AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore pathological liar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michael Moore pathological liar

post #1 of 74
9/24/03 at 9:48pm
Thread Starter 
This guy just can't stop. It's to the point of being a mental illness. Here's his latest invention.

Quote:
...

My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.

...

Of course this false. He invented this conversation based on a pervious lie that Clark had said just after 9-11 that the whitehouse had pressured him to link 9-11 to Saddam while on the air. That never happened. You can get the full details and reasoned analysis here

Pundits won't stop spinning Clark's phone call

Quote:
...

A careful reading shows Clark never said the White House had anything to do with the call he received. Instead, he describes the call in reference to his statement that pressure also came from "all over," which is why he mentions "Middle East think tanks and people like this." But because he referred to the two so closely together, some viewers reached a hasty conclusion that Clark said the White House made the call.

...

Why would Moore invent this? Why would Moore invent a conversation and put words into Clarks mouth? Is he trying to help or hurt Clark?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 74
9/24/03 at 9:59pm
Please stop. I'm begging you....
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #3 of 74
9/24/03 at 10:01pm
Hey Pot, meet the Kettle. X 100
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 74
9/24/03 at 10:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott:
When were Saddam and OBL on the US "payroll"? Never. Just another lie that gets repeated until we all take it as fact

From a different thread. Hmm... even if Michael Moore is a pathological liar (I would need to do some research to determine if he is or not because I'm sure as hell not trusting you, Scott), are you really any better?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 74
9/24/03 at 11:14pm
Clark's original statement looks very ambiguous to me - the way it is worded appears to be the real reason for the confusion.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 74
9/24/03 at 11:20pm
That article in spinsanity.org is somewhat ambiguous. Even if the White House didn't directly call Clark, it looks as if whoever did were pretty damned close to it.

There's another article in Fox News referring to a similar incident...where it is alleged that the White House called CNN to get them to fire Clark as a military analyst...(which in the end happened).

The quote goes something like this: once is by chance, twice is coincidence and three times is a conspiracy. Here we have two incidents, so lets just call it a coincidence.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 74
9/25/03 at 5:27am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
From a different thread. Hmm... even if Michael Moore is a pathological liar (I would need to do some research to determine if he is or not because I'm sure as hell not trusting you, Scott), are you really any better?

Care to back up the assertion that OBL and Saddam were on the "payroll". Or is this just another anti-american lie that has legs because it sounds good? BACK IT UP!
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:05am
Check Clark's phone records, dumbass.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:06am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Check Clark's phone records, dumbass.


WTF is this supposed to mean?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:08am
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
WTF is this supposed to mean?

The white house says "nope, no call, check our phone records!" Surely, Clark should have no record of a phone call as well.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:25am
A solid 95% of the human world hates MM with the fires of a thousand hells. However since he thrives on this, it is a no win situation. I have long since given up slandering the guy. I could call him so many well deserved names and attack him on so many dozens of fronts....but I digress. There really is no point. Such a pointless person doesn't deserve such a pointed discussion.
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
post #12 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:54am
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
A solid 95% of the human world hates MM with the fires of a thousand hells. However since he thrives on this, it is a no win situation. I have long since given up slandering the guy. I could call him so many well deserved names and attack him on so many dozens of fronts....but I digress. There really is no point. Such a pointless person doesn't deserve such a pointed discussion.

Has any one seen any footage of Michael Moore eating...?

look at the size of him...

He must really LOVE himself so much.....

Or is it the giant ego that gloats within that enormous carcass....

My advice to Michael Moore..

If anyone from hollywood ( via Washington ) offers him the role of the tyranical husband in "Steel Magnolias episode Part 2 "

I'd say go for it..Michael .

All you have to do is stand there as some petite old Southern Belle lands you with the back of her shovel...

Hmm Dinner's cookin....
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #13 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:58am
In keeping with the pedantic nature of debates on AO, note that MM signed the article:

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

Not "Yours truly".

Mebbe this letter is another "documentary"?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:08am
It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #15 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.

Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.

It is curious, is it not, how selective Scott and Aquafire et al are when it comes to crusading against hypocrites and serial liars.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:27am
Hassan i Sabbah:

Quote:
Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.

Anne Coulter has always sucked, Michael Moore was once great.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:29am
I wasn't suggesting you were ever an Anne Coulter fan. Edited my post...
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:44am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It is sad to see what has happened to Michael Moore.

He became a very large ( double fries & coke ) version of the once noble Don Quixote...

......tilting at modern day windmills..8)
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #19 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:59am
Didn't Bush officially eliminate email use by his administration for the explicit reason of not leaving a paper trail of confidential communications?

Is it really a tremendous jump to believe that IF the Bush administration wanted to get pundits making connections between 9/11 and Saddam that they might not use actual white house phones to do contact them? Maybe via a third party, perhaps?

I know, I know, a conspiracy theory is when the lack of evidence is the evidence, but seriously, only a moron would think that the lack of a phone record from the white house is proof of their innocence.

I certainly don't think the Bush administration has done anything to discourage the public perception of a link between 9/11 and Saddam.
--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. Claiming...
Reply
--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. Claiming...
Reply
post #20 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Didn't Bush officially eliminate email use by his administration for the explicit reason of not leaving a paper trail of confidential communications?

The best way to destroy the data would be to run Windoze there! Everyone would accept the fact that the email servers crashed and all the clients had a virus.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 74
9/25/03 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquafire
Has any one seen any footage of Michael Moore eating...?

look at the size of him...

He must really LOVE himself so much.....

Or is it the giant ego that gloats within that enormous carcass....

My advice to Michael Moore..

If anyone from hollywood ( via Washington ) offers him the role of the tyranical husband in "Steel Magnolias episode Part 2 "

I'd say go for it..Michael .

All you have to do is stand there as some petite old Southern Belle lands you with the back of her shovel...

Hmm Dinner's cookin....

Wow. He's fat. He sucks.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 74
9/25/03 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Wow. He's fat. He sucks.

This site comes to mind...http://www.moorewatch.com/
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
post #23 of 74
9/25/03 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.

Very right. I'm surprised Scott hasn't been banned yet. Scott do you ever watch O'Reilly? At least MM doesn't have a "news" show. O'Reilly looks like the 700 Club to me usually. Anne Coulter..Don't even get me started. She is so stupid people should stop responding to her. It's like that girl in political science class. Yeah that girl.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #24 of 74
9/25/03 at 1:37pm
Thread Starter 
Why would I be banned? I select what i want to post other select what they want to post. No I don't watch O'Reilly or much of any TeeVee these days. I don't have one during the week.

BTW Moore's weight has nothing to do with this. If he were built like Arnold he's still be a big fat liar.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 74
9/25/03 at 5:15pm
I'm with Groverat on this one.

And if we tolerate half of what we tolerate in this forum, Scott shouldn't be banned. We have belligerent asshole nutcases (no names given) on both sides of the debate, so censorship if applied should be even-handed, not to one's political/social bias.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 74
9/25/03 at 5:53pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott
Why would I be banned? I select what i want to post other select what they want to post.
As far as I am concerned..Scott sounds like middle america ..tolerant...but a firebrand when you step on his toes...
He just sees it his way..that's his right...

banning is dumb anyway..
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #27 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:49pm
Why is the B word being thrown about? I don't think Scott(or anyone else from what I've seen since becoming a semi-regular on here) merits being banned. Unless I missed something?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 74
9/25/03 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Care to back up the assertion that OBL and Saddam were on the "payroll". Or is this just another anti-american lie that has legs because it sounds good? BACK IT UP!

"It's to the point of being a mental illness."

OBL wasn't "on the payroll" as such (he was already a billionaire and didn't need money from the US) but he was trained by the CIA and his faction was supplied with weapons from the US, free of cost, to fight the Soviets. Over all, the US admits to having spent 6 billion dollars fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with most of that expenditure going toward support of Bin Laden as well as the Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was provided with Weapons and expertise from the US as well, free of charge, in order to fight Iran (little did Saddam know at the time that the US was concurrently selling weapons to Iran).

But the phrase "on the payroll", although not literally accurate, is a fair description of the fact that we spent billions of dollars supporting both of these people and their causes.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
"It's to the point of being a mental illness."

OBL wasn't "on the payroll" as such (he was already a billionaire and didn't need money from the US) but he was trained by the CIA and his faction was supplied with weapons from the US, free of cost, to fight the Soviets.

Please prove that OBL and his groups specifically got training and/or supplies from the CIA.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Over all, the US admits to having spent 6 billion dollars fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with most of that expenditure going toward support of Bin Laden as well as the Taliban.

Cite a source that has it that OBL got money or supplies from the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Saddam Hussein was provided with Weapons and expertise from the US as well, free of charge, in order to fight Iran (little did Saddam know at the time that the US was concurrently selling weapons to Iran).

What weapons?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
But the phrase "on the payroll", although not literally accurate, is a fair description of the fact that we spent billions of dollars supporting both of these people and their causes.

