Slap MessageBoards
General Discussion => WHATEVER => Topic started by: DrNewton on July 20, 2007, 08:52:48 AM
-
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups."
This guy's stuff is the definition of propoganda. His film are always deceptive, (he even goes as far as switching up newpaper quotes, using out of context footage, and lying to the people he interviews), and he does this to push his agenda. I'm not even sure he genuinely believes half the crap he says. How could one person be 100% left wing? Probably to sell millions of dollars worth of junk politics. Don't believe that?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
If you want to be left wing, fine. Even 100%. That is usually a good sign that you've failed to put any thought into whatever political philosophy you have, and just read talking points from the DNC's website, but okay. Atleast quote someonne reputable. It's better to take a less extreme position and be truthful, than to take the most extreme position possible and lie about it fifty-nine (or more) times in a two hour period.
-
I enjoy having a crispy corndog and ice cold lemonade on sunny afternoons.
-
IBTFVP
(fuckingvegan post)
-
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w98/CalNaughtonJr/masteroftheobvious.jpg)
I've waited so long to re-post this.
-
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w98/CalNaughtonJr/masteroftheobvious.jpg)
I've waited so long to re-post this.
Obvious? Not to all of the members of this forum.
michale mmore wrote a book called stupid white men i think the men in that book are the "whitey" antwauns tat is reffering to. you cant possibly think hes racsist yet skateboarding as a career on teams with plenty of white folks on them.
Expand Quote
You are such a gullible piece of shit. Yeah, Moore wrote him a silly little $12,000 check, but what do you think that film is going to gross? Moore has swindled the public out of something like $200,000,000 now, with his OUTRIGHT LIES IN EVERY FUCKING SEGMENT.
Name some of those lies?
Feel free to take your stupid graphic and get the fuck out of my thread.
-
I heard Sicko was downloadable for free, but I didn't see it on his site. Anybody got a link?
-
^
http://www.plentyofvids.com/player.php?link=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2526970685450320610&hl=en-CA&pagetitle=Sicko
-
Propaganda isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on how much of the content involved in it is true or not... skateboard ads are propaganda to a degree (especially if the company is firmly branded), as are any forms of media you ingest that have some sort of opinion attached to them (or at least try to form yours).
Hell, even documentaries are propaganda... and I'm not referring to Michael Moore's work either, I'm talking about films that noone would doubt deserve the title of documentary. Example: if you ever find yourself watching a documentary on the mating rituals of the common garden mole, ask yourself when you ever gave a shit about moles before watching the show. The documentary itself is propaganda that has the sole purpose of making you interested in an animal that you might not otherwise ever think about.
I haven't seen Moore's latest film, but I've seen all his stuff going back to his old TV show (TV Nation). I think he includes some documentary-style approaches in bits, but he takes an active role in his films that make him a participant rather than an observer/narrator. He's an observer/activist/narrating commentator.
On one hand, I can accept the fact that his work could be viewed as propaganda, but I tend to look at his work more as an opinion-editorial type of coverage. He allows his world view to shape his films, and he states his opinions without apology.
One other thing I might add is that his work isn't shoved in anyone's face... people have to proactively pay to see his movies (or download them if they want to). So even if you think it's propaganda at its worst, you still have to accept that it's free market propaganda that people choose to consume (versus something like White House propaganda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html) that's tax payer funded).
I do think Moore does serious political commentary, especially considering that politics are subjective and conditional.
-
your assuming that because something is propoganda means that it's not a valid point which is not the case
by your definition, any political message is propganda and in my opinion the weakest kind of political propoganda is the kind that has it's basis in semantics, like your argument. if you think that his arguments are weak, then why not attack those arguments instead of stating the obvious and hoping that a negative connotation can do the work for you (essentiallly name calling). unless your only hoping to get your message across to jr. high students you should instead explain how tight the insurance system is in american and why it isn't unjust, how tight coporations are and how fairly they treat their employees and all then explain all the valid justifications for the war in iraq and how tight bush is. that might actually be interesting if you could pull it off. hell you could probably even make a movie that people would watch if you could do that, but i guess then it would be propogand and no longer valid...
-
Propaganda isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on how much of the content involved in it is true or not... skateboard ads are propaganda to a degree (especially if the company is firmly branded), as are any forms of media you ingest that have some sort of opinion attached to them (or at least try to form yours).
Hell, even documentaries are propaganda... and I'm not referring to Michael Moore's work either, I'm talking about films that noone would doubt deserve the title of documentary. Example: if you ever find yourself watching a documentary on the mating rituals of the common garden mole, ask yourself when you ever gave a shit about moles before watching the show. The documentary itself is propaganda that has the sole purpose of making you interested in an animal that you might not otherwise ever think about.
I haven't seen Moore's latest film, but I've seen all his stuff going back to his old TV show (TV Nation). I think he includes some documentary-style approaches in bits, but he takes an active role in his films that make him a participant rather than an observer/narrator. He's an observer/activist/narrating commentator.
On one hand, I can accept the fact that his work could be viewed as propaganda, but I tend to look at his work more as an opinion-editorial type of coverage. He allows his world view to shape his films, and he states his opinions without apology.
One other thing I might add is that his work isn't shoved in anyone's face... people have to proactively pay to see his movies (or download them if they want to). So even if you think it's propaganda at its worst, you still have to accept that it's free market propaganda that people choose to consume (versus something like White House propaganda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html) that's tax payer funded).
I do think Moore does serious political commentary, especially considering that politics are subjective and conditional.
The point is that he lies to support his claims.
If I said "Bill Clinton rapes children" would you take that seriously?
Moore pretty much does the same thing, but the public that chooses to consume his garbage turns a blind eye.
-
Well like Sleazy said, it depends on the point being discussed, and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated, he tends to cover a shitload of subtopics in his films... so if he were to say:
A: Republicans eat newborn puppies
B: The Earth is round
C: George Bush is a man working for peace
...I'd probably take issue with point C, as A and B are demonstratively true.
-
your assuming that because something is propoganda means that it's not a valid point which is not the case
by your definition, any political message is propganda and in my opinion the weakest kind of political propoganda is the kind that has it's basis in semantics, like your argument. if you think that his arguments are weak, then why not attack those arguments instead of stating the obvious and hoping that a negative connotation can do the work for you (essentiallly name calling). unless your only hoping to get your message across to jr. high students you should instead explain how tight the insurance system is in american and why it isn't unjust, how tight coporations are and how fairly they treat their employees and all then explain all the valid justifications for the war in iraq and how tight bush is. that might actually be interesting if you could pull it off. hell you could probably even make a movie that people would watch if you could do that, but i guess then it would be propogand and no longer valid...
Correction: I am saying the propoganda is no longer valid when it contains deception/lies.
It is propoganda, as opposed to well thought out, impatial political commentary. He basically takes the most left position possible, tells a few lies about it, adds in some humor, and puts it out as a film. People then see this and believe it.
-
and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,
Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all?
-
impartial political commentary
That in and of itself is nearly impossible to find, and I don't mean in the Fox news or Air America sort of way. Just a reporter's understanding of what politics (as a whole) is affects that way they present policies or political events. There may be a few news outlets that just do play-by-play narrations on the happenings in DC, but by and large, there's always some partiality to political coverage, even if that partiality is something as simple as the journalist's understanding of the process. Just sayin'.
-
Expand Quote
and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,
Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all?
The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on is the assumption that propaganda is a bad thing by default. I'm not making any claims to the validity of anything that Moore has said.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
and though I'm not clear (or just informed) on any flat-out lie that Moore has perpetuated,
Wait, you disagree with me, even though you don't know anything about the topic at all?
Alright. I'll clear this up for you all.
1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.
3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
-
1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
Most political commentary is full of partiality, bias, and opinion. That's what commentary is... it's an explanation, an analysis, and in many cases a spin on a certain political view. I don't know where you get that it doesn't "require thought" though. Even if you think every word that Moore says is a lie, it still wouldn't make sense to say that it's not actual thought. Opening a beer requires thought.
2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.
I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, propaganda in and of itself is a neutral term... because something is proaganda does not immediately make it villainous (I'm not making a claim on Sicko either way as I haven't seen it or researched where his lies might be).
3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
Again, how you can say that Moore isn't engaging in actual thought doesn't make any sense to me... and again, political commentary is subjective as hell. I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest liars in the world, but I don't deny that he makes serious political commentary.
On agendas: agendas, like propaganda, are not inherently bad. Like the mole-mating documentary example I illustrated earlier... documentaries have an agenda, even if it's something as simple as making the viewer gain interest in moles.
On being impartial: he's not a news reporter, nor is he a news journalist. To my knowledge, he's never claimed to be anything more than a film maker. He's free to be an opinionist, and he's free to use film to express his opinion. If he were an anchorman or a government official, I'd use that impartial/agenda argument against him, but that's not who or what he is.
