so many people thought a President of the US should answer the debate call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 18, 2007 -> 06:30 AM) Yet so many people thought a President of the US should answer the debate call. So many people thought a President should give repeated audiences to Cindy Sheehan, also. And like now, I disagreed with 'so many people'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(YASNY @ May 18, 2007 -> 07:32 AM) So many people thought a President should give repeated audiences to Cindy Sheehan, also. And like now, I disagreed with 'so many people'. I didn't think she should have had one. And even if you ardently agreed with her, there are so many better spokespersons for the anti-war stance, why send a spokeskook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 18, 2007 -> 06:43 AM) I didn't think she should have had one. And even if you ardently agreed with her, there are so many better spokespersons for the anti-war stance, why send a spokeskook? Why debate a spokeskook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2007 Author Share Posted May 18, 2007 QUOTE(YASNY @ May 18, 2007 -> 07:58 AM) Why debate a spokeskook? Usually it isn't a wise choice. I can only think of a few cases where it makes sense. If it is your only opponent in a political race. And if you are involved in a pseudo sport like Wrestling or NASCAR. BTW, I think I will trademark spokeskook. I can think of soooo many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 I don't get why anybody would NOT want to debate Moore. Moore is a pretty ignorant tool, and if you know your stuff, a debate with him is an easy victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 19, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) I don't get why anybody would NOT want to debate Moore. Moore is a pretty ignorant tool, and if you know your stuff, a debate with him is an easy victory. Because then if you debate him and then not every other whack job that challenges you, you look bad. Moore has no standing to speak of - he holds no office. And Moore's suporters will stay that no matter what happens. Where is the upside for Thompson? There is none, so he made the smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 19, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) Because then if you debate him and then not every other whack job that challenges you, you look bad. Moore has no standing to speak of - he holds no office. And Moore's suporters will stay that no matter what happens. Where is the upside for Thompson? There is none, so he made the smart move. debating Michael Moore is pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Moore is an idiot. I really hope people here don't embrace his politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 QUOTE(spiderman @ May 20, 2007 -> 09:32 PM) Moore is an idiot. I really hope people here don't embrace his politics. Oh, you'd be surprised how many people here think along the same lines as him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 21, 2007 -> 07:05 AM) Oh, you'd be surprised how many people here think along the same lines as him. :rolly About as many as think along the same lines as Sean Hannity. In both cases, people here agree with some of the individual things they say. But I don't think anyone here, that I recall, would say they think along the same lines as either one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 21, 2007 -> 07:05 AM) Oh, you'd be surprised how many people here think along the same lines as him. Faulty logic? Misstating facts? Misleading statements? Convenient lapses of memory? Yep, lots of them here. Just check out the GOP only thread I'm joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts