Say Anything Blog

Thanks for sharing.  I am shocked—SHOCKED!!—at the notion Michael Moore might have shown misleading footage.

Oh, btw, has anyone asked Michael whether he would have wanted his kids sent to die at Normandy? Or Gettysburg? Or Valley Forge?  Or… well, you get the idea.

You owe Moore an apology, Rob.

The purpose of Moore’s ‘stunt’—-and it was a stunt—was to put Congressmen on the spot and ask them if they’d sign up their own children to go to Iraq as easily as they volunteered other American’s children.

If you wish to pretend that Moore stated no Congressman had kids in Iraq or the military—you can.  But it’s dishonest.

At the time F911 was filmed, exactly one congressman had a kid in Iraq. Think about it—out of 535 Reps, 1 kid.

Oh, hey. remember when Moore said the insurgents were “the Minutemen” and “they’re going to win”?

I wonder how Mikey feels about his pet head-choppers’ prospects these days.

The purpose of Moore’s ’stunt’ —and it was a stunt–was to put Congressmen on the spot and ask them if they’d sign up their own children to go to Iraq as easily as they volunteered other American’s children.

Congress did not “volunteer America’s children to go to Iraq”.  As far as I know, all of the military have volunteered to serve in the military of their own volition.  All of them took an oath to serve, protect, and defend against all enemies foreign (i.e. terrorists) and domestic (i.e. people like Michael Moore and his merry band of weasels).

By the way, Michael Moore IS and HAS a fat ass.

Yes, that’s Mikey Moore fighting for the average man. All the awhile, pocketing $30,000 per speaking engagement.

No, he’s not a hypocrite.

Congress did not “volunteer America’s children to go to Iraq�.

Oh, yes, they did.

By the way, Michael Moore IS and HAS a fat ass.

Pity he’ll make more money this year than you and your relatives combined will make in a lifetime, huh?

The purpose of Moore’s ’stunt’ —and it was a stunt–was to put Congressmen on the spot and ask them if they’d sign up their own children to go to Iraq as easily as they volunteered other American’s children.

Nobody can “sign their children up” to go to Iraq.  The soldiers in Iraq are adults who made the conscious decision to volunteer for military duty.

And while I haven’t actually run the numbers, if one were to calculate the number of legislators who actually have children of an appropriate age to actually serve in Iraq I think you’d find that the number serving is fairly equivalent to the number serving from non-political families.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Nobody can “sign their children up� to go to Iraq. The soldiers in Iraq are adults who made the conscious decision to volunteer for military duty.

Still not getting it, Rob?  When you join the military, you don’t know if you’ll wind up in Hawaii or Djbouti. Not the point.

Moore was asking a rhetorical question; one designed to put Congressmen on the spot.

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is?  Here’s an example: would you sacrifice a loved one to end world hunger?

JG says: You owe Moore an apology, Rob.

Now that would be a laugh.  However, Rob, you’ve completely misrepresented the degree of Michael Moore’s dishonesty and deception in this scene. 

Here is what David Kopel (Michael Moore’s Fifty-Nine Deceits) has to say:

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent: 

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
 
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.

Michael Moore is the one who should apologize for foisting this puerile nonsense onto America.  I suppose one can argue that he has done a service, as anybody who would defend this indefensible piece of sh*t, is clearly a shill and nothing more. 

Come to think of it, maybe Rove is behind this one after all…

Still not getting it, Rob? When you join the military, you don’t know if you’ll wind up in Hawaii or Djbouti. Not the point.

You said that Moore’s question was intended to put legislators on the spot by asking them if they’d send their children to Iraq.  I pointed out that its a rather silly question since none of the legislators cna force their children to join the military.  Simply can’t happen.

And when you volunteer to serve in the military you volunteer to pretty much go wherever they send you, no?  Are you suggesting that the soldiers who signed up for the military weren’t aware of that?