-
1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
i completely disagree with this definition.
why don't you put some specifics on the table so this argument could move from semantics to politics.
what is it specifically about moores message that you take issue with.
i definitely prefer his style of political attacks to yours at this point as at least he puts some logic and substance behind it.
so put something up and i'm sure people would be happy to debate with you on the issue
-
Expand Quote
1. Propogranda is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
Expand Quote
2. Michael Moore's films are propoganda.
Expand Quote
3. Michael Moore's stuff is not serious political commentary because it is not actual thought -- it pushes an agenda and is not impartial.
On agendas: agendas, like propaganda, are not inherently bad. Like the mole-mating documentary example I illustrated earlier... documentaries have an agenda, even if it's something as simple as making the viewer gain interest in moles.
On being impartial: he's not a news reporter, nor is he a news journalist. To my knowledge, he's never claimed to be anything more than a film maker. He's free to be an opinionist, and he's free to use film to express his opinion. If he were an anchorman or a government official, I'd use that impartial/agenda argument against him, but that's not who or what he is.
When I look at an issue, I just to think about it from all sides. Take gay marriage:
Conservative side: human race will die
Liberal side: gay rights
Then whatever other factors....
Then, I think. "Hmmm.... not many people are gay. Plus gays would be gay without marriage..."
After a little more thought, I end up with the belief that the government should have no say in whom or what a person decides to marry.
That's what I mean by thought.
If Michael Moore followed a similar process, his position would not be left on every single issue. And since he does not reasonably come to positions using facts, I do not take anything he says seriously.
-
You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?
-
You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?
No, it's normal to tend to be left or right, or whatever.
But when you are on one side or the other, completely, every single time, you don't think. You are just following that side.
-
Do you know that Moore is on the left of every single issue, or just the ones he makes movies about?
-
You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?
grim, i really like youre new avatar!
-
Expand Quote
You're saying that some people that come to the left on most (if not all) issues don't think?
grim, i really like youre new avatar!
Covaaaaaahs baby, covaaaaaahs!
-
Any issue he is vocal on he is also left on. That is my only frame of reference, but, given the broad frame of reference that I do have, it is safe to assume he is left on every issue.
-
so what political commentary do you look to when your looking for the real deal?
-
Take gay marriage:
Conservative side: human race will die
Liberal side: gay rights
Then whatever other factors....
Then, I think. "Hmmm.... not many people are gay. Plus gays would be gay without marriage..."
After a little more thought, I end up with the belief that the government should have no say in whom or what a person decides to marry.
That's what I mean by thought.
so your definition of thought, is to look at existing opinions and find the one that fits best for you? interesting, that's not how i would define independent thought...
if you think in terms of liberal or conservative, then you are not an independent thinker.
-
Any commentary that reasonably goes with a side, using real facts, and is not always one side or the other.
If you can be deceptive, lie, and take any position no matter how ridiculous, then nothing is invalid.
-
Documentaries can had a slant to them and attempt to change people's opinion. Anyway you're an idiot if you think there is anyone who goes to a michael moore movie and expects to see a completely unbiased picture which is not going to attempt to influence the way they see issues.
-
then nothing is invalid.
so if everything is valid, then why are you against it?
grammer pwn aside, can you talk to specifics? what are the lies that you are so worked up about. the research i did, on conservative sites, about his movie about the war pointed to some exagurations with the coalition of the willing and things like that. is that what's got you all hyped up?
-
Expand Quote
Take gay marriage:
Conservative side: human race will die
Liberal side: gay rights
Then whatever other factors....
Then, I think. "Hmmm.... not many people are gay. Plus gays would be gay without marriage..."
After a little more thought, I end up with the belief that the government should have no say in whom or what a person decides to marry.
That's what I mean by thought.
so your definition of thought, is to look at existing opinions and find the one that fits best for you? interesting, that's not how i would define independent thought...
if you think in terms of liberal or conservative, then you are not an independent thinker.
Oh my God, did you expect me to break down every single aspect of the gay marriage debate in one post? Are you fucking regular? That was obviously just a basic idea, and I even included "and other factors" just so you would not post something so ridiculous. I saw it coming.
-
whether you realize it or not, your thinking is confined to american politics. as you just stated in your post outlining your thought process. you start with the conservative point a view, look to the liberal side and then see if they missed anything that needs your attention you think about that.
it's not exactly thinking for yourself.
what would you do if you moved to england? you'd have a lot of catching up to do on their political systems before you could even make an opinion.
if you were really concerned about independence and objectivity, you'd look at the issue independent of political rhetoric and focus on your principals, ideals and of course logic.
but there is non of that in your description.
and name calling doesn't make your points any stronger, BUT ALL CAPS MIGHT. MAYBE TRY THAT NEXT...
-
so what political commentary do you look to when your looking for the real deal?
This is a really good question that I'd like to hear you answer in specifics... I mean yeah, "any commentary" that fits your criteria sounds fine, but who/what are you watching that fits into what you approve of?
...keeping in mind that Moore isn't a newsman or a journalist, of course.
-
It was a very, very, basic idea of how I come to my positions.
I take all relevent knowlege, I cancel things out, and weigh things together.
Let's say I only know these things about gay marriage. I know more. It's okay, this is just an example.
I know these two things:
1. Gays do not reproduce, and this could lead to human extinction if noone ever reproduced.
2. A minority of people are gay
3. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry freely
Then I throw in my own personal bias:
1. People should have equal rights
2. Extinction is bad
So then I come to these conclusions:
1. Only a minority of people are gay, so extinction will probably not happen.
2. Heterosexuals are able to marry freely, and the only thing different with gays is possible extinction
3. The possible extinction is probably not going to happen, so gay should be able to marry
From an American prospective, some of these things fall into the category of 'liberal,' some into the category of 'conservative,' and some into the category of 'cultural.'
That would work just as well in England as it would here. Try again, dumbass.
-
Aside from the question that Sleazy asked, I just wanted to point out that gay folks will never be extinct, since straight people actually produce them.
-
Aside from the question that Sleazy asked, I just wanted to point out that gay folks will never be extinct, since straight people actually produce them.
I was talking about the human population. One argument against gay marriage is that people would go extinct because gays would marry, since gays do not reproduce. I don't understand this logic, and please notice that I "cancelled this out" in my little diagram on thought.
I don't like to watch political commentary, or read it. I like to read Ron Paul's columns. He doesn't lie, and often takes different sides. Bill O'Reilly is good.
-
1. Gays do not reproduce, and this could lead to human extinction if noone ever reproduced.
right, you might want to refine your process a bit.
the problem here is that your starting with rhetoric and working your way towards your opinion. and by assuming your starting with rhetoric, i am flattering you here.
my question is, why start with rhetoric? why not just think for yourself? i serious don't get it.
-
Expand Quote
1. Gays do not reproduce, and this could lead to human extinction if noone ever reproduced.
right, you might want to refine your process a bit.
the problem here is that your starting with rhetoric and working your way towards your opinion. and by assuming your starting with rhetoric, i am flattering you here.
my question is, why start with rhetoric? why not just think for yourself? i serious don't get it.
I don't understand what you mean? How about a diagram of how you came/ are coming to your position on gay marriage? Try to make it as similar to mine as you possibly can.
-
Bill O'Reilly is good.
oh lord
why is it that all the conservative talk show guys use asshole sarcasm? it's so weird to me. you see people like John Stewart and Micheal Moore, who are actually funny with their sarcasm but then all the conservative guys are sarcastic in the unfunny dickhead kind of way. it's like when cops are sarcastic, it's not meant to be funny and entertaining, just to be a dickhead about it.
they really need to put someone on that can be a little less dickish and a little more funny when being sarcastic about the opposing opinions.
-
oh lord
why is it that all the conservative talk show guys use asshole sarcasm? it's so weird to me. you see people like John Stewart and Micheal Moore, who are actually funny with their sarcasm but then all the conservative guys are sarcastic in the unfunny dickhead kind of way. it's like when cops are sarcastic, it's not meant to be funny and entertaining, just to be a dickhead about it.
they really need to put someone on that can be a little less dickish and a little more funny when being sarcastic about the opposing opinions.
O'Reilly cracks me up.
But conservative talk show guy? You think in those terms bro? Wow. Try taking that to Europe.
