Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Fahrenheit 9/11
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101406] |
Wed, 14 July 2004 10:51   |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| ViperFUD |
First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events.
|
Grammar isn't that hard a concept to grasp (hell, even monkeys can understand it). You'll rarely ever see me make a grammatical error, and I'm only 16. Most people are just too lazy to care about the way they type on the internet. To me, it's just a few more keystrokes to type "you" instead of "u," so why not type out the whole word?
Oh, and the fact he's such a hardcore liberal should be enough evidence he's only fourteen. 
| SEAL |
Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out?!
|
Of course it did. Why the question mark?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101602] |
Thu, 15 July 2004 06:09 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
I don't know where Michael moore gets off saying the military is full of lower class people.
That is completely untrue. It is true that people who have no hope in ever getting job join the military but it is better than nothing. the Army is full of succesful people. There are hundreds of thousands of every day people who are in the national guard and reserves. Lawyers, doctors, buisiness men, and teachers. Every type of person is in the military. Not just lower class people.
My family is what i would call upper middle class. Both my parents spent well over two decades in the Army. We are not low class bums.
Michael moore is just some fat fuck.
It is terrible that I have to share the name Michael with him.
|
I wouldn't worry about his assesment of class structure in the military. He isn't exactly a veteran.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101786] |
Thu, 15 July 2004 19:01 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yes, of course I would admit that the Republicans like to give their buddies contracts, and the Democrats lie through their teeth. Big deal.
That's not the reason I am a conservative. I am a conservative because through all the muck and muddle, their GOALS agree with what I think the best direction for the country is. Through all the bullshit, I know the Republicans are going to do their best not to add more to my financial burdens as far as taxes are concerned. I know that the Democrats want to grow the government and take over more and more responsibilities above and beyond what the Constitution grants them the right to do, and use over 70% overhead in the process.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101815] |
Thu, 15 July 2004 21:28 |
 |
PointlessAmbler
Messages: 318
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Humans are complex creatures, capable of having constrasting (even contradicting) opinions about different things. Some people may agree with the "liberal" point of view on some issues and the "conservative" issue on others; in fact, most people function this way. Hence, what is the point of trying to slap labels on each other, when truly everyone defies this type of label? Even the most fervent politically "liberal" or "conservative" person will have some opinions that contradict the label.
I say this because the majority of the political discussions here have been filled with people tossing these names around at each other, when it accomplishes nothing.
Red Alert: A Path Beyond Manual Writer
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101912] |
Fri, 16 July 2004 06:59 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Oh, and the fact he's such a hardcore liberal should be enough evidence he's only fourteen.
|
Um...WTF? I think you must be tragically mistaking me with someone else, for I do not exactly consider myself an incredibly hardcore liberal. Also, I don't think my political viewpoint will switch around in two years. Political viewpoints switching as they changing refers to people under 30 generally being more liberal than their later selves, not a gigantic switch between 14 and 16.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103002] |
Tue, 20 July 2004 17:53 |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Just to be partially irrelevant, Newsweek misspelled "fahrenheit."
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103012] |
Tue, 20 July 2004 18:50 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head."
Winston Churchill
|
When Winston Churchill said that, he wasn't referring to being a Democrat at 20, and then being a Neocon at 40. The kind of conservative he was referring to back then was more like a Barney Frank liberal, not the bunch we have today.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103070] |
Wed, 21 July 2004 07:58 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Did he personally tell you that?
|
He didn't have to. Back when he was around, there was no such thing as the neocon we have today. In fact, they didn't really exist at all before the 1950's and only really came in to the spotlight with Nixon, where they discovered that many people without opinions can be easily swayed if they are fed false opinions through sources such as FOX News over and over again.
| Nodbugger |
And can you admit this.
If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar?
|
Nice punctuation. When the U.S. goes to war, they need a big majority to do it. Basically, everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, and all congressmen should be able to trust the President to provide valid information, instead of construed bullshit, like intelligence from OTHER COUNTRIES while OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103071] |
Wed, 21 July 2004 08:21 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Nodbugger |
If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar?
|
everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war?
|
You just made Nod buggers case for him.
Kerry and Bush were using the same information to make the decision to go to war.
And just because popular opinion says "Go to war!" that does NOT mean one should go against his conscience. Unless of course you are John Kerry, and you need that plausible deniability to make the case for ignorance.
Basically it's this:
1. Kerry flip flopped on a critical issue and you think that was ok because he was under popular pressure to do so. By not voting his conscience, he defines himself as a weak popularist.
2. Kerry is being a hypocritical SOB by telling the nation that Bush is a warmongering liar because he led us to war. After all, he used that SAME INFORMATION to base his judgement to go to war in his very own words.
Either way my friend, there are SERIOUS accountability issues here.
My personal opinion: President Bush is standing firm. That makes him accountable, and credible. He made a decision based on information from sources he deemed credible, and acted.
John Kerry is a flip flopping popularist who sways with public opinion, and is accountable to no one. Had he been president, we would still be debating the popular choice, and Al Quaeda would have a bunch of terrorists still alive, with a country under thier influence, and a sympathetic dictatorial anti-US leader with the capabilty to make WMD'S in thier court.
This has been a difficult course to follow. Bush told us it would be. No one seemed to have believed that war had been declared by attacked American soil. Do you beleive now? Do you think the lives of 3000 plus Americans are accounted for now?
