View Full Version : Who Voted for Bush?
sextoyking
03-26-2003, 05:04 PM
Yeh I am pissed off today :(
As we continue on our war path internationally, we have the right wingers and republicans trying to quash more and more of our civil rights, feedoms, etc.
Shit, you don't have the correct domain name, you loose it and mabey goto jail. WTF is next with this administration.
Every day I miss Clinton more and more. At least we have the Aclu fighting for us. I just donated another $500.00 today to them, not a huge donation, but I do what i can.
even know Aclu is known to be left wing, etc, etc I do remember many times them fighting the Clinton Admin. on various issues.
Deep down I just can't belive some of those of you who voted for bush now feel the same way about him...
mabey I am ignorant. If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..
:(
Winetalk.com
03-26-2003, 05:06 PM
If he wins in 2004 we are truly fucked..
***************************************
People, don't despair!
fucked in the head or not,
Oprano will still do business with you if you are not French or German
;-)))
Mike AI
03-26-2003, 05:16 PM
Todd you need to get your panties out of a bunch.
I still support Bush, infact I have more confidence in him now, then I did 2 years ago.
Mike AI
03-26-2003, 05:18 PM
http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/protest_gallery/us/images/0027.jpg
sextoyking
03-26-2003, 05:19 PM
Mike,
so you have complete support for him and his administration hugh?
is this war wise, fighting terrorism only, or are we talking domestic issues also?
please inform me. Don't feel like you have to support this asshole because of pride ok. I know my clinton did wrong things :(
Mike AI
03-26-2003, 05:28 PM
The domain name thing is bullshit Todd, that is not Bush but other Republicans in the house.
Lets face it, Democrats and Republicans both are anti-porn, and will stand against it and do things like this to get PUBLICITY - to get more votes.
No politician is going to come out and say " Hey you know what, Porn is not bad.... infact I like it"
Winetalk.com
03-26-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 26 2003, 05:36 PM
No politician is going to come out and say " Hey you know what, Porn is not bad.... infact I like it"
..cuz those who do,
become politicians no more
;-)))
sextoyking
03-26-2003, 05:30 PM
Mike,
it's not just the domain thing, I know that won't make it through the courts, and I know politically it best for both dems and repubs to take a strong stance against porn, that's cool with me.
I don't know, just more and more of this Patriot act, rights, etc.
just really burning me out man
Mike AI
03-26-2003, 05:32 PM
I have not seen an erosion of my rights Todd.
Some of the things in the Patriot act I do not like, I think it could have been done to focus just on terrorism - that is they can tap lines and such, BUT can only use thae info gained for anti-terrorism crimes. If they tap a drug dealers line, and they find out about drugs, or whatever - then its thrown out by a court.
They should have worded it to just protect NATIONAL SECURITY.... I have not read the details, maybe it does.... I do not know.
Evil Chris
03-26-2003, 05:42 PM
I seem to recall quite a movement on our boards a few years ago for American webmasters to exercise their right to vote anyone but a Republican back into office.
Now Bush is Superman. What % of the vote did he get?
If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".
Last edited by Evil Chris at Mar 26 2003, 06:57 PM
Mike AI
03-26-2003, 05:53 PM
If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".
Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.
Almighty Colin
03-26-2003, 05:56 PM
I like Bush INCREASINGLY because of his leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq. Great leaders lead. They don't follow.
I don't like his budget *ahem* plan though. I'm glad it got half-way nixed. Shoulda been more. Fuck, get that budget under control. Don't make it worse. I can't make sense of those tax cuts and I am even a sometimes supply-sider. Probably a political move. He promised tax cuts. I think one already passed. Pass another - he can campaign on:
"Cut taxes twice. Won two wars. Passed education bill".
Hard to listen to Bush talk sometimes. Worst public speaker for a president I can remember.
We'll see. Undecided on how much I like his presidency yet but I sure as hell support the war and all coalition troops. Could go either way for me. If budget gets more in line and war goes well, I like him more than Clinton. If the opposite, less. Only half-way through his administration. Pretty difficult for me to form an opinion only half-way there.
I don't understand something though. How could one blaim Bush for a bill that hasn't even been voted on yet?
ulfie
03-26-2003, 06:55 PM
I voted for Bush and I'm happy I did. Do I agree with him 100% on everything? Nope, but it always comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.
Colin, public speaking is tough. I've done a ton of it in my life (even won a few awards) and I was always nervous even though I was only speaking to 100-500 people. I can't imagine what it's like to speak to the world. It's easy when you know everyone in the audience, much tougher when you don't know anyone. Clinton is a gifted speaker, no doubt about that, but it's easy to tell people what they want to hear. It's much tougher when people don't want to hear your message. I gave a presentation at an IBM conference a couple years ago about some new Microsoft technology and it was how I'm sure Bush feels when it's over. (IBM guys hate Microsoft in case you didn't know) Nothing I said could possibly convince them, nothing I said could change their minds, etc. At the end of an hour and half I was drained both physically and emotionally. In a long winded way I guess I'm trying to make the point it isn't easy to tell people what they don't want to hear especially when they are in a crowd.
Almighty Colin
03-26-2003, 07:54 PM
Ulfie,
I think it would be disrespectful for me to say anything negative about Bush during this time of war, so I will respectfully stop.
We can discuss his public speaking soon. :D
PornoDoggy
03-26-2003, 08:42 PM
Colin ... the rule I live by is never say anything about a President during a time of war that was not said about Lincoln or Roosevelt. The idea that criticising the President is somehow inapprorpriate in time of war is absolute bullshit. Roosevelt went so far as to reward a reporter an Iron Cross due to his criticism of the President, and Dewey ran against Roosevelt in part by charging him with being a defeatist.
The idea that criticism of a war is somehow unAmerican is historically inaccurate; that it equates to a lack of patriotism is no more than simple-minded bullshit. Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of the Mexican American War, both before it and all through it - and I don't guess many folks question his patriotism. World War I was greatly criticized, and probably would have been criticized more had it not been for Attorney General Palmer, who makes Ashcroft look like George McGovern.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 26 2003, 08:51 PM
Torone
03-26-2003, 09:52 PM
Todd (and all the rest of you Clinton-lovers),
You might as well kiss his ass goodbye...he can never be your President again (If I wasn't an agnostic, I might say something like "Thank___).
As for percentages, you must be deliberately trying to appear ignorant. Either that, or you never learned about the Electoral College. Oh, I forgot, you Libs hate the Constitution except when you can pervert it to your advantage... :moon:
Evil Chris
03-26-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 26 2003, 07:01 PM
If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".
Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.
Mike please... if you have to resort to name calling, you lose all your credibility. Just ban me from the board if you can't take hard questions.
Evil Chris - I see you have a link in your sig to bowling for columbine
Just want to check with you to make sure you know Michael Moore is Satire and not Documentry
John Fund.. Wall Street Journal
Friday, March 21, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
With Hollywood in a fever pitch against the war in Iraq, Michael Moore is likely to win the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards.
"Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore's work of anti-American propaganda, has grossed over $15 million, an amazing sum for a film billed as a documentary.
But the film, a merry dissection of America's "culture of fear" and love of guns, is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that it ought to be classed as a work of fiction.
Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation. "Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism," observes Andrew Sullivan in London's Sunday Times.
Mr. Moore plays into all of the worst stereotypes and distortions about America. "Bowling for Columbine" attempts to explain interventions by the U.S. military as rooted in an inherently violent domestic culture. "I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people,' " he told NBC's "Today" show. "Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' We're the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?"
To make this strained connection, Mr. Moore tries to make us believe that the two mentally disturbed high school students who massacred their Fellow students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., grew up in a community that has a sinister connection to the military-industrial complex.
A Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton manufactures "weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Moore claims. The factory actually makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space. And the very title of Mr. Moore's film is based on a deception. It refers to the bowling class that the Columbine killers supposedly took the morning they committed their murders. The only problem is that they actually cut the class.
Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.
But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."
Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in
which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.
Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the
canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000
and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.
David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film dhahahahats NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.
Ben Fritz ofSpinsanity.org also notes that Mr. Moore has "apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988" to buttress his claim that racial symbolism is frequently misused in American politics. His leading example is the case of Willie Horton, a murderer who became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. Mr. Moore shows the Bush ad that generically attacked a prison furlough program in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts . Superimposed over the footage of prisoners entering and exiting a prison are the words "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."
While the caption appears to be part of the original ad, Mr. Moore actually
inserted it; the ad made no mention of Horton. (Another ad, sponsored by the National Security Political Action Committee, a conservative group independent of the Bush campaign, did mention Horton; it aired only briefly in a few cable markets.) The phony Moore caption also is inaccurate; Horton brutalized a Maryland couple and raped the wife, but didn't kill anybody while on furlough.
In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.
When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the question. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.
"Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said.
"No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
Mr. Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If "Bowling for Columbine" is a comedy, most of its fans don't know it. They actually believe they're watching something that is in rough accord with reality.