-
I don't understand what you mean? How about a diagram of how you came/ are coming to your position on gay marriage? Try to make it as similar to mine as you possibly can.
real simple
i don't think peoples sex lives are anyone elses business as long as the participants are of legal age (which i think is too high) and willing. i could care less who or what someone fucks. i don't need to study all the political stances to know that, it just makes sense to me.
as far a legality goes, it just make sense that all couples should have the same legal benifts (tax, medical access, etc...). and anything else would be, well, kind of gay...
it's also very obvious to me that if you go on anti gay rights rants on TV now you will look like those rascist assholes from the 60s look to us these days to future generations. honestly, after the real world, there's just no turning back for us on this. it's no longer an underground culture and there's no hiding from "all men are created equal". and legally the same logic that got us out of the racial stone ages will also get us past this bs.
i definitely didn't spend anytime considering what O'Riely or anyone else thinks about it, because i can think for myself and it's just not necessary. i spent more time debating with other students\teachers in college about politics, ethics, etc... when i was still figuring myself out than i did watching political commentary shows. i actually never really watched any of that shit till recently. so i couldn't have used your technique even if i wanted too.
-
Expand Quote
oh lord
why is it that all the conservative talk show guys use asshole sarcasm? it's so weird to me. you see people like John Stewart and Micheal Moore, who are actually funny with their sarcasm but then all the conservative guys are sarcastic in the unfunny dickhead kind of way. it's like when cops are sarcastic, it's not meant to be funny and entertaining, just to be a dickhead about it.
they really need to put someone on that can be a little less dickish and a little more funny when being sarcastic about the opposing opinions.
O'Reilly cracks me up.
But conservative talk show guy? You think in those terms bro? Wow. Try taking that to Europe.
[youtube=425,350]nLYCINj82cg[/youtube]
i thought he was funny here when he gets all creepy with Miss NJ
"could the word sanchez be used to describe it?"
-
Expand Quote
I don't understand what you mean? How about a diagram of how you came/ are coming to your position on gay marriage? Try to make it as similar to mine as you possibly can.
real simple
i don't think peoples sex lives are anyone elses business as long as the participants are of legal age (which i think is too high) and willing. i could care less who or what someone fucks. i don't need to study all the political stances to know that, it just makes sense to me.
as far a legality goes, it just make sense that all couples should have the same legal benifts (tax, medical access, etc...). and anything else would be, well, kind of gay...
it's also very obvious to me that if you go on anti gay rights rants on TV now you will look like those rascist assholes from the 60s look to us these days to future generations. honestly, after the real world, there's just no turning back for us on this. it's no longer an underground culture and there's no hiding from "all men are created equal". and legally the same logic that got us out of the racial stone ages will also get us past this bs.
i definitely didn't spend anytime considering what O'Riely or anyone else thinks about it, because i can think for myself and it's just not necessary. i spent more time debating with other students\teachers in college about politics, ethics, etc... when i was still figuring myself out than i did watching political commentary shows. i actually never really watched any of that shit till recently. so i couldn't have used your technique even if i wanted too.
HA! So you know everything, Sleazy? That is exactly how Moore comes to most of his conclusions as well.
You have just admitted that you do not even acknowledge any opinion or idea that is not your own originally. You just have everything already decided. That's as close minded as you could possibly be. I am assuming you know these because that hilarious John Stewart told you it was so.
Ann Coulter is not serious political commentary either. Do you agree with that? Why?
-
i spent more time debating with other students\teachers in college about politics, ethics, etc... when i was still figuring myself out than i did watching political commentary shows.
you must have missed that line
these type of exchanges are the types that helped me get my positions air tight and if you had ever brought up a specific issue we may have gotten something accoplished here. but honestly, every since i've gotten out of college, these conversations have lost their fun because it just seems that people become dogmatic about their stances.
i'd say that everything on Fox is extremely politically slanted, it doesn't seem like serious news media to me. i prefer NPR for my news and i'll hit a little CNN too. i do watch FOX from time to time, but more for the same reason that I watch this asshole from time to time.
[youtube=425,350]di9-PebV634[/youtube]
just because i'm curious about how people can get behind it, not because i take it seriously.
if you actually cared to debate the war or coporate greed, i'd love to do that but you seem more interested in dissing Moore on character than ideology.
-
Expand Quote
i spent more time debating with other students\teachers in college about politics, ethics, etc... when i was still figuring myself out than i did watching political commentary shows.
you must have missed that line
these type of exchanges are the types that helped me get my positions air tight and if you had ever brought up a specific issue we may have gotten something accoplished here. but honestly, every since i've gotten out of college, these conversations have lost their fun because it just seems that people become dogmatic about their stances.
i'd say that everything on Fox is extremely politically slanted, it doesn't seem like serious news media to me. i prefer NPR for my news and i'll hit a little CNN too. i do watch FOX from time to time, but more for the same reason that I watch this asshole from time to time.
[youtube=425,350]di9-PebV634[/youtube]
just because i'm curious about how people can get behind it, not because i take it seriously.
if you actually cared to debate the war or coporate greed, i'd love to do that but you seem more interested in dissing Moore on character than ideology.
The whole purpose of this thread was to point out that Michael Moore is not a serious politcal commentator. I don't think I've even disagreed with one of his positions in this thread. How do you know I'm not a socialist?
1. Take a stab, and guess my political philosophy.
2. Tell me why you do or don't think Ann Coulter is a serious political commentator.
-
1. Take a stab, and guess my political philosophy.
2. Tell me why you do or don't think Ann Coulter is a serious political commentator.
1. i have no idea
2. she lost me when she did this book
(http://botd.freethought.net/wp-includes/images/postimages/Ann_coulter_book6_cover_parody_topless.jpg)
-
Expand Quote
1. Take a stab, and guess my political philosophy.
2. Tell me why you do or don't think Ann Coulter is a serious political commentator.
1. i have no idea
2. she lost me when she did this book
(http://botd.freethought.net/wp-includes/images/postimages/Ann_coulter_book6_cover_parody_topless.jpg)
Nice response.
I wasn't expecting anyone serious to disagree with my original thesis anyways.
Guy who posted the "Master of the Obvious" graphic earlier, don't worry. I thought it was obvious as well.
-
1. Take a stab, and guess my political philosophy.
If you don't think Bill O'Reilly is guilty of everything you've charged Michael Moore with being, then I'd venture to guess that you're a modern day Republican that calls himself a Libertarian.
2. Tell me why you do or don't think Ann Coulter is a serious political commentator.
I think Ms. Coulter is batshit crazy, supports a worldview that could best be described as "evil," and is probably the most hateful person allowed frequent guest appearances on cable news, but I think she's a serious political commentator because she says some serious (though regular) political comments that a great number of people adhere to. Her books climb to the top of the NYT's bestsellers lists, and she's a multimillionare because of the people that buy her stuff and pay for her political commentary (Universities, GOP-branched organization meetings, etc). She's a serious political commentator as long as she doesn't reveal that she's actually joking about the shit she says.
Even if she's just playing the role of a waterhead with rabies, she's a serious political commentator because she plays a significant role in the political discourse of the country.
-
ok then the real reason is that everything i have seen of her's is litered with us Vs them, conservative Vs liberal speach. she comes off as being more obessesed with beating the liberals than getting to the best solution for everyone.
-
If you don't think Bill O'Reilly is guilty of everything you've charged Michael Moore with being, then I'd venture to guess that you're a modern day Republican that calls himself a Libertarian.
...though I need more data.
-
Expand Quote
1. Take a stab, and guess my political philosophy.
I'll change my mind about him if you post some deceptions on O'Reilly's show. I just saw it a couple of times, thought it was funny, saw him take some non-conservative positions, etc. I havn't seen or heard of any long lists of lies he's told. I think he's had a few factual errors, maybe? But for a guy that does radio for hours, and then another hour of television everyday so long, a mistake or two is to be expected.
Expand Quote
2. Tell me why you do or don't think Ann Coulter is a serious political commentator.
Even if she's just playing the role of a waterhead with rabies, she's a serious political commentator because she plays a significant role in the political discourse of the country.
[/quote]
Well the answer is no, she isn't either.
-
Expand Quote
If you don't think Bill O'Reilly is guilty of everything you've charged Michael Moore with being, then I'd venture to guess that you're a modern day Republican that calls himself a Libertarian.
What? Now you just assume he's as stupid as Moore, just because he leans to the right? .... The right has it's share of terrible people too, but O'Reilly is not one as far as I know.
-
O'Reilly bothers me more on steez than anything else
so you never elaborated on your beef with Moore, make this interesting and throw up some of the lies
-
ok then the real reason is that everything i have seen of her's is litered with us Vs them, conservative Vs liberal speach. she comes off as being more obessesed with beating the liberals than getting to the best solution for everyone.
Well is she a serious political commentator or not? Please stop posting stock internet humor and get to the point. If you need me to, I can find some positions she's taken.
-
O'Reilly bothers me more on steez than anything else
so you never elaborated on your beef with Moore, make this interesting and throw up some of the lies
Well, I don't really disagree with his idealogy alot. The truth is, the war in Iraq is a mistake, and poor people do need health care. I think we should just give poor people something similar Medicaid by taxing the health care industry a little more on those that can pay, and not go full on Socialist, but okay.
