newbie

This thread is so circular and stupid I think it should be locked.

I agree but the majority rules, 37 say yes and 33 say no. Case closed time to move on.

yeah but you dont find the united states to be acting in an evil way?

Why no I don't, do you?

but his facts were checked and they were all valid' date=' accurate facts. we all have lied in the past. he didn't lie in this film.

 

newbie, don't post if you don't have anything to support your blind statements.[/quote'] Excuse me you need to check yourself, I have supported my statements and shown yours to be flawed. I don't have anything else to tell you. You need to stop posting to me now.

I haven't seen anyone respond to the criticisms of Moore put forth yet. Moore is a documented liar [as in intentionally presenting a false statement as truth (a concept which is apparently beyond his comprehension, judging by his appearance with O'Reilly at the DNC)']. I don't know how universal the support for Moore by the left is, but I am somewhat disheartened by the amount of apparent support he receives from armchair liberals. When I walked out of the theater (sporting my blatantly republican shirt ), I was horrified at how many democrats thought God had just handed down the 10 commandments.

Well maybe you will have more luck, I am growing tired of all 4 of them. I am always the one who doesn't listen or the troll. Its sad but they are the ones that don't get it not me. Oh well time to let it go, after all I'm just the American what do I know right?

Some of the threads concerning Gay marriage got me thinking about this topic.

 

I support gay marriage and can easily distinguish this from polygomy' date=' bestiality, etc.

 

What about two heterosexual men(women) who want to be married? Is a profession of love a requirement for marriage? Monogomy?

 

What's your opinion?[/quote'] I think Lucid made a strong argument against the heterosexual samesex marriages. The love in marriage though. I think at first it seems hard to deny that marriage is about love, but if you look deep enough we see love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do. If marriage were about love then imagine all the people in the history of the world who thought they were married when they were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it. If love were the reason for marriage there would be no "“for better or for worse” promises. Vows don't sustain love they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.

 

Oh well, just my opinion; good thread John. Never thought about that before, got me thinking.

A. Mr Bush.

Iraq had little to do with Afghanistan' date=' at least from a terrorfying perspective.

[/quote'] You are doing this again, I was not nor was Moore referring to Iraq in that statement, don't twist it around and use it for yourself.

 

If an American goes overseas and conducts a terrorist operation should America as a whole be repremanded? This was the reasoning behind Moore's intial statement. Fahrenheit criticiezes the fact the special operations forces didn't enter the area where bin laden was suspected of hiding until two months after the start of official operations (the time when they acknowledge the slaughter from afar has begun)...more than plenty of time for him to escape' date=' which is more than questionable seeing as he was the apparent objective. So the idiot is still Bush.

[/quote'] Notice the word If , since we know that is not the case your objection is invalid. But if it was then yes we would be reprimanded. Where is the punishment? Why haven't any other country stepped in? Why does the well respected Kofi Annan still support what we are doing overseas? Well I don't have to say it because it is a common fact.

 

You are my friend. Not everything is black and white. If your country was invaded by an oppressive power(the motivation behind the oppression may well be in your long term best interest' date=' but even in this rose colored take on the whole situation, America is still the oppressive power) would you not take up arms? Saying that people have a right to fight for their land, a right to defend/avenge themselves against an aggressor is different from supporting terrorism. Much different.

[/quote']

Taking up arms is one thing, killing everyone who disagrees with you is another. They kill all foreigners and their own people that’s not taking up arms or stopping an oppressive or invading country that’s terrorism.

 

They are not defending anything they are murdering their own people and ours, not including all the other foreigners who are trying to help Iraq become a better place just to get decapitated or bombed. No matter what the intentions; your logic is flawed.

 

Oh my God !! You acctualy think that the Americans are being slaughtered in Iraq. If anything they are the ones doing all the slaughtering. I don't know how Mr.Bush can sleep at night' date=' having the blood of so many people on his hands.

[/quote'] Hmm, notice how you only noted the death of some Americans as meaningless and in disbelief even though that was not all that was said. Since to me that doesn't look good for your character I will just leave the rest of your post alone.

Fear controls people. In the middle ages people were made to fear god via the church. In an ever increasingly materialistic society the govt. has assumed control and is relishing in the ease with which they can control the level of fear.

 

I get scared sometimes too' date=' when i think about how G. W. Bush can rule the richest nation in the world in such dangerous times. What scares me even more though is those who blindly support him. Those who don't see him for what he is, a dim-wit, an idiot and an out an out failure of a president. I understand the need to support the president in time's of war, those patriotic feeling rushing though the veins of its citerzens. But open your eyes, don't belive the lies and assess; what Mr Bushes motivation/inspiration is, and look starkly at his achievements, if you can see any overwhelmingly positive things that W. has achieved in his life please post them here.