Last edited by Vick at Mar 27 2003, 12:13 AM
Hooper
03-26-2003, 11:11 PM
that is not Bush but other Republicans in the house
clinton lead the dems.. bush is leading the republicans.. you really can't *seriously* believe that there is all this wild wacky republican policy being thrown around without bush's blessing do you?
I have not seen an erosion of my rights Todd.
You're not supposed to wait til you actually see the erosion, you're supposed to prevent the erosion from happening at all... or do you prefer to find yourself or your colleagues in prison for obscenity and *then* say "hey, i'm seeing an erosion of my rights here". I mean seriously Mike, not to start shit but you and a few others here are the first to jump to arms (no pun) when even the mere mention of gun control is made (such as banning assault rifles), but somebody begins talking about ways to punish porners and you dont take the same attitude.
It seems contradictory to only get excited about proactively defending certain civil rights.
I'd bet 100 bucks that if democrats were intiating these policies you would be more worried.
RawAlex
03-26-2003, 11:29 PM
Mike, there is something important about "erosion of rights" - you never notice until they have gone too far. Just like erosion under a paved road, you don't see it until suddenly the road drops six feet into a major sinkhole.
The economy is the same thing - tax rebates on the scale proposed is erosion... because they are taking tomorrow's tax dollars and giving them to you today. Like a payday loan. Sooner or later, you have to pay anyway.
There should NEVER EVER EVER be tax cuts without equivenant SPENDING cuts. That is bad economics. The debt increases, and the money needed to pay for that debt continues to increase. The more tax dollars that go to paying the debt and interest on the debt limit the government's own ability to pay for current programs, and forces future increases in your taxes. No voodoo economics here... simple math, really. The more you borrow, the more interest you pay. The problem is this: Typically, the bill usually comes due during the NEXT President's term, so someone else gets blamed for the debt, for the increased taxes, and the reduced government services.
The Bush economic plan increase government spending, cuts taxes (government income), and now will need probably 200-300 billion more to pay for the war. For 290 million people, you are each looking at $1000 for the war.
What will happen? Junior will be gone, a new democratic president will be in, taxes will have to go up, services will go down, and you will shit on him for stealing all your money... when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy.
Alex
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 26 2003, 11:37 PM
There should NEVER EVER EVER be tax cuts without equivenant SPENDING cuts.
Mark it on the calendar, I agree with Alex on 2 things in one day :P
Originally posted by Evil Chris+Mar 26 2003, 10:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Chris @ Mar 26 2003, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 26 2003, 07:01 PM
If I were an American, I'd have more faith in President David Palmer from the TV show "24".
Thank goodness you are not American. We have enough morons in this country already.
Mike please... if you have to resort to name calling, you lose all your credibility. Just ban me from the board if you can't take hard questions.[/b][/quote]
EvilChris, this is the only way Mike knows how to get his point across ... he doesn't know how to communicate except to be rude and obnoxious to those who aren't 'bush ass kissers'... and when that doesn't work, he calls in his buddies to help with the name calling
:wnw:
don't forget, you can't have an opinion on oprano that isn't pro bush or you are a moron! remember this simple rule and you'll be fine!!
:okthumb:
XXXPhoto
03-27-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by cj@Mar 26 2003, 09:34 PM
don't forget, you can't have an opinion on oprano that isn't pro bush or you are a moron! remember this simple rule and you'll be fine!!
:okthumb:
CJ...
Is it ok to be pro-bush but not pro-Bush? ... :blink:
Agree with Alex that by time rights disappear, it's much harder to get them back... Any government that gets a good hold on one testicle isn't going to loosen grip cause you say 'Ouch'... it's just going to reach for the other one...
LOL
oops, a double negative ;-)
I'm not not pro-bush, bush is good ... but usually bald is better ;-)
;/
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 26 2003, 08:50 PM
Colin ... the rule I live by is never say anything about a President during a time of war that was not said about Lincoln or Roosevelt. The idea that criticising the President is somehow inapprorpriate in time of war is absolute bullshit. Roosevelt went so far as to reward a reporter an Iron Cross due to his criticism of the President, and Dewey ran against Roosevelt in part by charging him with being a defeatist.
The idea that criticism of a war is somehow unAmerican is historically inaccurate; that it equates to a lack of patriotism is no more than simple-minded bullshit. Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of the Mexican American War, both before it and all through it - and I don't guess many folks question his patriotism. World War I was greatly criticized, and probably would have been criticized more had it not been for Attorney General Palmer, who makes Ashcroft look like George McGovern.
Pornodoggy,
To start with, you need a new example. Roosevelt certainly didn't admire the reporter for his criticism. He gave the reporter a Nazi Iron Cross. Hardly a compliment.
I agree that there is enormous historical precedent for criticizing the president during the time of war. There are as many examples as there have been wars. We agree.
I don't live by the rule of what other people have done at other times. I live by my own set of standards.
You will notice that I carefully said, and I quote, "I think it would be disrespectful for ME to say anything negative about Bush during this time of war". I didn't say "I think it would be disrespectful for ANYONE to say something negative about Bush during time of war". Everyone
else can do as they please ;-) Though I must admit I think the violence protests are doing more harm than good.
I also didn't say it would be UnAmerican. You've assumed I meant that. It has nothing to do with what country I was born or live in.
I said I would feel disrespectful. I certainly don't find respect to be "simple-minded bullshit". When someone carries a great weight on their shoulders to do something which I think is right, I will respect them. I feel like morale of the both the troops and the administration is very important right now and don't wish to add to it on the negative side - though my voice is a quiet one buried in the noise.
United We Stand
Last edited by Colin at Mar 27 2003, 04:49 AM
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 04:31 AM
Many rights tend to "erode" during times of great uncertainty. It is not historically based on party. I'm speaking principally of the various acts meant to curb terrorist activities.
The Japanese internment camps were formed by Roosevelt's executive order during WW II, not the act of the a Democrat or a Republican but the result of a situation.
How about the Red Scare? Democrat Woodrow Wilson's evil attorney general really got us going there.
There are many more examples.
I think history shows that such acts tend to be the reaction to a situation and not some evil party politics.
PornoDoggy
03-27-2003, 05:10 AM
Colin, surely you realize that my use of the Roosevelt example was to demonstrate the degree of agitation the president felt regarding the criticism the reporter was heaping on him, and had nothing to do with any "admiration" that Roosevelt felt for him. It was simply an example of what Roosevelt endured in a time of a war of far greater magnitude and far more clear-cut causes than the current situtation.
Further, nobody said respect was simple-minded bullshit. Perhaps bullshit was too harsh a word, so allow me to rephrase it. I think that the idea that extra deference should be paid to the President in time of war is erroneous. If folks in the 40s felt free to criticize Roosevelt for a war that was thrust upon him, and in fact criticize him for not being prepared for the war that some of the same critics wouldn't allow him to prepare for (stating facts without regard to parties here), I feel no compulsion to be bound by a higher standard today.
While I doubt this has anything to do with your feelings on the matter, I realize that in the Orano environment it is very politically incorrect to say anything negative about this President or this war. That's okay ... I've been politically incorrect all my life. Any objectives for this war that extend beyond disarming Saddam Hussein are the material of fantasy and pipedream. I suspect this President is going to pay dearly when the piper's bill comes due.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 27 2003, 05:21 AM
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 05:18 AM
I realize that in the Orano environment it is very politically incorrect to say anything negative about this President or this war.
We all took the political test here a few weeks ago and were nearly precisely evenly split left/right.
I see very mixed opinions here as far as war, Bush, politics, etc.
For every JR, there is an Alex.
For every Torone, there is a PornoDoggy
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 05:18 AM
Colin, surely you realize that my use of the Roosevelt example was to demonstrate the degree of agitation the president felt regarding the criticism the reporter was heaping on him, and had nothing to do with any "admiration" that Roosevelt felt for him.
Yeah, I see now.
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 05:18 AM
I feel no compulsion to be bound by a higher standard today.
I don't see any reason for YOU to be bound by a higher standard either. <_<
sarah_webinc
03-27-2003, 05:51 AM
i certainly did not. In fact, I was one of the absente ballots for Gore that I have since learned only sometimes get counted before the result is declared. With all the effort I have exert to vote it would be nice if they looked at mine when other people who only have to walk to the end of their street don't even bother.
I will not be voting for Bush for a variety of reasons but as someone in a fairly unique position of being an American living abroad for non-military reasons I actually physically felt safer under Clinton. I also felt his administration gave two hoots about us ex-pats. I get no such feeling from Bush.
sarah_webinc
03-27-2003, 05:54 AM
oh and Todd...the Democrats abroad group in the UK is kind of useless. I have been asking them for four years to help me change my party registration to Democrat (family pressures made me register as *ick* republican when I sent in my registration on my 18th b-day). No one seems to be able to tell me how to make that change from over here and every election I ask them.