Take a look at that first link in my original post for fifty-nine of the lies though.
How is my 'beef' with Moore relevent to my initial claims?
-
What? Now you just assume he's as stupid as Moore, just because he leans to the right?
Fuck no, there are plenty of conservative intellectuals out there that are worth listening to... but O'Reilly's a partisan, self fellating, sensationalist, factless hack. He thinks there are thousands of women in DC that are part of violent lesbian gangs, he thinks it's in some way OK to compare Daily Kos with fucking Nazis, and he's a hypocrite to boot (he likes to tow the "traditionalist" family values party line when criticizing rap artists, but he writes fiction full of blow jobs, crack fueled sex, and whores), he told people that his old Entertainment News show won a Peabody when he worked there, when in fact it wasn't a Peabody, nor was he employed there when the award was given. Let's not forget how his "boycott against France" supposedly cut into France's economy (according to the French Business Review, as cited by Bill himself), when in fact not only had consumer exports gone up in France that year, but the "French Business Review" was a publication that didn't even fucking exist.
His being on the right has nothing to do with my assumption, his lack of insight and goosestepping adherence to the neoconservative propaganda that his entire news service is permeated with leads me to that mindset.
Also, let's not forget one crucial thing: O'Reilly calls himself a journalist. Something that Moore does not.
But to be fair, O'Reilly, as much of a bloviating shitbag as he is, is a serious political commentator.
-
Well is she a serious political commentator or not? Please stop posting stock internet humor and get to the point. If you need me to, I can find some positions she's taken.
She thinks we should invade all Muslim countries and convert their populations to Christianity. That alone should be enough.
-
Expand Quote
What? Now you just assume he's as stupid as Moore, just because he leans to the right?
His being on the right has nothing to do with my assumption, his lack of insight and goosestepping adherence to the neoconservative propaganda that his entire news service is permeated with leads me to that mindset.
Also, let's not forget one crucial thing: O'Reilly calls himself a journalist. Something that Moore does not.
But to be fair, O'Reilly, as much of a bloviating shitbag as he is, is a serious political commentator.
journalist-someone who writes news reports for newspapers, radio, TV etc. Also know as a correspondent or reporter
Are you saying that a journalist is not supposed to be biased or what? Because if not, then what you are saying isn't relevent. A person can be a journalist and a commentator at the same time.
I'm not familiar with most of that, and sources would be nice, but I know he admitted the Peabody thing was a factual error. I also said there probably were a few. He does a radio show and a one hour program every weekday, and has for years. Have you never made a mistake at work?
-
Expand Quote
Well is she a serious political commentator or not? Please stop posting stock internet humor and get to the point. If you need me to, I can find some positions she's taken.
Enough to what? I didn't endorse her at all. I'm asking, since she is as far right as Moore is left, if she is a serious political commentator? Sleazy is torn, because as much as he wants to say no because she is so far to the right, that would destroy every single argument he has made in this thread. You said she was, and I of course said she wasn't.
EDIT: Oh yeah, Sleazy did say no, because she only says liberal vs. conservative things. But my offer still stands. If you need help finding Coulter positions, Sleazy, I'll dig them up for you.
-
There's a difference between journalism and editorializing.
There should be one bias in journalism... and that bias should solely be relaying data that you've collected (right or wrong), and reporting about it. Also, journalism asd an entity should firmly be questioning the establishment since journalism itself is the "fourth estate," making journalism our check and balance against and for the government (as compared to the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches that perform their own internal checks and balances when operating correctly).
Editorializing is fine if that's what you do, but it shows a lack of journalistic integrity to imply that you're nothing more than a news man, when in fact, you just get the news from real reporters and offer opinions about it.
-
Enough to what? I didn't endorse her at all.
Enough to guage what kind of commentator she is. The one little bit I posted pretty much means she's a Christian Fascist, in the full-on theocratic sense. She's also a devout McCarthyist, adding to her fascist flavor.
I'm asking, since she is as far right as Moore is left,
Moore is DEFINITELY on the left... further left than me, even, but he is in no way painted into the corner that Coulter is. Have you ever read her work?
if she is a serious political commentator? Sleazy is torn, because as much as he wants to say no because she is so far to the right, that would destroy every single argument he has made in this thread. You said she was, and I of course said she wasn't.
She makes political commentary, and she presents herself as serious. What else do you need to create a "serious political commentator?"
She's seriously fucked in the head, but that doesn't mean she's something other than a serious political commentator.
-
There's a difference between journalism and editorializing.
There should be one bias in journalism... and that bias should solely be relaying data that you've collected (right or wrong), and reporting about it. Also, journalism asd an entity should firmly be questioning the establishment since journalism itself is the "fourth estate," making journalism our check and balance against and for the government (as compared to the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches that perform their own internal checks and balances when operating correctly).
Editorializing is fine if that's what you do, but it shows a lack of journalistic integrity to imply that you're nothing more than a news man, when in fact, you just get the news from real reporters and offer opinions about it.
So you think O'Reilly is supposed to act as a news anchor or reporter? Have you watched his show? He acts as a news source to some people; he gives little bits of news, followed by his opinons on those news stories, and then interviews people. He does editorialize. That is what he does.
-
So you think O'Reilly is supposed to act as a news anchor or reporter? Have you watched his show? He acts as a news source to some people; he gives little bits of news, followed by his opinons on those news stories, and then interviews people. He does editorialize. That is what he does.
I don't care how he acts, but he does a disservice to people when he calls himself a journalist. Journalism isn't just being on the news reciting things that people hand you. He's an editorial speaker, nothing more. Just like Katie Couric, but with much more opining.
-
Expand Quote
Enough to what? I didn't endorse her at all.
Expand Quote
I'm asking, since she is as far right as Moore is left,
Expand Quote
if she is a serious political commentator? Sleazy is torn, because as much as he wants to say no because she is so far to the right, that would destroy every single argument he has made in this thread. You said she was, and I of course said she wasn't.
She's seriously fucked in the head, but that doesn't mean she's something other than a serious political commentator.
Moore is even worse, he lies to support his claims. Fifty-nine in two hours, and that wasn't all of them.
What has Coulter "lied" about? A Dale Earnhardt mistake once in like, fifteen years of columns?
-
Moore is even worse, he lies to support his claims. Fifty-nine in two hours, and that wasn't all of them.
Like Sleazy said, post the lies and get the debate rolling. All of this is getting circular.
What has Coulter "lied" about? A Dale Earnhardt mistake once in like, fifteen years of columns?
If you're joking, good one. If you're not, I don't think it's possible for me to keep on with this thread. I'm not going to play teacher when there are plenty of resources you can use to investigate the validity of her claims and positions.
-
Expand Quote
So you think O'Reilly is supposed to act as a news anchor or reporter? Have you watched his show? He acts as a news source to some people; he gives little bits of news, followed by his opinons on those news stories, and then interviews people. He does editorialize. That is what he does.
His only journalism is when he reports on things the rest of the media ignores, for whatever reason. He only does this to offer opinion on the subject.
Editorial speaker, political commentator, whatever.... that is what he does. It's not a big secret.
William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949)[2] is an American political commentator, and the host of the cable news program The O'Reilly Factor.
Wikipedia broke the story.
-
Well I guess that settles everything.
-
Expand Quote
Moore is even worse, he lies to support his claims. Fifty-nine in two hours, and that wasn't all of them.
Expand Quote
What has Coulter "lied" about? A Dale Earnhardt mistake once in like, fifteen years of columns?
Her record is great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Alleged_factual_inaccuracies
Disagree all you want, but let's see some actual factual inaccuracies that arn't completely trivial.
-
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Since it's so difficult for you to click to page one, there are some of the lies from one of Moore's films. I know of more.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Moore is even worse, he lies to support his claims. Fifty-nine in two hours, and that wasn't all of them.
Expand Quote
What has Coulter "lied" about? A Dale Earnhardt mistake once in like, fifteen years of columns?
Her record is great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Alleged_factual_inaccuracies
Disagree all you want, but let's see some actual factual inaccuracies that arn't completely trivial.
how did she get into this again?
and where are these lies of moores, you got me curious now post them up.
-
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Since it's so difficult for you to click to page one, there are some of the lies from one of Moore's films. I know of more.
I've read this entire thread and this is what I understand your position, and point of posting to be:
Michael Moore's political commentary is not thought out because his opinions are "left" sided, and all he does is make up lies to go along with these left sided opinions.