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103230] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 05:46 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar?
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war?
|
| KIRBY098 |
You just made Nod buggers case for him.
|
Kriby, come on. Read the posts well.
Bush knew what the truth was, and acted on false information. Thus, he lied.
Kerry didn't know what the truth was, and acted on false information. He did not lie.
However, he flipflops like a fish outta water. He lacks discipline.
Vote Arnold 2004.
ps.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
where they discovered that many people without opinions can be easily swayed if they are fed false opinions through sources such as FOX News over and over again.
|
Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ...
Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"?
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103231] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 05:51 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"?
I don't know about you, but I don't second guess expert sources of information, unless I have reason to suspect them.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103247] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:20 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| KIRBY098 |
This has been a difficult course to follow. Bush told us it would be. No one seemed to have believed that war had been declared by attacked American soil. Do you beleive now? Do you think the lives of 3000 plus Americans are accounted for now?
|
Actually, I seem to remember Bush telling everyone that the war was over a looooooong time ago... almost before any Americans had even died. (I believe his exact words were "Mission Accomplished" or something like that.)
Also, no, I don't think we can account for American lives by butchering a bunch of Muslims in the Middle East.
And it may be true that if Bush hadn't done anything, Al Quaeda would still basically have control of a country and have WMDs at their disposal, are we really any better? Almost on a whim, we just waltzed into Iraq and butchered hundreds of people, toppled their government, and imprisoned their leader. Al Quaeda *might* have destroyed a country. We DID destroy a country.
In my personal opinion, a pre-emptive strike is NEVER justifiable. That's like saying you could just go up to someone on the street and kill him and then say "well, he was probably going to hurt me someday."
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103248] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:22 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose.
What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it?
And don't say oil.
|
Maybe a religious crusade?
Also, I don't really care if he lied or not. He's such a complete moron that I don't even see how that's relevant. He's such a retard that it kinda makes me ashamed to be an American.
....Kerry vs. Bush? ...... just one more reason that I don't vote....
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103251] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:29 |
mahkra
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
If France does hate the U.S., it's only because the U.S. hated France first.
|
Y'know what seriously cracks me up? Back when France disagreeing with the US was just starting to be a hot issue, I kept seeing patriotic pictures of the Statue of Liberty all over the place.
If those were supposed to make people more firm in their beliefs that the US was right and France was wrong, that's just ridiculous.
(For those who may not know, I say this because the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.)
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103252] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:31 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| KIRBY098 |
I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"?
|
The Bush administration was putting intense amounts of pressure on the CIA to pin Iraq for various bad things.
| ViperFUD |
Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ...
Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"?
|
CNN isn't exactly liberal media...They used to be sort of in the middle, but now they are taking the FOX course of action. Everything they run now is just bullshit. I was watching their show recently, and they couldn't stop re-running Bush's new campaign commercial, and didn't touch on Kerry's at all. That's not unbiased news. Then, when they brought in some "experts" to talk about Kerry picking Edwards as his running mate, They brought in some guy from the Democratic party, and only asked him questions such as, "How will this hurt John Kerry?" and, "How bad is Edwards for John Kerry?" Then, they brought in some guy from the Republican party for apparently no reason at all except to agree with Edwards being a bad running mate. That's not unbiased.
| Nodbugger |
What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose.
What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it?
And don't say oil.
|
Well, it's not WMDs, pretending it's a humanitarian issue is stupid, as we do not invade countries for humanitarian issues...I'm going to go with Saudi Arabia. They've used the Carlyle group basically as a tool to give the Bushs 1.4 billion dollars. And now, they want more control in the Middle East. So George W.
Tool is going to get that done for them. And please, I knew about this before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103253] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:36 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| mahkra |
....Kerry vs. Bush? ...... just one more reason that I don't vote....
|
I fail to see how you feel it's justified that you can complain without exercising this basic democratic right.
If you feel this strongly support a candidate that promotes your ideals. Even if you don't think he can win.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #103254] |
Thu, 22 July 2004 07:37 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| KIRBY098 |
I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"?
|
The Bush administration was putting intense amounts of pressure on the CIA to pin Iraq for various bad things.
| ViperFUD |
Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ...
Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"?
|
CNN isn't exactly liberal media...They used to be sort of in the middle, but now they are taking the FOX course of action. Everything they run now is just bullshit. I was watching their show recently, and they couldn't stop re-running Bush's new campaign commercial, and didn't touch on Kerry's at all. That's not unbiased news. Then, when they brought in some "experts" to talk about Kerry picking Edwards as his running mate, They brought in some guy from the Democratic party, and only asked him questions such as, "How will this hurt John Kerry?" and, "How bad is Edwards for John Kerry?" Then, they brought in some guy from the Republican party for apparently no reason at all except to agree with Edwards being a bad running mate. That's not unbiased.
| Nodbugger |
What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose.
What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it?
And don't say oil.
|
Well, it's not WMDs, pretending it's a humanitarian issue is stupid, as we do not invade countries for humanitarian issues...I'm going to go with Saudi Arabia. They've used the Carlyle group basically as a tool to give the Bushs 1.4 billion dollars. And now, they want more control in the Middle East. So George W.
Tool is going to get that done for them. And please, I knew about this before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.
|
All kinds of conspiracy theory there.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 16:28:47 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01171 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