-= JR =-
03-27-2003, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 27 2003, 05:44 AM
For every JR, there is an Alex.
For every Torone, there is a PornoDoggy
http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/control.gif
http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/argue.gif
dantheman
03-27-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by cj@Mar 27 2003, 03:08 AM
... but usually bald is better ;-)
this much I agree on :gbounce:
that's all I have to add to this thread:)
Evil Chris
03-27-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 27 2003, 12:05 AM
Evil Chris - I see you have a link in your sig to bowling for columbine
Just want to check with you to make sure you know Michael Moore is Satire and not Documentry
I know Vick... I've known all along. That was a good read, thanks.
There's a lot of truth in this kind of humor though. Case in point...
http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gu...lencestats.html (http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviolencestats.html)
This isn't the first time a satirical movie was made to get a fact-based point across, it certainly won't be the last.
MikeW
03-27-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by cj@Mar 27 2003, 03:08 AM
bush is good ... but usually bald is better ;-)
Finally .. I agree with cj again! Things can now return to normal ;-)))
:cdance: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: :cdance:
Evil Chris - thought you might
What concerns me is that Micheal Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering
I kind of figure we have Dennis Miller on the right with thought provoking, biting satire and Michael Moore further on the left with the "work" he does
I would hope they balance each other out somewhat with regards to influencing popular public opinion
Peaches
03-27-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 27 2003, 01:38 PM
What concerns me is that Micheal Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering
And it doesn't help that he just won an Oscar for Best Documentary! :zoinks:
While I didn't necessary like MM, I at least respected him for saying what he thought. He's become nothing more than a pure entertainer now and that respect is gone :(
Almighty Colin
03-27-2003, 01:04 PM
I like Michael Moore. He's funny.
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 27 2003, 01:12 PM
I like Michael Moore. He's funny.
Yeah but looks aren't everything
Torone
03-28-2003, 08:29 AM
"when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy."
Hmmm...Can we say 2000?
RawAlex
03-28-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Torone@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 AM
"when you should realize that Bush did the deed, he just framed the next guy."
Hmmm...Can we say 2000?
What concerns me is that Micheal Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering
Vick, how does this differ from the radio windbags like Rush Limbaugh (one of my favorites) that misrepresents almost every single event in political history to shade things to his side? He does it under the guise of "information you need to know"... I was amazed in listening to him how often he criticizes dems for something, and praises repubs for the same action a minute later. How he forgets things so quickly... when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency... he just glosses over that and points to "democratic do-goodie liberal money wasting"... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time...
I honestly think that type of stuff does way more damage than anything a MM or his kind can ever do, because it is presented with the authority and the "ring of truth"... no attempt at comedy.
Worse, judging by this board, some people actually buy into it. :-(
Alex
Alex - the difference is ......
Rush is a known windbag and his show is obviously his opinion
Moore won an Oscar for a documentary AND THE MOVIE WAS SATIRE!!!!!
Do you see a difference there?
Would Moore give the Oscar back because his movie was satire, filled with inaccuracies and set ups to get his point across?
It was not a documentary, which is what he accepted an award for.
The danger is when satire is presented as FACT and the presenter doesn't acknowledge it
Again everyone is aware that Rush is presenting his take on issues,
Moore is purposely deceiving .... and there in lies the brainwashing and danger
RawAlex
03-28-2003, 12:43 PM
Vick, I see no difference at all. Moore makes his opinion known by taking documentary and adding satirical twists. He claims it is the truth. Rush Limbaugh gets on the radio and states as fact things that are not entirely true (often due to omission, or by taking information out of context).
I am WAY more concerned that people listen to Rush and take his opinion as fact than I do from someone watching one of Moore's films... who has the power?
Rush's site today: "Only The Rich Pay Taxes - Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes " - sounds bad, until you go a little further in the math: What percentage of the US population works at or near minimum wage? of the 96.09% of taxes, how much does the upper 2-3% pay? Are you doing this on a percentage of income or pure dollars?
It is misleading, it isn't entirely honest, and it misrepresents the real facts... you have a sliding tax scale in the US, and 50% of a BIG number is alot higher than 30% of a bunch of small numbers... Say you make a million, pay half a million in tax... another guy makes 15k, pays 30%... how many 15k guys does it take? In this case, top 1% pays 50% of the taxes! OH MY GOD!
It's horseshit at it's finest.
Alex
RawAlex
03-28-2003, 12:46 PM
here's another gem... taking the opinion of one person and applying it to an entire nation:
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_03...rder.guest.html (http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032703/content/from_across_the_wide_open_border.guest.html)
Sort of like using Jesse Jackson to sum up the entire US... woo hoo!
Alex
Almighty Colin
03-28-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 11:42 AM
I was amazed in listening to him how often he criticizes dems for something, and praises repubs for the same action a minute later. How he forgets things so quickly... when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency... he just glosses over that and points to "democratic do-goodie liberal money wasting"... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time...
Fill in the blank:
Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to ______________________
:P
Evil Chris
03-28-2003, 01:18 PM
The Rush Limbaughs and Michael Moores of America put their spin on things, and so do the elected officials. Maybe even moreso the elected officials.
I think you are missing the gravity of extremes that Moore will go to
"Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.
But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks." "
Do you see what Moore did????
and you see this act as the same as Rush presenting figures in a fashion that supports his arguments - and Rush does have a point as to who pays what amout of taxes in America
There is a world of difference between outright lies and deception and uses statistics in a manner that supports your claim
Moore outright lies and deceives and claims his work is factual and accepts an Oscar for his work
Alex, do you find Moore's action acceptable?
Evil Chris the above act goes WAY beyond spin
RawAlex
03-28-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Colin+Mar 28 2003, 12:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 28 2003, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 11:42 AM
I was amazed in listening to him how often he criticizes dems for something, and praises repubs for the same action a minute later. How he forgets things so quickly... when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency... he just glosses over that and points to "democratic do-goodie liberal money wasting"... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time...
Fill in the blank:
Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to ______________________
:P[/b][/quote]
Colin, you perfectly exemplfy something I posted yesterday - alot of people here when they are wrong, just don't answer to the points, but rather go into a round of extremism and name calling.
I know you hate it when someone points out that every republicans favorite windbag is lying to you... because until it was pointed out as a lie, you were more than willing to swallow it whole.
Sucks, don't it?
Alex
RawAlex
03-28-2003, 04:19 PM
Vick, I am not saying Rush is worse - but what I am is saying is that there is ALOT of manipulation going on from all sides. Rush speaks "the truth" - his website says: "RushLimbaugh.com Archives: the learning never stops since 24/7 members can scour the website archives for two full weeks"
LEARNING? Usually learning involves telling the truth, don't it?
At the end of the day, I can see the same techniques used by Rush being used here - changing history by omitting or ignoring facts that don't jive with the points trying to be made. Shouting people down with name calling and extremism...
We will look back 10-15 years from now and remember this era as the "time of bullshit".
Alex
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 04:27 PM
We will look back 10-15 years from now and remember this era as the "time of bullshit".
Alex
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You got that right! Alot of it taking place right here. :ph34r:
OldJeff
03-28-2003, 04:41 PM
Bad Example Alex,
95% of the total tax dollars in the US are paid by the top 5% - or whatever the exact percentages are - that is a fact.
Satire is comedy - in this case it is comedy being presented as fact.
I say somewhere that each persons share of the US federal budget is about $3500, what I want to know is where are all those bastids that I am paying for - they should at least come over and cut my freaking lawn.
ulfie
03-28-2003, 04:50 PM
Alex, there is one glaring ommission in your tax argument. The bottom wage earners, thanks to the earned income tax credit, get an income tax refund that is MORE money than they actually payed so in effect they pay NO taxes at all plus get money from the top wagers to boot. To say the poor guy is paying more taxes as a percent is pure folly.
The fact is that the bulk of the taxes are payed by the middle class. It has to be that way since that is the biggest percentage of wage earners. Democrats love to call any tax cut a tax cut for the rich. We could have a tax cut on baby formula and somehow that would become a tax cut for the rich. We have a couple hundred billionaires in this country. Maybe we should just make them pay all the taxes. That would make everyone happy, wouldn't it? Then when the billionaires all move out to foreign countries that are tax havens that will leave the rest of us to pick up the slack and everyone will wonder what happened. This whole tax cuts for the rich argument is a load of camel dung used for class envy purposes.
I know you won't believe a word I say so I'm not sure why I bother.