His films are very well thought out, if you ask me. Whether or not I agree with the topics, he is presenting a well researched opinion and backing it up with a large amount of facts. And just as much as somebody would be stupid for 100% listening to everything Moore says and not researching it, you would be just as stupid for looking at such a simple list that basically just says "this was a lie, this was a lie, this was a lie". I have seen little evidence that Moore is lying and its pretty well known that most of the things he says are true. I took an entire course last semester studying the "Holes in the 9/11 story" and although we didnt watch Moore's movie or even bring his name up, the facts he presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 were many of the same facts we studied all semester, facts that were true.
Again, I'm not saying I support this guy, but it just seems like you don't like his politics so you claim they are lies without much evidence to back that up.
-
to me it's political entertainment....naw..that's that dude with the piano....sometimes i think his shit is just porn.... feel good kinda shit....
-
Expand Quote
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Since it's so difficult for you to click to page one, there are some of the lies from one of Moore's films. I know of more.
I've read this entire thread and this is what I understand your position, and point of posting to be:
Michael Moore's political commentary is not thought out because his opinions are "left" sided, and all he does is make up lies to go along with these left sided opinions.
His films are very well thought out, if you ask me. Whether or not I agree with the topics, he is presenting a well researched opinion and backing it up with a large amount of facts. And just as much as somebody would be stupid for 100% listening to everything Moore says and not researching it, you would be just as stupid for looking at such a simple list that basically just says "this was a lie, this was a lie, this was a lie". I have seen little evidence that Moore is lying and its pretty well known that most of the things he says are true. I took an entire course last semester studying the "Holes in the 9/11 story" and although we didnt watch Moore's movie or even bring his name up, the facts he presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 were many of the same facts we studied all semester, facts that were true.
Again, I'm not saying I support this guy, but it just seems like you don't like his politics so you claim they are lies without much evidence to back that up.
Yeah, except a few posts back I stated that I agreed with Moore to an extent.
I'm attacking his character, not his positions.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Moore is even worse, he lies to support his claims. Fifty-nine in two hours, and that wasn't all of them.
Expand Quote
What has Coulter "lied" about? A Dale Earnhardt mistake once in like, fifteen years of columns?
Her record is great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Alleged_factual_inaccuracies
Disagree all you want, but let's see some actual factual inaccuracies that arn't completely trivial.
how did she get into this again?
and where are these lies of moores, you got me curious now post them up.
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Do you want me to quote this, or are you okay with clicking?
-
he doesnt fail to entertain me, and thats what i look for in a download.
-
Expand Quote
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Since it's so difficult for you to click to page one, there are some of the lies from one of Moore's films. I know of more.
well said and Dr. that link isn't working for me. Maybe something on my end but post them up if you can.
I've read this entire thread and this is what I understand your position, and point of posting to be:
Michael Moore's political commentary is not thought out because his opinions are "left" sided, and all he does is make up lies to go along with these left sided opinions.
His films are very well thought out, if you ask me. Whether or not I agree with the topics, he is presenting a well researched opinion and backing it up with a large amount of facts. And just as much as somebody would be stupid for 100% listening to everything Moore says and not researching it, you would be just as stupid for looking at such a simple list that basically just says "this was a lie, this was a lie, this was a lie". I have seen little evidence that Moore is lying and its pretty well known that most of the things he says are true. I took an entire course last semester studying the "Holes in the 9/11 story" and although we didnt watch Moore's movie or even bring his name up, the facts he presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 were many of the same facts we studied all semester, facts that were true.
Again, I'm not saying I support this guy, but it just seems like you don't like his politics so you claim they are lies without much evidence to back that up.
-
Well, if the link won't work for you, that's not my problem.
You are all honestly fucking idiots if you believe anything Michael Moore has to say. I'm really just at a loss for words. He is to politics what UFOs are to science.
Agree with his idealogy all you want, but would you cite that guy on a research paper?
-
So this isn't about that overweight weasel? Its about defining words and using your own definitions (opinions) as fact? Wanktastic!
And no I totally did not read any of this but the first 4 responses!
Here is a hard hitting question... Why is he so goddamn FAT?!??! And why doesn't he own the rights to his own documentaries?
Ann Coulter is a fucking doofus.
-
Coulter has sand in her vagina.
[youtube=425,350]ZgSBhlw-o9E[/youtube]
-
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
-
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Are those right-wing "secret prisons" similar to those created by Lenin, Stalin and Mao?
-
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Nice response, but I also said the same thing about Ann Coulter that I did about Michael Moore. If it helps, I also think the same about Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is actually from a wealthier suburb of Flint.
The OxyContin thing is pretty unfair though. He originally took it for back pain or something and wound up getting addicted to it. It wasn't his fault, and it's not like crack or something, where he just started out trying it or fun.
Maybe you did think, and end up being totally left-wing, but it's pretty suspect.
-
i have zero interest in reading through this post, but i just want to pose a question to dr. newton.
all facts and inaccuracies aside, do you think the idea of bringing awareness to such a huge issue is a bad idea?
if nothing more, at least this plants the seed for someone to contemplate how harshly theyre getting fucked when they send in their health insurance check each month.
it seems silly to have this personal little vendetta against the guy for trying to make your average "desperate housewives" viewer think about some actual issues in their mundane lives.
you seem to have lost focus of the actual issue due to your severe (and most likely warranted) hatred towards the man bringing that issue to light.
i really hate politics, so just a simple answer would do.
if you want.
-
i have zero interest in reading through this post, but i just want to pose a question to dr. newton.
all facts and inaccuracies aside, do you think the idea of bringing awareness to such a huge issue is a bad idea
Yes.
If someone supported my positions and lied to give them support, I would not be happy. Although it "brings awareness," once the lies are exposed, people lose trust in you and your cause.
-
I don't remember the details of the movie enough to talk about these "lies" in that context but let's talk about them just based on their content
2.
Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.
What is the lie here? Was Moore trying to make the point that Fox was the first network that retracted the mistake? I seriously doubt he would do that. So can you talk to the scandal that surrounds this point.
3.
A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.
my understanding is that there are still a lot of people who have opinions on both sides. my question to you Newton, is why is this .pdf document by some random guy with no other source the one that holds the answer?
also, if the real results were determined in a way that couldn't be dissputed (which it hasn't been here) then could you please explain to me how that makes the people who were wrong liers and not just mistaken? isn't it possible that people on both sides of this really believed in what they were doing? does that automatically make 1/2 of them have no integrity? if that is the case then what implication does that have for all the people who really believed their was a terrorist link to Iraq before the war. I always thought of those people more as idiots than liers but it would seem that you are suggesting that this kind of mistake is a lie that discredits anyone who had the wrong opinion.
4.
Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly
disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.
this one seems like a matter of opinion. it seems that some people could see it one way and others could see it another. even if the pollseters took an official stance on why they didn't allow people to vote, they could be lieing.
OK, so that is 3 out of 4 that even if the author was correct wouldn't make Moore a lier or discredit him in my book. I don't feel like digging through the rest off this .pdf document. I think it's safe to say at this point, that you have a different definition of lier than I do. If you got something more scandolous post it, otherwise we just simply disagree here and after looking at your source, I'm feeling pretty confident that your not holding a smoking gun and are just someone who doesn't care for Moore based more on Steez than anything else, same reason why I don't watch ORiely...
-
Expand Quote
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Are those right-wing "secret prisons" similar to those created by Lenin, Stalin and Mao?
Fascism comes in many different forms and it is up to the people to be ever vigilant and fight it in its many forms.
-
Expand Quote
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Nice response, but I also said the same thing about Ann Coulter that I did about Michael Moore. If it helps, I also think the same about Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is actually from a wealthier suburb of Flint.
The OxyContin thing is pretty unfair though. He originally took it for back pain or something and wound up getting addicted to it. It wasn't his fault, and it's not like crack or something, where he just started out trying it or fun.
Maybe you did think, and end up being totally left-wing, but it's pretty suspect.
So Rush doesn't want to afford people the same second chances for the same "mistakes" as he made? He is on record for saying drug addicts should be but in jail for life, why is he different? Because it is prescription drugs?
And the thing about Micheal Moore is he does bring up good points, he was the first person to talk about the Walter Reed scandal, was called a liar by the many haters like you and yet proved right. I would say he is right more times then he is wrong, he is just an easy target.
-
And ever non-biased study has shown that Gore not Bush won Florida, and I also site if we are for the people by the people then why is Bush in office? Remember there is no way you right wing people can cover up that thousands of more people voted for Gore, the Electoral college, Jeb Bush appointees and crooked courts cost Gore the election not voters.