No it's not. It's unfair and a lie that cannot be back up with good information.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:38pm
From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm):

Quote:
The Afghan jihad against the Soviet army was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the "Arab Afghans", as Bin Laden's faction came to be called, looked forward to a warm welcome at home.

But Bin Laden quickly became disillusioned by the lack of recognition for his achievements.

From http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/binladen2.html:

Quote:
Wasnt bin Laden on Americas side in Afghanistan in the 1980s?
Yes and no. The United States and bin Laden supported the Afghan resistance, but for different reasons. Containing communism was the U.S. governments top priority. It gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, which decided how to apportion aid among resistance groups. Bin Laden wanted to expel the atheist Soviets and install a fundamentalist Islamic regime.

Maybe we didn't agree with him, but we still supported him.

As far as US relations with Iraq:



That's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Also, look here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 74
9/25/03 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Please prove that OBL and his groups specifically got training and/or supplies from the CIA.

Cite a source that has it that OBL got money or supplies from the US.

What weapons?

No it's not. It's unfair and a lie that cannot be back up with good information.

You're kidding, right? You're the first person I've ever seen who denies outright that the US supplied weapons to Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You're kidding, right? You're the first person I've ever seen who denies outright that the US supplied weapons to Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.


Just prove it. You'll learn something.


Every time I ask someone for direct proof that the US supported bin laden they can't come up with. Saddam is a bit easier but knowing what exaclty the US did for him is worth knowing when faced with so many lies.

Don't repeat the same lies that other told you.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm):



From http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/binladen2.html:


Sorry not good enough. "The Afghan jihad against the Soviet army was backed with American dollars" does not mean that the US supported bin Laden. Please provide real proof that bin Laden's so called "Arab Afghans" got money from the US. Please provide real proof that bin Laden took money and/or supplies from the US. Please provide proof that OBL was on the US "payroll".

Quote:
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Maybe we didn't agree with him, but we still supported him.

As far as US relations with Iraq:



That's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Also, look here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Yea everyone's seen that. Doesn't put him "on the pay roll" or mean we "installed" him into power.

Here's a good one of Chiraq with Saddam
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:33pm
I knew it. I looked for quite a while to find some sources that you might find acceptable, but I know now that no matter how wonderful, insightful, and credible my sources are, you will never accept them. You are set in your ways, Scott, closing yourself off from the world of reality much like a child covers his ears and sings when he is told it's bed time.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:37pm
Thread Starter 
You haven't proven anything. That's whole point. There were a lot of groups in Afghanistan fighting the soviets. The US supplied money and weapons to them. That does not mean that OBL was one of them. You have no real proof at all. All you know is that OBL was in that area at that time and the US supplied money/weapons to people fighting in that area at that time. But you have provided no direct link from the US to bin laden at that time.

Please provide that information.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:37pm
Denying the US helped OBL and Hussein is having your head in the sand. But in the end, why is it relevant at this point aside from getting bragging rights? Here we are for better or worse, so now what?

Every thread devolves into the same canned responses, the same Google pics, the same players arriving at the same impasse. AO is the internet's No Man's Land. Such a waste.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:41pm
Thread Starter 
The US helped Iraq. That's know. The US does not deny it. Doesn't mean he was on the "payroll".

Please provide real proof, real real proof that the US at any time helped OBL. Real proof people. If it's so well known it should be easy for you to prove. So do it. Right now. Should be easy if it's so well know. Go now. Find that information that links OBL to the US. Do it.

Proof

Proof

Real Proof
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 74
9/25/03 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
The US helped Iraq. That's know. The US does not deny it.

I think we might be splitting hairs over semantics. What you say here is what I meant with my admittedly snide comment. I can't speak for anyone else. We helped Iraq/Hussein's government vs. Iran. We helped Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen vs. the Soviets. Mistakes? Sure. We still support a lot of other distasteful governments and probably some of these rebel movements in S. America and elsewhere, and could very well get burned by that. So those seem relevant at this time, not Rummy shaking Hussy's hand in 1980-something. It's just rhetoric at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 74
9/25/03 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Just prove it. You'll learn something.

What, that you can deny that the sky is blue as long as I can't link to a Fox News article that says so?
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 74
9/25/03 at 9:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
...
We helped Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen vs. the Soviets. Mistakes? Sure. ....


Just prove the "Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen" part. You can't just add that "/" in as if "mujahadeen" == bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group were in Afghanistan at that time. Along with others. The US helped people there to fight the soviets. Please provide proof that the people the US help was bin Laden and/or his group.

This is simple right? Everyone "knows" this. Please prove what we all "know".
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore pathological liar