|
On June 27 2004 00:05 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +At least all facts are presented in this way. You misunderstand. There is a difference between presenting accusations and refuting them. In refuting you don't need to present both sides, you just need to defeat the attacking side. You have a point, but is Moore not just playing the same role as you? It is not as if the subject began with him. You say you disagree with his tactics, but you watch/read news from places that use the same tactics, and you use them yourself. You say you are just refuting Moore, but he is just refuting Bush and the mainstream media. You are calling him unpatriotic, but you are playing the same role as him. What Moore is doing is the same thing that every conservative figure, including yourself, is doing. Which is why I say you are really not attacking his tactics, becuase you obviously endorese them, you are attacking his success at getting a message across that you don't agree with. You have not exposed any lies, you have only shown that Moore is one sided. In the process, you have shown that you are too.
Agreed. 
|
I still don't think moore is anything special because he can dig up any sort of argument. no shit, its fucking ridiculously easy to attack the united states. i'd call him a smart activist fella if he could argue the pro-side.
|
easy to attack the united states
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
|
|
i've read excal posts before and i don't reccommend it to others.
|
conservatives suck because the status quo sucks...
i'm still waiting for the big conservative documentaries plz!~
|
Ok I am a Michael Moore hater like many others because he did use a lot of half truths in bowling for columbine.
However, I don't think anyone should comment on this movie without seeing it first. I saw it tonight.
The point of the movie is to show the audience that Bush should not have ever been the President of the United States and should not be reelected this fall. He's not making any arguments really, but he is linking together a lot of very incriminating evidence showing the Bush administration to be pretty damn scandalous.
1. Bush family financial ties to Saudis and Bin Laden family. Cheney's ties to Haliburton. Bush family financial ties with Carlyle. The Bush family/administration has like a dozen conflicts of interest in being the head of the USA. There should be laws against this.
2. The minutes after Bush is told America is under attack and after the second plane hit. He sits there reading with children while his aids stand around nervously. He sits there with a blank stare because nobody is there to tell him what he should do as the President of the United States. His expressions show him to be a clueless puppet.
3. Flying Bin Laden's family out. Moore shows us the logs of all the saudis flown out...on 9/13 which is two days after 9/11.
4. Using color codes to scare a nation and keep them scared. Announcing vague terrorism warnings to keep them scared.
5. There really was no real, coherent reason to go to war with Iraq. After Afghanistan it was all of a sudden we're going for Suddam. Iraqis had not killed a single American citizen or even done any terrorizing on the USA. Videos of them bombing a civilian town. Woman screaming that USA has caused them five family funerals. Children seen playing in an earlier scene now dead and disfigured. Iraqis being arrested for no reason while the women are scared to death. American soldiers dying in Iraq, getting burned, dragged behind trucks, hung on buildings.
6. All the corporate people getting together to figure out how to benefit financially from the war.
The people I saw it with all loved it and we are all moderate. Michael Moore may be an asshat, but his intention in this one is clear and the evidence is mostly footage of bush...and the footage speaks for itself. We don't need Moore's narration to help us find our own conclusions. Bush simply never should have been the most powerful individual in the world and to reelect him would mean thousands more lives lost for his financial gain...for no reason at all. I would recommend everyone to see it before making any comments or copy pasting from someone else.
I also agree that in making an argument you strengthen your case by providing counterarguments and countering those. However, this is a movie out to make a point, and there is no time for context of everything. It is a simple series of evidence for one reason which is to show what a bad president Bush is.
|
Norway28916 Posts
"Those surrounding me were literally the "Great Unwashed." They smelled as if they hadn’t taken a shower in weeks, not because they couldn’t afford running water, but because it’s cool to be dirty and nasty in the far-left. Not for any good reason, but just because they can. With their awful stench wafting universal, they want to make the rest of us as miserable and skanky as the Hate-America crowd."
what the fuck.
and you didn't even write that yourself, you copy pasted that part too, as you didn't see the movie.
WHY?
any credibility that "article" you copy pasted had was instantly lost when he wrote that paragraph. holy shit, I can't believe it.
not that it was credible in the first place, but.. that's just too much.
|
I don't usually take part of political discussions but maybe this time I'll point a detail out since I'm tired of seeing 3 "moore is an idiot" thread (that noone cares about...)