-
it seems very convenient for people who are actually fans of oreily to attack character rather than what someone is saying. Dr. newton since you seem to believe bill oreily is such a great journalist who never lies let me help you out and show you some FACTS
I have yet to see a documentary that has NO mistakes but to outright call it a lie thats just fucked and your little pdf of all the "lies" of michael moore is no where near substantial enough to even say he's not serious political commentary ( which I dont think hes trying to be)
bill oreily is so FUCKING HONEST AND DOSENT USE ANY SMEAR TACTICS OR LIES
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060003
not only is he a white supremacists but he seriously has NO opinon and just goes with what the conservatives are doing
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705180007
mind you, this is the same guy who has bashed illegal immigration for ages
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270011
i'd call that a lie
I'd like to consider these TRUE political commentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&total=805&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7914117733846316477&q=iraq+for+sale&total=472&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
your problem Dr. Newton and Oreily and fox's problem is that everything you say or do is divided into the "us" "them" way of thought so of course since Michael moore isnt on your side your going to disagree and your friend oreily will disagree too and ann coulter is justa pice of shit PERIOD.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I have not read this whole thread nor do I plan on it, (got Harry Potter to read) but I always find it funny how you crackers from the South love to talk shit on Micheal Moore. If your viewpoint is so valid and worth talking about make your own fucking movies. Micheal Moore started out as a poor dude from working class Michigan and made something with his life. I will take a Micheal Moore over your hero Rush "oxy" Limbaugh.
And being 100% left doesn't mean that I didn't put any thought into my political believes, it just means that I am smart enough to know that "bi-partisan" is surrender, and I refuse to break bread with enemies who would just as soon throw me and people like me into secret prisons and forget about us forever. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Nice response, but I also said the same thing about Ann Coulter that I did about Michael Moore. If it helps, I also think the same about Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is actually from a wealthier suburb of Flint.
The OxyContin thing is pretty unfair though. He originally took it for back pain or something and wound up getting addicted to it. It wasn't his fault, and it's not like crack or something, where he just started out trying it or fun.
Maybe you did think, and end up being totally left-wing, but it's pretty suspect.
So Rush doesn't want to afford people the same second chances for the same "mistakes" as he made? He is on record for saying drug addicts should be but in jail for life, why is he different? Because it is prescription drugs?
And the thing about Micheal Moore is he does bring up good points, he was the first person to talk about the Walter Reed scandal, was called a liar by the many haters like you and yet proved right. I would say he is right more times then he is wrong, he is just an easy target.
Well, when a doctor gets you hooked, that's a little different from going out and smoking crack for fun. I don't agree that drug addicts should be put in jail at all, but he wasn't being hypocritical.
The guy is a scumbag. You look past all of the bullshit, and it's okay for him to lie/decieve because he "brings up good points," but Rush Limbaugh is a junkie for accidetally getting hooked on drugs a doctor prescribed him, Bill O'Reilly is a compulsive liar for messing up some stupid Peabody award facts, and Ann Coulter is the devil (but you don't know why, except that you disagree with her.)
-
I don't remember the details of the movie enough to talk about these "lies" in that context but let's talk about them just based on their content
Expand Quote
2.
Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.
What is the lie here? Was Moore trying to make the point that Fox was the first network that retracted the mistake? I seriously doubt he would do that. So can you talk to the scandal that surrounds this point.
Expand Quote
3.
A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.
also, if the real results were determined in a way that couldn't be dissputed (which it hasn't been here) then could you please explain to me how that makes the people who were wrong liers and not just mistaken? isn't it possible that people on both sides of this really believed in what they were doing? does that automatically make 1/2 of them have no integrity? if that is the case then what implication does that have for all the people who really believed their was a terrorist link to Iraq before the war. I always thought of those people more as idiots than liers but it would seem that you are suggesting that this kind of mistake is a lie that discredits anyone who had the wrong opinion.
Expand Quote
4.
Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly
disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.
this one seems like a matter of opinion. it seems that some people could see it one way and others could see it another. even if the pollseters took an official stance on why they didn't allow people to vote, they could be lieing.
OK, so that is 3 out of 4 that even if the author was correct wouldn't make Moore a lier or discredit him in my book. I don't feel like digging through the rest off this .pdf document. I think it's safe to say at this point, that you have a different definition of lier than I do. If you got something more scandolous post it, otherwise we just simply disagree here and after looking at your source, I'm feeling pretty confident that your not holding a smoking gun and are just someone who doesn't care for Moore based more on Steez than anything else, same reason why I don't watch ORiely...
You are just disagreeing with the facts in the .PDF file. A police investigation's conclusion is "just an opinion?" And the rest are just trivial? Please keep in mind that no matter how trivial the lies are, the author probably tried to include as many as possible. You gave four out of fifty-nine, and there are larger lists.
This isn't just some random .PDF. It's been cited in the media, was published, I assume peer-reviewed, etc.
-
Dr. Newton
Ann Coultier isn't the devil she is just another hate monger whose thinks because she is white, "good looking" (not my opinion but many white males) and rich that she is above everyone else and should be allowed to say whatever she wants and get away with it. Her and the rest of her ilk are going to be in for a surprise when the class war starts up, I look forward to see her and others like her swinging from the gallows for their crimes against humanity.
Rush Limbaugh didn't "accidentally" get addicted, he could of got help instead he had many Dr's writing him fake prescription and he went shopping for drugs from many Dr's he crossed a line and should be punished for it.
-
Dr. Newton
Ann Coultier isn't the devil she is just another hate monger whose thinks because she is white, "good looking" (not my opinion but many white males) and rich that she is above everyone else and should be allowed to say whatever she wants and get away with it. Her and the rest of her ilk are going to be in for a surprise when the class war starts up, I look forward to see her and others like her swinging from the gallows for their crimes against humanity.
Rush Limbaugh didn't "accidentally" get addicted, he could of got help instead he had many Dr's writing him fake prescription and he went shopping for drugs from many Dr's he crossed a line and should be punished for it.
Moore is also ugly, fat, rich, and white.
HAHAHAHAHA. Class war? HAHAHAHA. Americans are too ignorant for that shit. The poor don't even realize how much the rich have. Until people start starving in the streets, the closest thing to class warfare we will ever have is people shoplifting from Wal-Mart.
He did get accidentally addicted. His doctor prescribed it, while it was legally prescribed his body became addicted to it, and afterwards he did what he had to do to get the pills. Personally, I feel that he should be able to ingest whatever he wants, but alot of the time these types of offenders arn't prosecuted anyways. They just put them into treatment and shit like that.
-
Expand Quote
Dr. Newton
Ann Coultier isn't the devil she is just another hate monger whose thinks because she is white, "good looking" (not my opinion but many white males) and rich that she is above everyone else and should be allowed to say whatever she wants and get away with it. Her and the rest of her ilk are going to be in for a surprise when the class war starts up, I look forward to see her and others like her swinging from the gallows for their crimes against humanity.
Rush Limbaugh didn't "accidentally" get addicted, he could of got help instead he had many Dr's writing him fake prescription and he went shopping for drugs from many Dr's he crossed a line and should be punished for it.
Until people start starving in the streets, the closest thing to class warfare we will ever have is people shoplifting from Wal-Mart.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/images/050901-katrina2-l.jpg)
(http://www.nerdylorrin.net/jerry/Katrina/photos/Katrina-NewOrleansSuperdomeSat3Sept-MoreTrash+StillWaiting2BEvacd-Reuters-ShannonStapleton.jpg)
thats just new orleans, i mean how can you honestly say that have you ever been to the "bad side" of your city
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dr. Newton
Ann Coultier isn't the devil she is just another hate monger whose thinks because she is white, "good looking" (not my opinion but many white males) and rich that she is above everyone else and should be allowed to say whatever she wants and get away with it. Her and the rest of her ilk are going to be in for a surprise when the class war starts up, I look forward to see her and others like her swinging from the gallows for their crimes against humanity.
Rush Limbaugh didn't "accidentally" get addicted, he could of got help instead he had many Dr's writing him fake prescription and he went shopping for drugs from many Dr's he crossed a line and should be punished for it.
Until people start starving in the streets, the closest thing to class warfare we will ever have is people shoplifting from Wal-Mart.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/images/050901-katrina2-l.jpg)
(http://www.nerdylorrin.net/jerry/Katrina/photos/Katrina-NewOrleansSuperdomeSat3Sept-MoreTrash+StillWaiting2BEvacd-Reuters-ShannonStapleton.jpg)
thats just new orleans, i mean how can you honestly say that have you ever been to the "bad side" of your city
You shut your damned mouth. I've got little cousins living in that "bad side of my city" right now. It's violent down there, and the circumstances are sad, but with all of the crack sales, prostitutes, violence, etc. that goes on, there isn't any of this:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1060000/images/_1064978_starving300.jpg)
What there is is ignorance. Very few of the families place much of an emphasis on education, and the kids grow up turning to drugs and shit like that. They don't know how rich the rich actually are, and they could never effectively orgranize and stage a class war.