Alex - You're really blowing my mind on this one
How can you see Rush's presentations anywhere close to the same as what Moore has done
To the best of my knowledge Rush NEVER set up a business to further his own agenda
Again please let me ask you Alex, do you find Moore's actions acceptable? How can you compare Rush's actions to Moore's
I get that they are both doing what ever to make their point but Moore has purposed performed fraudulent acts
How can you find Moore's actions anything but incredibly reprehensible
and how can you not see a world of difference between Rush's presentation and Moore's deliberate deceitful presentation
Maybe I can explain it like this
Moore has deliberately set up situations and lies to make his point and passed it off as documentary and accepted awards for a documentary (that is at best satire, at worst purposeful deceit)
I would love to interview Moore on national TV and confront him with these issues -
Most of the world believes Moore's work is documentary, we know Rush is a windbag
Oh shit Alex - you're the pivot man in this debate - getting it from all sides - but we haven't gotten personal ... yet he he he :P
If you are set on going to Toronto please be safe - I think you're crazy but it's your life
Mike AI
03-28-2003, 05:11 PM
The Truth about Michael Moore and Columbine
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Documents everything.
a snipit
he first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not. Moore doesn't make those. As was proven after the release of Moore's debut, Roger & Me, the director uses real people, places, and circumstances, then stages events (see Harlan Jacobson's piece in the November/ December 1989 Film Comment for more details). Reality a fragile commodity in any "fact-based" motion picture takes a back seat to what will play well on a movie screen. As a result, it's best to consider Moore's films as entries into the ever-growing category of pseudo (or "meta") documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity.
James Berardinelli
ulfie
03-28-2003, 05:16 PM
Equivalent in our biz is bang bus. Yeah, it's all real. sheesh Same with Moore's crap.
OldJeff
03-28-2003, 06:32 PM
"when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency
You obviously were not paying attention to much during Jimmy Carters Watch (which BTW was with a Democratic House and Senate)
... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time..."
FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Carter all had Dem House and Senate for their entire terms
Clinton had them for his first 2 years
This is the first time Republicans have controled all 3 since Ike in 1953-55
I am sorry for interrupting the left wing fantasy with some historical fact
All this information was collected from whitehouse.gov and the US House and Senate Websites
ulfie
03-28-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 28 2003, 06:40 PM
"when anyone ever talks about the economy, he never does get around to mentioning that the recessions of the last 30 years always occur during a republican presidency
You obviously were not paying attention to much during Jimmy Carters Watch (which BTW was with a Democratic House and Senate)
... forgetting that the democrats never had control of the whitehouse, the senate, and the house at the same time..."
FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Carter all had Dem House and Senate for their entire terms
Clinton had them for his first 2 years
This is the first time Republicans have controled all 3 since Ike in 1953-55
I am sorry for interrupting the left wing fantasy with some historical fact
All this information was collected from whitehouse.gov and the US House and Senate Websites
Yeah, those gas lines were fun when Carter was President. In PA you could only buy gas every other day based on whether the last number of your liscense plate was odd or even and only if you could find a station that actually had gas. Those 18% interest rates were pretty fun too. I'm sure it's somehow the Republicans fault though that Carter was one of the worst President's ever.
Note to Sykkboy...he has done many great things since with Habitat For Humanity but he was a lousy President.
Peaches
03-28-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by ulfie@Mar 28 2003, 07:57 PM
Note to Sykkboy...he has done many great things since with Habitat For Humanity but he was a lousy President.
He's also a good neighbor - so far both times we've gone under "Orange Alert", the secret service guys have showed up - not as many as when he's physically here - either some of his family's around or they're just checking things out.
Granted, the SS guys are going to blow up just as easily as I am when a bomb hits, but for some odd reason, I'm comforted when they're here (and I know the utilities to the subdivision will get fixed really fast if they go down :okthumb: ). I also doubt there would be a phone company POP out here if it weren't for him, so I thank him for my DSL :inlove:
But he was way too "nice" to be president. :(
OldJeff
03-28-2003, 07:01 PM
I was in PA at that time as well, didn't notice the gas lines much since Mom couldn't afford a car at that time.
However she was part of the 10% plus unemployment, of course the astronomical inflation rate was very comforting.
We did however have lots of government subsidized dairy products to eat.
Hooper
03-28-2003, 08:29 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.
Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.
It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
Last edited by Hooper at Mar 28 2003, 08:40 PM
ulfie
03-28-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.
Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.
It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
OK, he was just a bad President, happy now?
PornoDoggy
03-28-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
:wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw: :wnw:
Carter was a very weak, well intentioned and unluckily President
Unlikely to be Pres at when OPEC started oil embargoes and drove prices of Oil up giving the US the terrible recession of the 70's
- Clinton was a VERY luckily Pres, lucky to be in office at the time of the internet boom and high flying tech times
Hooper - Who are you going to offer as an alternative to Bush?
Were you glad it is Bush in office on 9/12/2001 and not Gore - I certainly was, but I am glad it is Bush everyday and not Gore
Depending on many things, in particularly the outcome of the war with Iraq Bush could be seen as a Great President when history looks back
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.
Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.
It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
:okthumb: :rokk: :wnw:
well said!!!
the one thing i've had the most trouble understanding about usa politics is the 'teams' ... you have to be on 1 side on the other and you can't disagree with any policy or elected politician if they belong to the party you belong to ... i never understood how the best person would be picked for the job if everyone stuck with their own teams ...
the other thing that i've noticed is that this method produces a lot of sheep who agree with their party's leader for no other reason than he is a 'democrat' or a 'republican' ...
from what i gather, being a democrat or a republican is decided on a set of rules and policies ... you agree with all or none of the rules and that's what decides which party you belong to. I wonder sometimes why Torone and Mike have so much trouble accepting the opinions of others, and I've realized its because of the rules of the political system ... you can't say anything negative about the party you belong to or you aren't truly a loyal member of that party, even if your party is flat out wrong on a particular issue. every opinion you do have contributes to making you a 'left wing' or 'right wing' or a combination of 'labels' which you are then a part of for life.
What's wrong with just having an actual opinion based on the situation of the moment and considering the facts as they relate to that specific situation?
The political test we did here on oprano was really interesting ... we got to see everyone cast into an 'identity' based on a small series of questions ... are our views any more or less valid if we fit into the right or wrong category?
And more importantly, relating to this thread, does being a republican make George Bush a good or a bad president? Or does the fact that he's made bad decisions for america make him a bad republican? Or does the fact that he's a republican make him a good president/bad president no matter what he's done with his term in office?
Hooper
03-28-2003, 10:00 PM
and does being a pornographer make one a good or bad person?
or how's that old song go...
When you're a jet you're a jet
You're a Jet All The Way
From Your First Cigarette
To Your Last Dying Day.
It's all very reminiscent (sp?.. too lazy to check) of some bad gay broadway musical where people are choosing sides and grandstanding without noticing that the actual "choosing of sides" is the problem that our antagonists and protagonists are all really encountering.
Hooper - Who are you going to offer as an alternative to Bush?
Well clearly Gore wasn't funny enough for anybody. I would vote for the reagan daughter or chelsea clinton... or maybe Jeb bush...
Seriously though? There are some fantastic politicians out there who unfortunately dont have the ability to connect with the "average joe" which raises another question... why do we want a president who we can associate with and feel like he's the kinda guy we'd like to joke and drink a beer with? shouldnt we desire to have a president who is smarter than us? somebody who is truly a genius? somebody who doesn't slow down on the highway to stare at the purty red lights of the fire truck?
John Kerry... Richard Gephard... who was the senator with the really huge ears? anybody remember him? he was one smart motherfucker...
*note. edited to notate that i am not claiming that kerry or gephard are geniuses*
I think from now on we should have a new set of criteria for picking presidents... Just answer yes to four questions and he has my vote.
1) Is his dick bigger than mine?
2) Does he know how to do long division without a calculator?
3) Can he talk for 10 minutes without referring to God?
4) Can he beat me in a spelling bee?
i'd like to have a president who can beat me in a spelling bee is all realy want.. is that too much to ask?
New Slogan.. "George Bush, he cant beat you in a spelling bee... but he sure knows how to wave!"
Last edited by Hooper at Mar 28 2003, 10:11 PM
CJ - I'll give you the simplest explanation of the America 2 party political system you'll ever get
Republicans = Rich White Guys
Democrats = Rich White Guys Who Feel Guilty
If you think I'm kidding think about the Republicans (MikeAI, Ulfie, Vick, Torone) and Democrats (Todd, Porndoggy, Hooper) here at Oprano
Yeah I'll catch hell for this post he he he he
he he he Hooper :D
That's from West Side Story
Can go for the Bush twins but then I like twins
I have a theory -
Anyone who aspires to the office of President is unfit for the office, just by the simple fact of what sort of egomanic would want to be President of the USA
If you want it, you're too flawed for the job
Hooper
03-28-2003, 10:15 PM
I'm not a democrat by any stretch, i vote a very mixed ticket.. it's just that right now since the repubs have a majority in pretty much everything anything "anti policy" sounds anti republican...
I do think however that you everybody you named as a dem is a jew (perhaps the explanation for the guilt?) and all the repubs are wasps... just an observation :)
No, MikeAI is half Jew and I think PornoDoggy is Goim
I would have included Serge as a Rep but not sure about his affiliation
Last edited by Vick at Mar 28 2003, 10:38 PM
PornoDoggy
03-28-2003, 10:29 PM
I'm about as Jewish as a Kosher Ham ... and I don't feel guilty about jack shit. As far as rich, well, I ain't on welfare and I ain't got enough.