So here is a story about The Infidel and The Imbecile...
Once upon a time there was a king who lived in a white castle. A brave king who had fough many wars to protect the innocents.
He was fighting infidels far from his homeland when he was informed the his first son was borned. In all his mercy, he let his mortal ennemy live after his victory and returned home to raise a fine king.
Time passed but his son stayed the same. He couldn't learned any science or any history.
Popular he was, since his father in his old age had kept away his son from any publicity.
But then came the time his father died and the new king became no more than a puppet. An imbecile.
Numerous were those who loved him, as his power was a gift from god.
One man, an imbecile too, had the courage to defy the power of the all mighty. He spoke out loud the words everyone had been whispering.
In his own stupidity, he though that he was the only one to understand the truth and though he was the One, a son of god himself, that only him understood what was going on.
etc etc etc
And Micheal moore became full of himself and that became his weak point.
His distractor were mostly idiots but what they lacked in mental power, they compensated with a blind believe and a good organisation;
those who weren't smart (all of them exept one) just waited for the One-With-A-Brain to speak his word.
His word were sacred and the imbeciles spread them and it bringed light to their miserable geneticaly implemented politic sight.
This is not political actually. This is a warning about idiots. They are everywhere, they think because they can read, write, film...They have a special something.
For them the fact that part of what micheal moore says are lies, make it ok for bush to be an imbecile, since whatever he do wrong can be "logically" just a micheal moore lie.
|
United States12270 Posts
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
holy shit
i just skimmed this thread and chuckled a bunch
excalibur this was sad
|
On June 27 2004 01:31 RuGbUg wrote:
I still don't think moore is anything special because he can dig up any sort of argument. no shit, its fucking ridiculously easy to attack the united states. i'd call him a smart activist fella if he could argue the pro-side.
Is the point that Moore had argued for in "Dude", that the majority of America is liberal, a pro-side argument or is he attacking the country?
|
facts:
discussion is only possible without fanatics.
fanatics base their arguments on predjudices.
a real discussion needs to be based on people going away from their own opinion and argumenting with unbiased, neutral arguments.
"Sokrates: You have to go away as far as possible from your statement in all possible directions, only then you are capable to find the neutral conclusion which holds the truth."
analysis:
"lies of fahrenheit 9/11" is not a neutral thread topic, it shows by the used words that the creator of the topic has prejudices.
therefore and by the way we know his argumentation from previous topics he is just another fanatic.
conclusion:
a real discussion is impossible and not even wanted by the
thread-creator.
own opinion:
the only thing wanted by the thread-creator is provocation and implementation of his own propaganda, nothing else.
|
On June 26 2004 23:51 Eniram wrote:
I swear I'm becoming more and more democrat everyday
me too, i was a republican and so was most of my family.
even my grandfather from texas, so conservative, even a little racist i have to say is AGAINST bush
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
the text you copy pasted is really long and has no real content, you are being misguided
|
Norway28916 Posts
no really excal, that post crossed the "I'm a fucking idiot for posting this" line.
I see no point in responding to anything you say again, and I will try to never get provoked by anything you post so I can actually keep that promise.
|
On June 27 2004 10:05 ZorAptoR wrote:
facts: ...
first, Sokrates 
second, a little loop hole in your logic:
fanatics -> no discussion
fanatics -> predjudice
"lies of ..." -> predjudice
but predjudice /-> fanatics
therefore, "lies of ..." /-> no discussion
unless predjudice -> fanatics
just kidding.
|
own opinion:
the only thing wanted by the thread-creator is provocation and implementation of his own propaganda, nothing else.
You are a smart cookie 
It has been a fairly good amount of time now since we have been having this little "debates" . Excal has always been a fanatic, but over time he has pushed himself farther and farther into his hostile conservative corner. Excal has made no consessions and really doesn't seemed to have gained any insight into the issues we have discussed. I think it is clear that Excal's motives are not to discuss(you don't tell people you are discussing with they should be locked up for sedition) .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