-
(http://botd.freethought.net/wp-includes/images/postimages/Ann_coulter_book6_cover_parody_topless.jpg)
-
And how the fuck are post-Hurricane Katrina pictures relevent?
(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofnature/interactive/resources/large_img/floyd_04.jpg)
This is "just North Carolina" But I don't usually need a boat to get around.
But your just trying to get me to debate you on Hurricane Katrina.
So here is my position: The FEMA response was so bad because it was turned into a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, instead of staying an independent entity. Thanks, federal government.
-
(http://botd.freethought.net/wp-includes/images/postimages/Ann_coulter_book6_cover_parody_topless.jpg)
Two pages later and that image is still not funny.
-
When I pull off a girl's top, I don't really expect to laugh. As a left winger Canadian, I find boobs erotic and enjoy them sexually, but never... "funny".
I'm sure you can understand that the nipples are at the end of the mound, so it's not "ironic" or anything.
-
Yo Dr. Newton
When people are presented with the same set of facts, they can come up with different conclusions.
That is because people draw conclusions about FACTS based on their personal OPINIONS.
-
Expand Quote
I don't remember the details of the movie enough to talk about these "lies" in that context but let's talk about them just based on their content
Expand Quote
2.
Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.
What is the lie here? Was Moore trying to make the point that Fox was the first network that retracted the mistake? I seriously doubt he would do that. So can you talk to the scandal that surrounds this point.
Expand Quote
3.
A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.
also, if the real results were determined in a way that couldn't be dissputed (which it hasn't been here) then could you please explain to me how that makes the people who were wrong liers and not just mistaken? isn't it possible that people on both sides of this really believed in what they were doing? does that automatically make 1/2 of them have no integrity? if that is the case then what implication does that have for all the people who really believed their was a terrorist link to Iraq before the war. I always thought of those people more as idiots than liers but it would seem that you are suggesting that this kind of mistake is a lie that discredits anyone who had the wrong opinion.
Expand Quote
4.
Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly
disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.
this one seems like a matter of opinion. it seems that some people could see it one way and others could see it another. even if the pollseters took an official stance on why they didn't allow people to vote, they could be lieing.
OK, so that is 3 out of 4 that even if the author was correct wouldn't make Moore a lier or discredit him in my book. I don't feel like digging through the rest off this .pdf document. I think it's safe to say at this point, that you have a different definition of lier than I do. If you got something more scandolous post it, otherwise we just simply disagree here and after looking at your source, I'm feeling pretty confident that your not holding a smoking gun and are just someone who doesn't care for Moore based more on Steez than anything else, same reason why I don't watch ORiely...
You are just disagreeing with the facts in the .PDF file. A police investigation's conclusion is "just an opinion?" And the rest are just trivial? Please keep in mind that no matter how trivial the lies are, the author probably tried to include as many as possible. You gave four out of fifty-nine, and there are larger lists.
This isn't just some random .PDF. It's been cited in the media, was published, I assume peer-reviewed, etc.
your use of the word lies is not even close to how I use it. if i assume the .pdf document is correct then it still does nothing to discredit moore in my book and frankly i'm bored of talking about it.
unless you are willing to put up something with substance that you want to discuss, i'm done here.
-
well Dr. you obviously don't understand what i was trying to get across you said
Until people start starving in the streets, the closest thing to class warfare we will ever have is people shoplifting from Wal-Mart.
so that means until we have malnourished children like the ones you see in the commercials that there will be no type of upheaval from the lower class in this country, you say your cousin lives in a "bad side" if you really knew shit about the "hood" you wouldn't ever say shit like
What there is is ignorance. Very few of the families place much of an emphasis on education, and the kids grow up turning to drugs and shit like that. They don't know how rich the rich actually are, and they could never effectively organize and stage a class war.
people who are living in poverty in america today are more than anything pissed, why i posted pictures of Katrina was because since then many more impoverished people are realizing how much they are getting fucked over by the government, so it will be long before you see starvin marvins in the streets. and i HATE how you generalized everyone living in those conditions i find that kind of fucked up.
-
michael moore bleeds bratwurst.
-
and here is sicko
http://freeflashplayer.net/embed.php?swf=http%3A%2F%2Ffreeflashplayer.net%2Fflvplayer.swf%3Fvid%3D1078 (http://freeflashplayer.net/embed.php?swf=http%3A%2F%2Ffreeflashplayer.net%2Fflvplayer.swf%3Fvid%3D1078)
-
He must be doing something right, he just got in trouble with the "man".
Check out the Jay Leno clips, I am to lazy to post them.
-
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
-
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
You just quoted Oprah and don't credit her, yet Micheal Moore is bad? Hypocrite.
"I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there," she says. "If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16396343/site/newsweek/page/3/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16396343/site/newsweek/page/3/)
-
sooo...dr newton is mizzark, right?
-
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
people are starving in the streets. funny you say that as my city's homeless rate has doubled in the past few years. there is a class war. greed has hit a new level. people "want" what they "want" because they're duped into it by governments centered on money and power and not people. i pods, "bling", "education" are all tools used to make the powers that be money and do nothing for humanity in the end. and don't give me the bullshit about "medicine" and how much longer we live now. noone wants "education" unless they're told they do. and we've been told we need educating for far too long. humans are capable of everything by themselves from birth. everything is given. we have been duped. wake the fuck up and stop thinking you're being logical for spouting a bunch of contrived crap. life isn't logical in the sense that we know "logic" today. at least you're partially right about fema. fema camps are the new gulags and it'll show with time. "order through chaos". (http://newyorkskywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/naval-base2.JPG) look on the right side of this photo. that is a naval base in san diego. a navy base that coincidentally flys out the boeing planes daily for the "chemtrail" spraying that is going on all around the usa and nato countries as we speak. look up, it's pretty fucking obvious. look at photos of post katrina and you'll see a lot of chemtrails. that's not a coincidence. the weaponization of space is very real. look up HAARP. all of the connections of our government to hitler's are making a lot more sense to people now. hitler used the same tactics our government is, the false flag terrorism, even spraying unwitting people with toxic chemicals. it's time for people to wake up to the real problems that extend far beyond health care and our(as citizens) supposed impact on "global warming" when the sky is being sprayed with tons of aerosol every day, or just sit back and watch. i guess it really doesn't make a difference to me.
-
Expand Quote
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
You just quoted Oprah and don't credit her, yet Micheal Moore is bad? Hypocrite.
"I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there," she says. "If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16396343/site/newsweek/page/3/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16396343/site/newsweek/page/3/)
So you have to credit people that you share the same sentiments with? Nice irrelevent post.
I actually thought you would agree with me though. Poor Americans bitch about luxury items they don't have, but still have everything a poor African could ever want.
-
Expand Quote
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
I'm not seeing any class war evidence here at all. Thanks for that.
-
sooo...dr newton is mizzark, right?
Yeah, even though our posts are nothing alike, we share a state so we are obviously the same guy.
-
Expand Quote
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515356061137526953 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515356061137526953)
damn im not looking foward to telling people i told you so...
-
There's nothing new to the fact that humans are nasty creatures. That Hitler was the nastiest of all, no shit. This is not the government that was founded by those Renaissance men who we deify nowadays. Things have changed. Hitler was pretty much the most important man of the 20th century. Militant individuals in positions of power recognize his contributions to modern politics. He utilized modern philosophies to ruthlessly attain power in terrible ways. Stop all this, "I told you so! ZOMG, we are all fucked!!!" You guys sound just as lame as the Christians saying that "God will judge you". Just have the patience to do some research and you'll understand that you should worry only about that which you have control of. You see some ass-hole in the higher up abusing power? Then go out and help out a homeless guy. If it's all a zero-sum game then work that karma.
And what the fuck is wrong with iPods? Those queers in California are doing good work, lay off. There are much more worthless products that are being pushed out there.
-
There's nothing new to the fact that humans are nasty creatures. That Hitler was the nastiest of all, no shit. This is not the government that was founded by those Renaissance men who we deify nowadays. Things have changed. Hitler was pretty much the most important man of the 20th century. Militant individuals in positions of power recognize his contributions to modern politics. He utilized modern philosophies to ruthlessly attain power in terrible ways. Stop all this, "I told you so! ZOMG, we are all fucked!!!" You guys sound just as lame as the Christians saying that "God will judge you". Just have the patience to do some research and you'll understand that you should worry only about that which you have control of. You see some ass-hole in the higher up abusing power? Then go out and help out a homeless guy. If it's all a zero-sum game then work that karma.
And what the fuck is wrong with iPods? Those queers in California are doing good work, lay off. There are much more worthless products that are being pushed out there.
Great job. Keep posting.
-
what about the second or third homeless guy living 2 yards past the one you help. fucking dick. you have just as many double standards.