 

I said it before but I'll say it again, if it wasn't for the commercial media's lack of objectivity then an emotive film like Moore's wouldn't be needed. Have Moore critics watched any of his earlier work? He plays the role of a social conscience, with a tounge in cheek approach designed to entertain while informing. I think he does a good job and for those of you who wish to label him a liar, well there isn't too much point in trying to convince you otherwise but I will say this:> If you applied the same level of critical analysis to what you watch everyday, to what this president tells you, I'm sure you'll begin to see where Moore is coming from...[/quote'] Hopefully when I am done you will see the fallacy of Moore. Going back to 2002 at the Telluride Film Festival 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. I am not sure how or why-- since we knew as much as we did 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. Who's the 'dim-wit' now?

 

 

 

A few days after September 11th, Moore states that no military action should be taken against Afghanistan, " Declare war? War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed." Although Moore opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner. Who's the 'idiot' now?

 

 

 

Moore supports terrorists, Moore says "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win" about the forces who are killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian rule on Iraq. He is entilted to his opinion even if wrong but he is still being dishonest in Fahrenheit when he pronounces his concern for American troops, he is cheering for the forces which are killing our troops, as he equates the killers with freedom-fighters. And if you think that the people who are slaughtering American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are terrorists rather than "minutemen," then it is true that Moore supports terrorists. Who's the failure now?

 

 

 

That is just some of the crazyness of Michael Moore, To believe anything that this man says and actually take it seriously one needs a hard look at themselves. Like I said before Moore's movie was just that, a 'movie'.

......

FYI budullewraagh and Phi for All, that does support my statement.

Sorry' date=' Newbie. I suggest you go see the film again. Moore never asserted that anybody left on 9/11. There is documentation all over the internet that supports Moore's claim that the bin Laden family and other influential Saudi families were flown to evacuation points to facilitate their exit from the country due to [u']anti-Middle East sentiments[/u] at the time. Only Saudi's were extended this privelege. Moore asked the question, "At who's expense?" because it is still not clear who paid for their exodus. Certainly the initial roundup could have been paid for by the US taxpayers through the FBI, though the Saudis probably arranged for their own flights home.

 

They were questioned cursorily by the FBI (their were a lot of them--the bin Laden family is huge), but all were released TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY a few days later. If someone from your family had been responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center towers do you think the FBI would have let you off so easily? Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said the Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations". According to many eye-witness sources, our government seemed much more interested in protecting the Saudis than in finding out their connections to Osama bin Laden.

 

I'd like to move on to another point that really bothers me. I have always had what I consider a pure American work ethic. Perhaps I've overdone it on occasion, but I dislike the very thought of slackers taking advantage of their employers and giving less than top job performance. George W. Bush, by 9/11/01, had already taken more vacation time than any US president in history. He had just gotten back from the longest single presidential vacation in history when this country suffered it's greatest terrorist attack. I would LOVE to hear someone defend Bush on this point.

No im sorry I have seen the film, I actually have it. The Saudi's did not leave the country until September 14th. That is when flights were resumed. There is nothing else to say. Even the 911 report confirms it. So not matter what you three say you are wrong, believe all you want from your internet sources.

no i don't because it is the truth. moore did not say the bin ladens left on 9/11. he said they left before the airports were opened.

 

and yet you look to get the last word.

 

they felt deceived.

The concept you are not getting is that Moore presented that the Saudi's left on 9/11' date=' but when in reality they left with everyone else on the [u']14th[/u] and not before. Because you do not believe that doesn't change that to be fact. Since you have not actually seen the film and rely totally on 'your sources' then please do not keep this going

nice try. i read everything. don't pretend to be innocent.

 

you just proved nothing in that post. you stated your opinion and did not justify it. i requested for you to justify it. you failed to do so. you wrote a response that stated nothing. that is hypocritical. i'd even call it spam.

on the contrary' date=' a horde of people checked his facts before the film was released and it turns out that he had them all correct. cite your source, please.

[/quote']

Please you really need to give it up. I will do this one more time, but really I am getting bored.

 

In your 'fact full' film, Moore trys to make you believe that the Saudi's flew out of the country on 9/11. He was misleading since they did not leave until all flights resumed on the 14th-like everyone else. Please do not try to dispute that without watching the film over again. You are telling everyone to 'cite' their source when clearly you are ignoring it. Just to stop this right here and now the film shows the Saudi's did not leave until AFTER September 13! There did you get that? That clear enough for you? I don't care how many "hordes of people" do not belief, the film speaks for itself.