I've voted for more Democrats for President than I have Republicans only if you figure in the independents that I've voted for (and that first vote for Truman [Nixon v McGovern]). Frankly, I'm far less a Democrat than I am an anti-Republican.
The funny thing is, I'm not nearly as far to the left as I used to be, but I'm further away from the Republican party than I ever have been. Beginning with the "Mitchell Plan" in the late 60s/early 70s to attract the Trent Lott bubbas to the party, and continuing with Reagan's mobilization of the religious right in the 80s, I've watched the Republican Party move further and further to the right.
Hooper
03-28-2003, 10:37 PM
yuummmmmmm... ham :D
Hooper
03-28-2003, 10:38 PM
you were voting in the 60's? how friggin old are you dude? i thought torone was the only ww1 veteran here ;-)
PornoDoggy
03-28-2003, 10:42 PM
I have a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks that involves a five and a zero. At the moment, I am 49.
And that was 1972, not the friggin 60s .... No way was I gonna vote for Richard (no Dick) Nixon, but couldn't bring myself to vote for McGovern either.
youngin's ... :blink:
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 28 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 28 2003, 10:16 PM
I have a theory -
Anyone who aspires to the office of President is unfit for the office, just by the simple fact of what sort of egomanic would want to be President of the USA
If you want it, you're too flawed for the job
Vick, that's a god damn pearl if ever i heard one ;-))))
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 28 2003, 10:50 PM
I have a birthday coming up in a couple of weeks that involves a five and a zero. At the moment, I am 49.
And that was 1972, not the friggin 60s .... No way was I gonna vote for Richard (no Dick) Nixon, but couldn't bring myself to vote for McGovern either.
youngin's ... :blink:
:biglaugh:
I guess I shouldn't mention that my mum's 50th was the 17th march, and I passed quarter of a century a few days prior ;-)))
50 is FAR from old pd, my crazy nutcase (said lovingly) of a mother proves that to me every day ;-)
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 05:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.
Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.
It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
Well said, Hooper. Georgie couldn't even convince me he was worthy of my vote even if it was only to cast my vote against Al Gore, for Chrissake... that's saying something. For all of the reasons you so eloquently pointed out, and more, I think Bush is a fucking horrible president. It is like a knife in my gut to know this guy is the face of America.
Voting for the man and not the party gets more difficult with every election, that's for sure. What we need more than ever is more than just two really shitty choices.
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 07:08 PM
I think from now on we should have a new set of criteria for picking presidents... Just answer yes to four questions and he has my vote.
1) Is his dick bigger than mine?
2) Does he know how to do long division without a calculator?
3) Can he talk for 10 minutes without referring to God?
4) Can he beat me in a spelling bee?
i'd like to have a president who can beat me in a spelling bee is all realy want.. is that too much to ask?
New Slogan.. "George Bush, he cant beat you in a spelling bee... but he sure knows how to wave!"
Y'know, the Presidential Package is no concern of mine, but as for the other three, I believe we ought to codify those criteria!
sextoyking
03-28-2003, 11:46 PM
Good Eve,
just got back from seeing Basic with the family. Ok Movie, but nothing to brag about :)
Good points PD, Hooper, Vick, Rox.
I still remember being about 10 years old and my mom jumping up and down when Carter won the presidency, she was in tears and estatic. A Life long democrat, god rest her soul.
Carter forsure has made up for some of the bad times during his 4 years. He Def. cares about america and loves his country.
As far as bush goes, fuck I can't even tell you where my thoughts are with him. I give up until nov. 2004. At first I just didn't like him, didn't like his policies, his values, etc. But I have truly learned to despise him. As people in the state dept. are quitting over Iraq and policies, I can only PRAY to the almighty, that mabey Sec. Powell will finally get so sick of him and the hawks, that he too will quit. But I think he might be gone if bush wins 2004 anyways.
Who do I like right now, I like and always have loved Sen. Kerry, can't fuck with his patriotic record, that is forsure.
Officer on Navy Gun boat in Vietnam, 1 or 2 purple hearts, silver star, etc.
The reason I truly have respect for Kerry, is in the few years of the clinton admin. He chaired the sub commitee on POW / Mia's from vietnam for 1 whole year. I watched Cspan every night that year. He yelled, fought his ass off to find out any info on lost soldiers, I commend him for that..
Torone
03-29-2003, 09:47 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:
OldJeff
03-29-2003, 10:09 AM
"Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic."
And it is different than pointing out that Bush sucks and a Republican because ?.........
Oh yea, because it is OK to lump all Republicans together, but not Democrats, I remember now.
"Carter forsure has made up for some of the bad times during his 4 years. He Def. cares about america and loves his country."
What exactly has he done to make up for complete incompetence ?
Being a nice caring guy does not make up for shit. I am sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how someone "cares"
FUCK feel good psycobabble - Carter was and still is a nit wit, probably more of one than the stooge in there now - that is correct Dubya is a stooge
American political parties
Pro Abortion, Anti Gun corporate party
Pro Gun, Anti Abortion corporate party
Not really a whole lot of difference between the 2, and less than 1% of them are worth the air they breath
Hooper
03-29-2003, 11:10 AM
And it is different than pointing out that Bush sucks and a Republican because
Well at least you agree he sucks :)
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2003, 07:17 AM
American political parties
Pro Abortion, Anti Gun corporate party
Pro Gun, Anti Abortion corporate party
Not really a whole lot of difference between the 2, and less than 1% of them are worth the air they breath
So where would someone fit who's Pro-2nd Amendment & Pro-Choice (I have yet to meet a single person who's "pro-abortion.")?
Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 28 2003, 05:54 AM
While I didn't necessary like MM, I at least respected him for saying what he thought. He's become nothing more than a pure entertainer now and that respect is gone :(
This is exactly how I feel about Michael Moore too Peaches!
I used to love the stuff he did in the "The Awful Truth" and "TV Nation". I have been on his fan e-mail list for years... He was REALLY witty and almost an anti-entertainer! When his book Stupid White Men did so well in early 2002 I noticed his emails changed to be totally self promotional.. prior to that his emails were always about some ultra liberal campaign for any underdog cause sort of thing... Usually encouraging people to send a form letter to some Governor appealing for death sentence clemency and stuff like that.. never self promotional. Since about November 2001 I don't think I have seen one e-mail promoting anything but himself.. he's a boring media whore now... his Oscar ceremony speech was just another publicity motivated stunt as is his "passionate" anti war stance I reckon.
you should check out his website... actually don't, he claims that he gets 20 million hits a day :matey: it will probably be slow.. so I'll give you a couple of highlights...
Nowadays he seems to invoke the "name of lord" as being on his side almost as strongly as GWB..
I'd Like to Thank the Vatican...
By Michael Moore
March 27, 2003
A word of advice to future Oscar winners: Don't begin Oscar day by going to church.
That is where I found myself this past Sunday morning, at the Church of the Good Shepherd on Santa Monica Boulevard, at Mass with my sister and my dad. My problem with the Catholic Mass is that sometimes I find my mind wandering after I hear something the priest says, and I start thinking all these crazy thoughts like how it is wrong to kill people and that you are not allowed to use violence upon another human being unless it is in true self-defense.
The pope even came right out and said it: This war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.
This is his main menu items today.... :barfon:
See Mike's Backstage Press Conference at the Oscars
Moore explains Oscar speech
Michael Moore Stars at Academy Awards
He reminds me of how I felt in about 1979 when I realised Kiss weren't just in it for the love of the music :(
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 27 2003, 01:38 PM
What concerns me is that Michael Moore's material is presented as documentary and a lot of gullible people (particularly the 18-30 crowd here in the states) take it as a documentary and form opinions on the material and then act on those opinions based on information that has been incorrectly presented or represented - hence we have harmful, misguided action from Moore's profiteering
Not only is it presented as documentary, he clearly claims his work as "non-fiction" and a film "documentary" on his website.
Millions of Americans seem to agree. My book "Stupid White Men" still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it's been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). "Bowling for Columbine" has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site). My opinions about the state of the nation are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, want stronger environmental laws, support Roe vs. Wade and did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of our allies.
That is where the country is at. It's liberal, it's for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.
I agree fully that if his movie uses fictional setup scenes then Moore should be drawn and quartered and maybe charged with espionage or whatever you do to people that knowingly try and hurt the country for profit!