Moore’s question is a regurgitation of Vietnam-era anti-war rhetoric.  It was effective in the day when “fortunate sons” were able to avoid the draft through connections.  Unfortunately it doesn’t work as well when the military fighting today’s wars is an all volunteer force.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Pity he’ll make more money this year than you and your relatives combined will make in a lifetime, huh?

Wow Jadegold, I guess Michael Moore must be better than me because he makes more money than me or my relatives.  Similarly, I guess he is better than even you, unless of course you get paid $30K+ for your speaking and blogging engagements.  I guess there’s not very many people who are as good or better than Michael Moore.

BTW I can think of lots of people who make less than Moore, but are without a doubt of much higher quality personality and character than he ever will be. 

So yeah, your argument there is solid.

Using similar deductive techniques as you did, I can conclude that you must have a FAT ASS too.

WELL AS ALWAYS NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW MANY CONGRESSMAN HAVE SONS OR DAUGHTERS IN IRAQ, BUT ITS OK THE BUSH GIRLS WON’T BE GOING .

Our armed service members sign up through their own volition. This is because we have voluntary enrollment, not conscription.  Therefore, whatever pathetic point you were trying to make is null and void.

WELL AS ALWAYS NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW MANY CONGRESSMAN HAVE SONS OR DAUGHTERS IN IRAQ, BUT ITS OK THE BUSH GIRLS WON’T BE GOING .

One thing that’s kind of funny that the average citizen doesn’t catch is that fatass keeps saying no one will “enlist their kids in the military.”  Oh yeah and only one congressman has a son or daughter enlisted in the military serving in IRAQ.  How about people who commission into the military and become officers?  Several congressmen have children who serve as officers, but by definition we are not enlisted.  Nice little play on words that the fatass uses to make you think none of them have kids serving. 

If you are not smart enough to see the spin in something like F911 quit wasting your time posting on the internet and go read some history books.  If you are too stupid to see that Fox is biased to the right and CNN to the left, and rather think that one side is completely right and the other wrong, then you are letting morons like Moore and Rush cloud your judgement.  Look at F911 for what it is, propaganda.  No matter how effective it is at moving some weak minded individuals, it is not even remotely neutral.

Having served in the Navy for 10 years, I know who went to college to become officers, and who didn’t.  The haves go to college to become officers.  Those who aren’t wealthy (for the most part) become enlisted.  Don’t know if you realize it but, when a group of soldiers go into the field, maybe 1 or 2 officers go with a large formation of enlisted.  If a platoon is wiped out, the large amounts of enlisted die, and maybe one or two rich boys.  If you were a senator, would you want you child enlisted(meat) or officer?  As an officer of course so they can lord it over the enlisted.  Why would the rich, elite, upper class serve in the military except as a bullet on their resume’?  Oh never mind, they serve on the board of trustees at Haliburton.

Oh WOW!!! no less than 5!!!! now how many regular people have their children in the military?  How many police officers, firemen have their children in the military? I can tell you that more than the freakishly small number of 5 do!!! and in 9/11 michael moore’s film he said congressmen!!! NOT legislators or other lawmakers but just congressmen so obviously you guys have got YOUR facts twisted when u saw the movie and michael moore was right currently nd so far since the beginning of this “war on terrorism” there is only 1 CONGRESSMAN with a child in the military, just ONE!! how fair is that, that the poorest people of the country, the one’s with no assets, the one’s who people see as low-lifes are the ones who step up first, who volunteer to risk their lives so that we can have our freedom but what they are really unknowingly fighting for is some freakin business man’s net profit income?!?! how fair is that, then you can talk about your supposed misrepresentation of facts.  maybe you should replay that part and watch it more closely.

p.s. out of 535 reps only 1 kid, if you take the take 535 parents of kids from public school or 535 workers from Wal-Mart and ask them how many of them have children in the military i wonder how many would raise their hands, i know for damn sure more than 1!