 

PS. I did end this conversation but you keep it going by repling to me when I have not directed a comment to you. (see post #77)

 

pulkit[/b]]

Do you discredit even the interviews with the US soldiers ?

Or the statements of some of the Iraqi people that were shown ?

I don't see how that could have been edited to suit Moore's opinion.

You know what, your right I apologize. I stand corrected, I certainly cannot discredit the soldiers ot the Iraqi people, but they did not help Moore's opinion at all. The Soldiers did not say anything bad about Bush though.

.....

 

If you think I tried to insult you then you need to read more, you have not given anything to this discussion, only bogus beliefs. My source as you asked for is the movie it self, you make your agruments as if the film tells you all your 'facts'. My point is you are wrong, I told you I would not give you the fact because it is not mine to give, you only need to watch the film again. Pay careful attention to the dates shown on the flights, its just that simple.

Then why aren't they allowed to marry? If you recognize a gay couple as equals to a straight couple' date=' then what is it that makes them unable to be married?

[/quote'] Question isn't why aren't they allowed to marry, question is why should they be? Think about that for a bit, what is gained from them geting married? They really do have all those rights i mentioned in my last post.

 

It is the general attitude conveyed by homophobic types. And you also quote me out of context' date=' remember the part about "by the people, for the people"? If a person is gay, and is a member of the united states, he should have equal rights and respect as any other member of this country.

[/quote'] I already mentioned that homosexuals are not being deined any rights

 

is simply not true. If it were' date=' I don't think you'd have people fighting for the rights to have these things. Also, while the above things you mentioned may be true, they are disciminated against in almost every aspect of life.

[/quote'] But it is true, you can look it up for yourself.

 

 

Mar 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself' date=' that house cannot stand.

 

This is often used these days to keep members of one denomination to wed members of others. While this may not be the original intention, this is indeed what it used for quite often.

 

Also, and don't make me cite the examples, many times in the bible non-believers and homosexuals are mentioned seemingly in the same breath, each have been described as abominations. My point, is that if we as a country should outlaw homosexual marriages due to god finding such unions to be an abomination, so should we outlaw cross denominational marriages, especially if one of the members is a non-believer, as the bible tells us about divided houses, and non-believers being evil.

[/quote'] I really should have deleted that part, I’m sorry. But that quote is way out of context and does not imply that. But you are aware of that already.

 

 

 

 

Newbi would have you believe that their rights are not being trampled on' date=' because gay Americans are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, as are heterosexual people.

 

And of course that isn't a sick mockery of the principles behind marriage, hell no sireeee.

 

[/quote'] Since this is a vague remark to my post, that is your opinion after all. But it is not a mockery of anything.

it is a fact. if you consider the president not taking action to defend his country to be insignificant i highly question your support of your country.

[/Quote] Bush has defended the country so you have no argument.

 

so you don't agree with the video footage taken at the time? sorry' date=' but those eyes of yours show you things you don't want to see sometimes; it happens.

[/Quote'] What Moore tried to portray in that footage do I believe in? I certainly do not; since you apparently do maybe you could tell us how Bush could have proceeded? Give us an example of what you would have done.

 

care to cite a source or two?

[/Quote] You want my source? Please don't tell me you don't know? C’mon you have been posting redundant messages here and this is the last straw. Really we should not continue this conversation. Since you don't know maybe you should watch the movie yourself, BECAUSE THAT IS THE SOURCE! You have to pay attention to the movie but Moore did not lie about the flights, but he was very deceitful in the presentation though, you have to watch and listen carefully. So please do yourself a favor and watch the movie. If you watched it before please do it again, this time pay attention. I will not point it out for you either.

ok' date=' let me take a random example. do you not believe that bush sat around for 7 minutes or so after hearing of the attacks on new york? if you believe this is fact, you are contradicting yourself. if you believe this is fiction, you disagree with a great number of researchers, and more importantly, unedited video footage (not from moore's film but from the live coverage).

[/quote'] Wow, your 'fact' even if it was such a thing is insignificant, I do not agree that that is 'fact' but there is some truth to it. That is not all he did and that is not all that Moore tried to present as 'fact'.

 

 

 

also' date=' could you give some examples of moore "placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A (....)."?

 

 

[/quote'] This one is easy, Moore gives the distinct impression in the film that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to when clearly that is false, they were allowed to leave when everyone else was and not a minute sooner.

that's left open to one's opinion. it isn't fact.

not if they aren't allowed to marry. if they aren't allowed to marry' date='.....