But seriously... can you accept those allegations could possibly be true? For a start the author appears to be clutching at straws if the first thing he has to say is some lame point about the killers not attending their bowling class. If the story about the gun giveaway is so far from reality why isn't the bank suing/exposing the fraud? he can't call it non-fiction and documentary and then just make up fictional shit can he? or maybe i am being really naive... :P I haven't seen it... but seriously who cares if some redneck community bank gives away guns to attract business... I saw that bit on the TV ads and it really was a funny scene! I don't believe anyone thinks all 250 million Americans are like that... wouldn't be worth making a "documentary" about if it was so normal! (Although BigS, Hooper, GWB, J.R. Ewing and almost everyone else I've ever run across from Texas do make me worry about what the truth really is) :P
Also, back on the thread topic by Todd... It was good to hear an American praise Clinton... I was wondering who it was that supported him through those 8 years! My memories of Clinton was that he held remarkably high opinion poll ratings even through the worst of his "incidents" ... From a foreigners point of view The Clinton years appeared good for America economically.. and in contrast to "Bush the father" and "Bush the son" that book ended him, Clinton developed amazingly good relations with Moscow, Europe and most of Asia... and all with what appeared a weighty economic bias advantage to the USA... he seemed to drive international policy from the inside and used that to ensure American business profited.. I honestly don't know if Clinton was good or bad for America.. I have been starting to think it is just foreigners that liked him from opinions posted around here ;-))
Clinton "promised" Australia the earth and gave us very little apart from more tariffs on our steel and agriculture exports to the US. Bush has already given a lot of this back to Australia.. and I don't doubt there is a lot more "payback" to come.. but I don't think this is all good news for us.. If he has so easily paid off a close ally it makes me wonder how much he has had to sell out to get some of the less friendly 45 coalition nations on board... or maybe he is just a nice guy who wants to help out the 20 million friendly folk down under because they stood up and supported him so fast.... Either way it's a worry imho.
Opti - you got me thinking - why isn't Moore going after the sources that are providing the information regarding the bank set up and other work he has done - one source being the Wall Street Journal? (who I would hope research the work they do)
Could it be that he hopes this doesn't get anymore press? Does he fear a backlash against him and his work if these allegations are true and get major mainstream press?
Crazy as it sounds I'm going to try to give this bank a call and see if they will comment
Last edited by Vick at Mar 29 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 30 2003, 07:56 AM
Opti - you got me thinking - why isn't Moore going after the sources that are providing the information regarding the bank set up and other work he has done - one source being the Wall Street Journal? (who I would hope research the work they do)
Could it be that he hopes this doesn't get anymore press? Does he fear a backlash against him and his work if these allegations are true and get major mainstream press?
Crazy as it sounds I'm going to try to give this bank a call and see if they will comment
Cool Idea Vick!!!! If he is happy to post that 20 million "people" per day visit his site (which is obviously what he is implying) he may well say anything!
I would love to know if that was true! Wall street journal... well I would hope they checked it out too.. did anyone have a link to the article I have missed? I can imagine the bank teller who was made to look like a goose also might say anything though!
Opti - here's the link to the WSJ article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233)
It is presented as an opinion journal so I guess that protects from lawsuits to some degree
well, i could've believed a lot of what he had to say until i read the 20 million hits a day to his website
:biglaugh:
i'm so sick of celebrities who don't know how to read their website stats claiming bullshit numbers like that. I wish someone would explain the difference between hits and visitors
:headwall:
if he does have 20 million visitors a day *cough*, i want to manage his website.
RawAlex
03-30-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Torone@Mar 29 2003, 09:55 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:
Torone, I agree with you fully, Rush always presents 100% truth - but he SELECTS the truth very carefully, and ignores facts that don't support his opinions - often ignoring facts that prove him wrong or show that "his side" did the same things when they were in the same situation.
The tax thing is a riot - it really is simple math - even if you had a flat tax percentage rate, the more affluent would pay more tax than the poor. No news here, except to present the numbers in a way to obliterate real logic and replace it with indignation and panic.
Vick
Republicans: Rich white guys denying the existance of crime and poverty
Democrats: Rich white guys accepting that you can't ignore it forever.
Anyway, Toronto was fun... camera work continues to get better... :-)
Alex
Torone
03-31-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex+Mar 30 2003, 07:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RawAlex @ Mar 30 2003, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Mar 29 2003, 09:55 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:
Torone, I agree with you fully, Rush always presents 100% truth - but he SELECTS the truth very carefully, and ignores facts that don't support his opinions - often ignoring facts that prove him wrong or show that "his side" did the same things when they were in the same situation.
The tax thing is a riot - it really is simple math - even if you had a flat tax percentage rate, the more affluent would pay more tax than the poor. No news here, except to present the numbers in a way to obliterate real logic and replace it with indignation and panic.
Vick
Republicans: Rich white guys denying the existance of crime and poverty
Democrats: Rich white guys accepting that you can't ignore it forever.
Anyway, Toronto was fun... camera work continues to get better... :-)
Alex[/b][/quote]
Which is worse...telling an outright lie over and over; or selecting the truth.
Aside: I am so tired of the word 'select' and its' various tenses...
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Rox@Mar 29 2003, 12:08 PM
I have yet to meet a single person who's "pro-abortion."
Now you have! :bwave:
Winetalk.com
03-31-2003, 10:06 AM
make it 2..
I am pro-abortion as well...
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 04:21 PM
I know you hate it when someone points out that every republicans favorite windbag is lying to you... because until it was pointed out as a lie, you were more than willing to swallow it whole.
Sucks, don't it?
Alex
No, I actually agree with you. Rush Limbaugh does exactly what you are saying. However, I think you're bring hypocritical.
What your referring to in Rush Limbaugh is that he has a belief first and then finds supporting arguments for it ignoring the obvious arguments against it. You do the same with the United States. Many of your posts have a "What is wrong with America" theme. You see the world through an anti-american lense in the same way that Rush Limbaugh sees the world through a conservative one. Find supporting arguments. Ignore all opposing arguments.
The fill in the blank answer was:
Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to the United States.
I don't blame you. Like Mr. Limbaugh, you just have a very strong emotional attachment to your position. One that blinds you to it's weaknesses. It's not your fault.
Last edited by Colin at Mar 31 2003, 10:32 AM
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 10:37 AM
As far as Moore vs. Limbaugh.
I don't think either is any more guilty of any of the things we are discussing than the other.
I saw Moore's latest film this year and liked it. As entertainment. The cartoon was hilarious. He certainly intentionally quoted statistics which most supported his position.
Limbaugh. I listened to his show for a little while on my last trip to Orlando, right about the same time I saw "Bowling for Columbine" actually. It was typical pro-conservative rhetoric.
No doubt, both are very talented. There is a reason why they have large audiences.
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 10:49 AM
Colin, sorry, but I have to disagree with you pretty much all around.
What Moore did in a single movie is like what Rush does in a single radio show... both have a couple of hours of "preconceived" truths they want to tell, and they assemble the "facts" they need to do it. I agree there with you.
Problem is, Rush (and the rushabee soundalikes) are out there daily misinforming the public, garnering huge audiences for their message of moral superiority, all the while not telling ALL of the truth - only telling the often only discussing very specific minutes of an hour long event, just to create an artificial sense of outrage amoungst people. We aren't talking about making them change car companies, or deciding not to buy a rifle, we are talking about affecting their vote and as a result the lay of the land of your country (and the would as a result, as the last 2 years has shown).
You cannot suggest that a single Michael Moore movie could even weigh evenly against years of Rush indoctrination.
What your referring to in Rush Limbaugh is that he has a belief first and then finds supporting arguments for it ignoring the obvious arguments against it. You do the same with the United States. Many of your posts have a "What is wrong with America" theme. You see the world through an anti-american lense in the same way that Rush Limbaugh sees the world through a conservative one. Find supporting arguments. Ignore all opposing argume
Sorry Colin, just not the case. Seeing the world through colored glasses just means that you put your own bend on the facts. Rush ignores facts when they aren't near what he wants.
You keep thinking I am anti-american. That is such shit. I don't like your President, I don't like his actions, I don't like his self righteous little smirk every time he speaks... and I don't like what he has done to many american's thinking in the last couple of years... Don't try to stick one of your stupid "You don't love american so you must hate it" extremist tags on me... don't you ever have any middle ground in anything you do in life?
Alex
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 31 2003, 10:14 AM
make it 2..
I am pro-abortion as well...
Every woman should have a choice...
Alex
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 10:57 AM
You cannot suggest that a single Michael Moore movie could even weigh evenly against years of Rush indoctrination.
I wasn't commenting nor comparing the effects either one has had on society or public opinion. I don't see where you think I suggested that.
However, I don't see at all a campaign to "misinform the public". I have little doubt that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. believe what they are saying.
I've noticed that:
A conservative thinks CNN is far leftist propaganda.
A liberal European thinks CNN is conservative american propaganda.
I believe that O'Reilly thinks he's being "fair and balanced" from his point-of-view. Many that have his point-of-view feel the same thing.
I think you are pointing out qualities that apply to people, not just to "conservatives" - and equally so from where I sit.
Alex, Alex Alex
The difference ..........