-
Well fuck, then I guess I should just forget school and work a homeless shelter. But then what about Sudan? Then I'm really fucked. Oh wait, I'm a person, 'cuz once ExxonMobil takes over there won't be a problem.
There's an interesting argument towards global corporate dominion, and that is that people say such atrocities might be avoided if superior nations occupy their interests into such regions. This is where you get the Anne Coulters and Bill 'O'Reillys, I think. Of course that is a very dangerous and potentially corrupting position to have, but there is a persuasive element of truth about it. I think some of you might agree though, that no one has dared to figure out a "proper" or ethical way to take over a country, it's just too absurd. So far, like Iraq, I think the best way people have found (best to limit personal responsibility) is to just set up theatrics and entrust the private sector to properly mobilize the economy. Of course now it's not a matter of helping people out, but one of greed and resource profiteering.
So domestically speaking, right? Michael Moore and all that. Whatever his methods are (I know his movies can sometimes twist themselves around his propositions and facts) his position is for one of change. Change for the good, and well being of the people. There's nothing wrong with that. And besides, us regular people are bombarded by shit much much dumber than a Michael Moor movie, so why complain? If so, point to some better documentaries that people can watch, or start a thread about how Michael Moore specifically skews his reasoning through film editing.
I've got one. In Bowling for Columbine, he says that he sees plenty of blacks in Canada and that why it's safe isn't because there are no blacks. he then cuts to a black couple and asks where they're from, they say they're actually visiting from Detroit. D'oh. I'm not arguing for one side here, I mean he should have just found another black person in Canada. Instead of doing that he later on in the movie comments on the black population in Canada again, using a brief image of the same American couple as an example! WTF dude!? Are you just lazy? C'mon!!!
-
I dunno I wasn't trying to be militant, but the blanket statement of "help some one" seems to me like a individual'sl solution to a much larger problem that can only be solved with mass reform. Personally no one can do shit aside from destroy all of these supposed efforts. I dunno Micheal Moore's movies are classic liberal banter that fail to achieve anything between political parties and which only make me feel like working within the limits of current political parties is futile.
-
Really? Is it that complicated just to help people out? What "larger problem" are you talking about? You're not one of those people who believe that we can "make poverty history", right? There will always be relative poverty. There will always be destitution by way of personal failure. The question is not to cure the world of all things bad, but to make sure that if you even care about such an issue, or to back up your statements, that you should prove it by action on your part. Let that be your burden.
And dude, the road towards "mass reform" is one-way, and it's lined with corpses. There are few legitimate ways to raise the standard of living, none of them are quick and easy, few of them are honest. Micro-lending is a pretty damn good way to help those with absolutely fuck-all.
If what Michael Moore is doing is "classic liberal banter", he's doing his classic banter in front of the largest audience EVER, through a medium that was not classically designed for film efforts that aimed toward kind of legitimate social reform.
It's good that you think that the current parties are worn out, because they are. That's why people are getting serious about a new one.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Oh God, this thread is back. I figured you faggs finally realized that Moore was a lying piece of shit and let it go.
My last response unless someone comes back with something worth a response though: If there is going to be a class war in America, where is it? Where is the evidence?
It will not happen unless greed hits a new level and people are starving in the streets.
"Poor" people in America wants iPods and "bling."
Poor people in Africa want eduation and food.
Whch one is truely poor?
I'm not seeing any class war evidence here at all. Thanks for that.
i guess you're right. we're all in the same class. "useless eaters". look it up.
-
There's nothing new to the fact that humans are nasty creatures. That Hitler was the nastiest of all, no shit. This is not the government that was founded by those Renaissance men who we deify nowadays. Things have changed. Hitler was pretty much the most important man of the 20th century. Militant individuals in positions of power recognize his contributions to modern politics. He utilized modern philosophies to ruthlessly attain power in terrible ways. Stop all this, "I told you so! ZOMG, we are all fucked!!!" You guys sound just as lame as the Christians saying that "God will judge you". Just have the patience to do some research and you'll understand that you should worry only about that which you have control of. You see some ass-hole in the higher up abusing power? Then go out and help out a homeless guy. If it's all a zero-sum game then work that karma.
And what the fuck is wrong with iPods? Those queers in California are doing good work, lay off. There are much more worthless products that are being pushed out there.
"hitler was the nastiest of all" no way, he was just a part of the plan, do you know nothing of the depopulation efforts going on right now? do you realize prescott bush was hitler's banker? his coal powered the war machine of the nazis. his money and connections helped create the zyklon b gas used in auschwitz. the bush family became rich off of the holocaust. i won't even get into the rockefellers... these are the same people in power, not people "inspired" by hitler. i mean, these aren't conspiracy theories, people, all of this information is factual and easily available.
other than that, i agree with you. nothing is too small to make a difference and i'm definitely not saying that anyone is fucked, because you're not unless you believe you are. look at the relentless campaigns to put fear of death, sickness, terror, etc. into the minds of people and you'll realize just what the human mind is capable of. it can go either way.
-
you'll realize just what the human mind is capable of. it can go either way.
What are you supposed to be getting at with that talk? Are you talking about my superior sudoku abilities?
-
you are a sudoku >:(
-
Hitler was just following America's example of hate based genocide and segregation.
-
Hitler was just following America's example of hate based genocide and segregation.
no...hitler was part of a broad plan which only "crazy theorists" heretofore realized the real scope of. people are awakening to the truths that have been said by "mystics" for thousands of years because they're right in front of their face. some people will never leave their comfort zone, will never leave this dream of "freedom" and wake up. hitler didn't follow an example, he followed a plan. hitler was part of the new world order and mass genocide still occurring today. it's been localized in mostly third world countries and is rounding the bases to bring it all home. depopulation of 2 billion people. see kissinger's depopulation report. look up the phrase "order through chaos". there's a powerful force of evil in the world that goes way beyond what we view as "america". just because it also runs "america" doesn't mean it is america. i already outlined prescott bush's involvement in the holocaust, now do some research for yourself and don't just say half-truths because they sound right.
-
I think I know what you're getting at, but your tone is that of a scared alarmist speaking in generalities. Why not share some information? Do tell. If it gets you worked up so much. Is there a problem living under a perceived 'order'? Whether it is new rather than old? Global instead of feudal? To me it seems like the same old story, rich fuckers in power. Big deal. Maybe you're not being practical in your questions, instead paying too much attention to the goofy symbols and club-house code-talk that these people like to jerk off to.
But then again i wouldn't know, because you won't share any real information in detail, just keep telling us to "wake up from the dream world". Get things rolling man, what about Bush? That the government is effectively owned and run by private interests, does it make it a sort of corporation, free from unlimited liability? Is the government legally bound to pursue "maximum profit for its share-holders"? Does the voter have any real power? Is Obama a safe choice for next president? Does it matter? Are we just electing kinder murderers?
-
most importantly, i don't want to alarm anyone. no one should be afraid of anything for any reason. i already stated that. i just have always wanted the truth. some people don't and will disinform at any given chance. i'm all about just living your life how you really feel is right. not from what you're told but the "gut". i'm pretty much over this conversation as i don't even like talking about this crap, really. i'm a positive person and just try to live inside my own life and do right to those i encounter. i have heavy "spiritual" beliefs from my own experiences in life. all of your questions are very valid, but i'm not the person to ask.
as for info, do research for yourself, there's a wealth of information out there for anything you want to know about. if you're curious about the bush's connections to the nazis and world depopulation do a search and make your own opinions from what you find. there're a lot of nutjobs who are totally reactionary to this stuff, but the beauty is that the information is still there for you to do what you please with. you seem like a very smart dude who can make up his own mind for himself. watch those videos on the site i posted in the zeitgeist topic. aside from the dumb pictures and sometimes crappy music, the synchromysticism stuff is pretty fascinating no matter what you believe.
-
Well, my questions were more rhetorical, I wasn't truly expecting any answers. My point was that ignorance breeds fear, and doubt and all that. When you bring up these topics which as you know are very real, and very problematic in their immediacy, yet you bring up the "fascinating synchromysticism" parts of it. THere's nothing wrong with being spiritual, but, sometimes capable citizens are dumbed down and rendered useless by their over enthusiastic spiritualism. They become blind in face of the light, so to say.
There are ways to bring up discussions on topics about the problems facing humanity, and at its most urgent points, the least effective path is for the citizenry to fall back on an effortless personal spiritualism while proclaiming for others to "wake up", to not "be afraid".
-------------------
"I'm all about just living your life how you really feel is right. not from what you're told but the 'gut' "
That's a bit of a vapid statement. George W. does the same thing all the time.
-
This topic is getting locked. I want it to serve as a sort of time capsule, so people can read these insane posts for years to come.