[/quote'] Why do you believe that? I dropped the dribble you had in that sentence and kept the only substance there.

If thats what you think then there is little I can do to change your opinion......but I must still query; if you think America is not the cause then what/who is ?

 

Did you acctualy believe all that was presented in Farenheit 911 were facts or do you wish to challenge them as well ?

Gee' date=' this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before...oh yeah, here:

[i']"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either."

--Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, in defense of anti-miscegenation laws.[/i]

Homosexual couples are wanting to be recognized as equal citizens in a country that is supposed to be "by the people' date=' for the people."

[/quote'] They are recognized as equal citizens, they just believe that is not the case.

 

 

None can show me a definition of the word people that excludes certain groups of humans due to their sexual orientation' date=' just as the word cannot exclude members of certain races, or religions.

[/quote'] No one said they were not human either.

 

Our government is supposed to be neutral to religous beliefs. This includes the belief the majority of our countries people cherish. Therefore' date=' there is no good reason why homosexual couples cannot be legally married, even if a particular religion does not accept it as so. The only reasons anti-gay marriage people can give you can be traced to the bible. Such responses as "Marriage is defined as being between man and woman" Sure, because we borrowed the biblical definition of marriage. However, when things like taxes and benefits got tossed into the mix, the government had to take on responsibility of issuing marriage licenses.

 

To this day, if you are married by a preacher who is not licensed by the government to do so, you are not legally married, although you may be according to your belief system. The government has taken the step to create what we call "Legal marriage" and as such, being a government institution, should also be neutral to religous beliefs, thereby not excluding any man or women, or any combination of.[/font']

To your credit you have a point, since two homosexuals decide to spend the rest of their life together it would be nice for them to have some rights as married couples. I just want to point out that they do have rights; gay couples can already do everything married people do; express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. Homosexuals not being able to wed lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

 

I mean' date=' the bible also tells us "A house divided cannot stand". Could this be interpreted to disallow people of differing religous beliefs to be married? I'm about to do just this, as I am a non-religous, whilest my wife-to-be is a methodist. Should someone do something about this, since the bible cleary states our marriage will not work? Should this be illegal, since, according to the majority of peoples beliefs, will do nothing but waste our time and perhaps bring children into the world under a bad relationship? Also, since I'm just as evil in God's eyes as the homosex, shouldn't this be outlawed?

 

Bible does not say that at all. Clearly as you said yourself you are not religious. Since we established that why would we go this route when it doesn't prove your point? Never mind you don't have to respond to that.

Homosexuals are not being denied rights, and I don't see how they are being denied the freedom to love who they want to. Homosexuals can marry and get all the privileges and benefits of state sanctioned matrimony, they just cannot marry someone of the same sex. Those are rights and restrictions that all citizens share equally. Might not be what some want but its legitimate nonetheless.

Newbie, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? If so, what was your opinion of it?

I will give a short answer, I thought it was a funny movie.

apparently you didn't read my post. you repeated a great deal of your last post in this post. try again.

Post #70

I also believe there is no exaggeration of the innocents lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, my point was that America was not the cause though.

come now' date=' you certainly understand what i was saying.

 

no, i took a thought and replied to it.

 

ah, but not effectively. i'll take this quote from the article:

"Meanwhile, on the Iraqi government’s own Web site, the number of under-5 deaths from all causes for the month of September was listed as 2,932."

nearing 3000 children [b']under age 5[/b]. you just tell me that there weren't 1500 children above or equal to age 5 killed. also, let us remember that you stated that you highly doubted casualties were in the thousands. hmm, there's 2,932 kids younger than 5 who were killed by sanctions in one month alone.

 

 

apparently we have different views of this system. you see, when i have things to say to specific people, i use private messaging.

 

sure will. you see, the casualties in vietnam put the casualties in iraq into perspective. you said that you doubted thousands of innocent iraqis were killed. i proved that millions were killed but also wanted to post other figures that made my figures seem more accurate. you see, if one performs an experiment and obtains results, those results are not considered as accurate as the average from a series of experiments. the same thing works here; if it is true that millions of innocents were killed in vietnam, it is easier to realize that millions of innocents were killed in iraq.

Pulkit was referring to the wars, not sanctions; but I played along with your game nonetheless. Let’s clear this up shall we? In your webpage you provided I read:

“The sanctions, first imposed in 1990 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, are administered by the U.N., not the U.S.”