Moore purposely produced a fraudulent movie and accepted an academy award for it
Moore acted irresponsibly with the INTENT to fraud
How you don't see that as a world of difference (and Moore's "work" as an offense to intelligence) is beyond me
As far as Rep's and Dem's .....
Rep's might actually believe that people are responsible for themselves and not the government being responsible for bettering the plight of anyone
Last edited by Vick at Mar 31 2003, 11:20 AM
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 11:19 AM
Vick, and Rush daily runs a "less than honest" radio show that brings votes to one party and not the other... which one has the greater effect in your life? There is a great difference... one lied for 2 hours, one spouts half truths every day for years... yup, there is a great difference.
Colin, it isn't just about "seeing things your way"... there is alot more to it.
I remember last summer driving across the US, listening to Rush (AM radio travels further) and trying not to laugh out loud that anyone would fall for his actions. He was complaining about how democrats had done "this thing" (don't even remember what it was) in the house and how it was a shame, a disgrace, a national tragedy that the minority party couldn't accept their being the minority party and how they whined and called people names and blocked legislations and how they were wasting taxpayers money and keeping the president from running the country. Yet, he forgot to mention that not more a couple of years ago, the tables were turned and the republicans did the EXACT same things... at that time it was "standing up for the rights of every decent american"...
It is high brow horseshit. It is deceptive, it isn't being honest, and it changes how people vote. Considering how small the margin was, it could be said that Rush's "opinions" changed the way the race turned out. I know that Rush claimed that big and loud for months...
Michael Moore can't claim that, now can he?
Alex
Alex, you and I must live in different worlds :o
Have you read this
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233)
Here is a snippet
Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.
But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."
Do you get that was intentional fraud, does with a purpose to deceive?!!
Everyone knows Rush is a windbag, Moore's presents his work as factual when he on many occasions purposely presents fraudulent material that he with willful intent produced
Using statistics and giving your own spin is one thing, totally fabricating scenarios and presenting them in film as factual (and accepting an Oscar for them) is totally another
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 11:44 AM
Vick, MOORE LIED.... can I say it any louder? Foir a two hour movie seen ONCE bya few million people, he lied.
Rush has what size audience? How often? How long?
Vick, let me repeat myself MICHAEL MOORE LIED IN HIS MOVIE.
Rush Limbaugh deceives people every day.
What part of this are you not understanding? It's the difference between getting drunk once and being an alcoholic!
Alex
sextoyking
03-31-2003, 11:48 AM
Me too, Always have been pro choice, always will be.
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 11:48 AM
Vick, btw, yes I read that... have you considered PERHAPS that these people, after being trapped in a bullshit situation, decided to try to shoft the blame a little bit? The cameras didn't just appear out of thin air, now did they?
But that's not the point.
One guy did something that maybe got him an award in a less than honest way.
One guy on a daily basis spreads venom, half truths, and misleading facts which affects the way people vote...
I don't know, I can't really tell which one changes my life more... it's so hard to tell the difference... a few less votes here and there and you would all be bashing a democrat right now.
Alex
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 11:27 AM
Colin, it isn't just about "seeing things your way"... there is alot more to it.
I think it is.
It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval.
It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003.
This says nothing about Rush Limbaugh nor about conservatives in general. It has everything to do with people.
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 11:52 AM
Vick, MOORE LIED.... can I say it any louder? Foir a two hour movie seen ONCE bya few million people, he lied.
Rush has what size audience? How often? How long?
Vick, let me repeat myself MICHAEL MOORE LIED IN HIS MOVIE.
Rush Limbaugh deceives people every day.
What part of this are you not understanding? It's the difference between getting drunk once and being an alcoholic!
Alex
Are we still discussing ethics or has the subject changed to the "liberal media" vs. the "conservative media" now? Alex looks like he is trying to change the subject from ethics to effects.
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 12:14 PM
Colin, are you not reading? It isn't about "this side or that side" - but the difference between being dishonest in a movie (once) and being less than honest daily (on radio).
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
I see both of them being like the "clinton bodycount" that Mike posted a while back... both use just enough truth to hang their version of bullshit on... just that Rush and his ilk get to do it 5 days a week...
Alex
Alex - I still can't get past this which I posted earlier
"Using statistics and giving your own spin is one thing, totally fabricating scenarios and presenting them in film as factual (and accepting an Oscar for them) is totally another"
I guess what you're saying is it's untruths in one fashion or another and what their reach and effect are
What I saying is the difference between using stats to your advantage to support your argument by presentation (Rush) versus not bothering with stats and instead making up your own reality as presenting it is truth (Moore)
I see Moore as much worse and his acts as criminal and heinous, the fact he accepted an Oscar for documentary when in fact his work is fiction makes a huge statement about Moore
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Colin+Mar 31 2003, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 31 2003, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 11:27 AM
Colin, it isn't just about "seeing things your way"... there is alot more to it.
I think it is.
It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval.
It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003.
This says nothing about Rush Limbaugh nor about conservatives in general. It has everything to do with people.[/b][/quote]
Colin, that isn't just about seeing things your way... it is about timing, circumstance, situation...
Ignoring the facts that make up a situation, and just presenting a situation (Bush wanted to bomb iraq, didn't get UN permission, Clinton wanted to bomb iraq, didn't get UN permission) makes them sound like the same situation. As if everything was the same - and it isn't. By removing all the supporting information on these two situations, you make both look equal - and they really aren't.
The funniest part of it all is the same people that were pissed off at Clinton for not getting UN permission are the same people now pissed off that he didn't finish the job. History has been carefully re-written to show that Clinton backed down... that he wimped out. Those same people never mention that things could have been fixed in 1991... and we wouldn't be here now.
Right now, I suspect the truth is buried under huge piles on unethical bullshit coming from both sides... so much so that people don't know what is really true - so they rally behind the most strident voices... that is sad.
Alex
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 12:22 PM
Colin, are you not reading? It isn't about "this side or that side" - but the difference between being dishonest in a movie (once) and being less than honest daily (on radio).
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
Did you miss the post above where I said "No, I actually agree with you. Rush Limbaugh does exactly what you are saying" or are you starting another round of selectively reading?
You have made a leap from someone's actions to claiming to know someone's intentions. Short of being able to read minds, you are presenting pure speculation as fact and then accusing me of being blind to it. Too funny.
Do you realize how absurd it is to present your thoughts about someone's intentions as fact?
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 12:29 PM
Vick, how often can I repeat this: Moore lied. that sucks. He is a moron for doing it. He lied for one movie, for one award that is nothing but a naked gold guy. Big fat hairy deal. Does it affect your day to day life?
Having to say "President Gore" would certainly make your day different, wouldn't it?
Alex
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 12:37 PM
Does it affect your day to day life?
Having to say "President Gore" would certainly make your day different, wouldn't it?
Yes and Yes
:P
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 12:38 PM
Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
I have two facts... based on them, I can suspect how you feel about the message (if not the man).
Vick, I can't imagine that an Academy Award is the same as who runs the US. An amusing concept, but not likely. :-)
Alex
Bowling for Columbine (and Moore's other works) is taken seriously and as truth by many and has shaped public opinion
Wining a prestigious award add credence to Moore's work
Long story short - A good friend lives in NYC, works for CBS radio, college educated, intelligent with a good career. Saw Bowling for Columbine and believed the movie, that colored her opinion which influences her actions including voting
and that is how Moore's work in a small way effects other's lives
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 12:46 PM
Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
I have two facts... based on them, I can suspect how you feel about the message (if not the man).
Actually, there were two political tests.
I think if you look at the other political test I took that I only agree with 33% of the Republican party platform which I feel is about right. I would assume Limbaugh is nearly in complete agreement with the Republican party platform so by that logic I would agree with about 33%. Is that bad or good on your eyes?
I am anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, believe the welfare system is ok the way it is, etc.
Note - getting Alex and Colin in a political themed thread = Lots of posts and page views B)
OldJeff
03-31-2003, 12:58 PM
Pro Abortion - what is it ?
Pro - in favor of
Abortion - a medical proceedure that terminates a pregnancy.
Pro Choice is some watered down soft speak, I like to call things what they are, "Pro Choice" as it is used, simply means keeping abortion legal, there are a large number of "Pro Choice" activists that are completely against counseling of adoption, or other options.
I am by the way "Pro Abortion" I believe it is an acceptable method of birth control.
Did you ever notice that most of the people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place ? - George Carlin
In addition to being Pro Abortion I am also
Pro Free Speech
Pro Gun
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Drug Legalization
I am also all for taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge becasue they weren't in there to begin with, however I do completely support the right of a religious child to say grace before eating his or her lunch in a public place.
Peaches
03-31-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 31 2003, 02:06 PM
however I do completely support the right of a religious child to say grace before eating his or her lunch in a public place.