Seems to support my position, lets take another look. If we look right after the quote you put in your last post we have this:

“Arriving at a reliable raw number of dead people is hard enough; assigning responsibility for the ongoing tragedy borders on the purely speculative. Competing factors include sanctions, drought, hospital policy, breast-feeding education, Saddam Hussein’s government, depressed oil prices, the Iraqi economy’s almost total dependence on oil exports and food imports, destruction from the Iran-Iraq and Persian Gulf wars, differences in conditions between the autonomous north and the Saddam-controlled south, and a dozen other variables difficult to measure without direct independent access to the country.”

And lastly we have this one:

“The idea that sanctions in Iraq have killed half a million children (or 1 million, or 1.5 million, depending on the hysteria of the source) took root in 1995 and 1996, on the basis of two transparently flawed studies, one inexplicable doubling of the studies’ statistics, and a non-denial on 60 Minutes.”

You can’t use any of that to support your arguments; you claim that America did all those atrocities when that clearly is not the case.

hmm' date=' sounds like another country we all know and love...

sad thing is that the united states supported iraq with chemical weapons during that time...

hmm, sounds like another country we all know and love...

[/quote']

 

You are not forming nor disputing any arguments here, is it good that you have an opinion but don’t try to push it on others without at least having a shred proof.

 

yeah but that doens't negate the atrocities that were committed.

 

You take a couple words of my post and give a sentence back. Really' date=' try harder next time.

 

 

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

I only needed to read the first ‘source’. Clearly it defends my position.

 

your post was to everybody. i am somebody.

 

Actually it was too pulkit' date=' but I don’t mind talking to you.

 

it's not off-topic but apparently you don't realize the connections i made.

 

Maybe you could try and tell me why?

under saddam hussein' date=' 5,000 kurds were killed in 1995. that is the only mass killing he has ever committed. sure, he killed more people, but no more than 30,000 people i would estimate. as for the afghan government, i cannot think of a mass killing they have participated in. they probably killed a few people, but not many.

[/quote']

 

Hmm, ok lets start from the first mistake Saddam Hussein, he ruled from around 1980-2003, he was characterized by brutal suppression of internal opposition and led Iraq into two devastating wars which I will only mention one; the Iraq-Iran war which killed hundreds of thousands. Moving along now to Afghanistan we have the Taliban regime, which over a course of a civil war led to hundreds of thousands of deaths not including the children in orphanages that were abandoned upon the Taliban coming to power.

 

 

meanwhile' date=' the united states and britain are responsible for the 500,000 children alone (millions if you count adults) who were killed by economic sanctions and coalition bombings between the two gulf wars (source: the united nations). also, in the second gulf war, after the initial bombings of baghdad, 35,000 people were found dead. this count was done only a few days after and so countless buried under the rubble were not counted.

[/quote']

 

I will not dispute that sanctions was a flawed policy but at the time the United Nations as a whole, that means all nations in it agreed and thought that the sanctions posed a innovative, benign and non-violent deterrent. We come to realize that that was not always the case and took the appropriate measures. As far as your vague source is concerned please show me a link of the millions of dead from the sanctions, please make sure it does not include the innocents that perished because of Saddam exploiting the sanctions and keeping the money for himself and using it for his own needs and not of his people.

 

 

also' date=' let us not forget that 4 million vietnamese were killed during vietnam. the united states lost 58,000 soldiers to satisfy mccarthy's blood lust. the tradeoff is 69 vietnamese per american killed. the united states wasn't that poorly outnumbered. i would say that the united states killed millions of innocents in vietnam and millions in iraq.

[/quote']

 

Whoa, my post wasn’t even too you but I decided to reply to you anyways and you go off topic and bring in Vietnam? Tell you what, if you want to continue that please start another thread.

Yes the documentary was very nice.

 

Finally American press that does not glorify war' date=' and accepts that the US did kill thousands of innocent ppl in Iraq and Afghanistan. I loved it coz I alwayz thot of Mr.George W.Bush as a blood thirsty war-monger(this part is definately hereditary) with little or no brains.

 

And just as a foot note, while the carnage in Iraq was on, there was still free press left in this world (mostly not in USA) which showed the real fate of the Iraqi civilians.[/quote']

 

Greetings, it's been awhile. I have skimmed through the thread in the past few days and just seemed like I didn't leave, I came across this post and I felt compelled to reply.

 

I don't see how the American press glorifies war!? It would be foolish for anyone to claim in all wars fought that innocent people have not been killed. What irked me in your post is your erroneous claim that America has killed thousands of innocent people. I am not disputing that innocents have not been lost, but I draw the line when you say thousands.

 

How many innocents have Iraq and Afghanistan governments killed? Add to that those they have killed using more innocents as shields when big bad America comes after them.