Is there somewhere that this isn't allowed? :blink:
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 12:31 PM
The funniest part of it all is the same people that were pissed off at Clinton for not getting UN permission are the same people now pissed off that he didn't finish the job. History has been carefully re-written to show that Clinton backed down... that he wimped out. Those same people never mention that things could have been fixed in 1991... and we wouldn't be here now.
Alex,
You are so easy. You just pulled a Rush Limbaugh.
Now let's look at the silly thing you just said. You intentionally left out the parts of the argument that would quickly and simply nullify your argument.
If the debate is whether the US should only act militarily with UN approval, why would you
point to a conservative president that DID act with UN approval? Bush II didn't have a UN
resolution. Clinton didn't have a UN resolution. Bush Sr. did and he followed it.
Am I to understand you that you think Bush Sr. should have acted outside of the UN resolution
in order for future presidents to act with in it?
No, of course not. EXACTLY like you claim of Rush Limbaugh, you presented facts that support your position, even if they are are very misleading and impertinent. Besides, it contradicts the original thesis, it doesn't support it.
Bush Sr. is a shining example of how one WOULD get UN approval for an action.
You'll notice that I gave an example of where both conservatives and liberals were being
inconsistent.
"It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval."
"It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003."
You jumped all over the one and not that other. Why? It has nothing to do with objectivity. You are attempting to choose an arbitrary starting point in a sequence of historical events to demonstrate your point.
Worst of all, you contradicted the original argument in order to try and show that "conservatives are wrong", not to try and demonstrate an honest assessment.
You are a liberal Rush Limbaugh.
Last edited by Colin at Mar 31 2003, 01:27 PM
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 01:05 PM
OldJeff, sometimes people hide behind things... "pro choice" is a soft term (like middle of the road) used to cover alot of people with alot of different opinions... an attempt to get them all to salute the same flag.
On that basis, let me adjust my position statement slightly: It is up to the woman, on an individual case basis, to do what she thinks is right under the circumstances. Nobody should restrict her from making the choices she needs to make - she is the one stuck with the concequences for at least 18 years and nine months.
Ever notice that most of the protestors at abortion rallies (both sides) are men? It's sick.
Vick, how many people saw Moore's movie? How many people listen to Rush (and the other commentators pseudo-journalists out there)? Who does the most damage?
Off to the gym... later y'all.
Alex
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 01:10 PM
Pro-choice. No one has the right to "do what they want with their body". By that logic, everyone should be able to do shoot up heroin, smoke crack, and should sure as hell be able to drive down the street without a seatbelt.
I'm pro-abortion.
Originally posted by Colin@Mar 31 2003, 01:18 PM
By that logic, everyone should be able to do shoot up heroin, smoke crack, and should sure as hell be able to drive down the street without a seatbelt.
as long as you don't do #1 and or #2 while doing #3
.... eh Fuck if I know
Almighty Colin
03-31-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Vick@Mar 31 2003, 01:05 PM
Note - getting Alex and Colin in a political themed thread = Lots of posts and page views B)
Alex is having a political debate. I am having an apolitical one.
This is why we can never agree. <_<
-= JR =-
03-31-2003, 01:49 PM
"never teach a pig to sing. it will just waste your time and annoy the pig"
-= JR =-
03-31-2003, 02:47 PM
Notice Alex that no one has accused you of being balanced? in your mind it is because everyone else does not "get it", the are "brainwashed" and they "just can't see the truth". however, if thats what you need to tell yourself, to both tolerate yourself and struggle through one more day of being Alex, its understandable. living a life of paranoia, insecurity and fear cant be a easy thing to deal with and i wont pretend to feel your pain. i will simply give you my sympathy.
Here is a perfect example of the absurdity of being you:
Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
one side is biased... because they dont agree with you and your views. you clearly have opposite political views... yet you feel you have a perfectly balanced opinion. hmm... how does that work Alex? How is it that Colins perception of Rush Limbaugh is less valid than yours because he may be "more likely to agree with him" and your views are MORE valid because you may be LESS likely to agree with him?
has it not yet occured to you that your views may possibly be slightly less than balanced? You are so far left on the political scale that you have created a whole new territory of "i hate all Republican assholes" and you feel that you are the only one that see the whole truth?
your attitude and is no different than that of Hitler, of Charles Manson or of any serial killer who heard voices in his head telling him to kill. They all "saw something NO ONE else saw" - the all believed it to be the truth. The all believed that they say the "true facts". Of course comparing your attitude and warped perceptions of the world to those of Charles Mansons may not be a fair comparison since significantly more people agreed with him than with you.
why dont you start the thread you are really waiting to start - "America never went to the moon and anyone who believed it is a friggin moron"
Last edited by -= JR =- at Mar 31 2003, 03:58 PM
RawAlex
03-31-2003, 06:29 PM
JR, I am so sorry. You are right, I am wrong. You are perfect. You are the best. One day I will have all the knowledge you do, and then I will be the second best person in the world, because you will be the best. You are totally perfect, non-biased, totally informed, and always 100% on the ball.
I am in awe.
Alex
-= JR =-
03-31-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 31 2003, 06:37 PM
JR, I am so sorry. You are right, I am wrong. You are perfect. You are the best. One day I will have all the knowledge you do, and then I will be the second best person in the world, because you will be the best. You are totally perfect, non-biased, totally informed, and always 100% on the ball.
I am in awe.
Alex
Alex i am beginning to suspect that sense of "awe" you feel 24/7 is actually autism. Though of course i am flattered, i feel that its only right to tell you that it has nothing to do with me.
I NEVER said i am right, i know more or my opinion is better than anyone elses. I simply know the difference between opinion and fact.
I state opinions. I say what i "think". I dont think that my opinions are any better than anyone elses. I dont waste my time saying things like "you just dont get it" - because unlike you, i realize that more often than not, there is the possibility that "i just dont get it".
I think you are an ass. not because i dissagree with you. not because i know that we have opposite or opposing views politically... not because i am probably a little more conservative in my views than you. i think your an ass because you spend all of your time trying to subtly explain to people why they are fucked in the head, why your opinions are actaully fact and why in spite of your obvious political bias, that your opinion is the only balanced opinion on this green earth.
you can keep making stupid replys and repeating the same thing again and again "you are right, i am wrong" etc. or you could try for once to defend yourself and your aguments.
be a man and explain this:
Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
You try to make the point that Colins opinion about Rush Limbaugh is less valid than your opinion about Rush Limbaugh because Colin may be more likely to agree with Rush Limbaugh than you.
You then continue to argue that your opinion is MORE valid because you dont agree with Rush Limbaugh but dont seem to acknowledge that since you dont agree with Rush Limbaugh you may in fact be more likely to see anything he would see in a negative light which in my opinion is no more balanced than agreeing with him.
Go out on a limb big guy and explain to me and others how Colins view may be biased in this example, whiles yours would not be.
Last edited by -= JR =- at Mar 31 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 31 2003, 10:06 AM
Pro Abortion - what is it ?
Pro - in favor of
Abortion - a medical proceedure that terminates a pregnancy.
Pro Choice is some watered down soft speak, I like to call things what they are, "Pro Choice" as it is used, simply means keeping abortion legal, there are a large number of "Pro Choice" activists that are completely against counseling of adoption, or other options.
I am by the way "Pro Abortion" I believe it is an acceptable method of birth control.
Did you ever notice that most of the people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place ? - George Carlin
In addition to being Pro Abortion I am also
Pro Free Speech
Pro Gun
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Drug Legalization
I am also all for taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge becasue they weren't in there to begin with, however I do completely support the right of a religious child to say grace before eating his or her lunch in a public place.
Interesting, I've never heard someone who's pro-choice say they're against any other alternatives. That's what the "choice" part is about, with abortion being just one of a few.
And going by Colin's definition, I'd have to say I'm definitely pro-choice. Shoot all the heroin you want, smoke all the crack you want -- as long as your choices don't infringe on other people's, by imperiling or depriving them of life, liberty or property, fuckin' have at it, I say. Legalize all drugs and tax it heavily enough to cover rehab programs... works for me.
Except perhaps for the Death Penalty position, I'm "pro" pretty much everything else on your list, OldJeff. That matter I'm still mulling over (along with open borders and free trade).
RawAlex
04-01-2003, 12:09 AM
JR, you are right again. You are right about everything. Everyone should just stop thinking and follow what you say. You are perfect.
You are the man.
Alex
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 1 2003, 12:17 AM
JR, you are right again. You are right about everything. Everyone should just stop thinking and follow what you say. You are perfect.
You are the man.
Alex
why would anyone stop thinking Alex? how did i say or imply that?
I see quite a bit of evidence that you think very little as it is and i certainly would not encourage you to think less. the world does not need a drooling, diaper wearing, RawAlex 200 pound paperweight.
how about just pointing out what it is that i dont understand in your logic that seems to me to be clearly flawed?
jesus JR, get over it already!!
don't you have anything better to do than give alex shit day after day?!!!?
:rolleyes:
Hooper
04-01-2003, 01:05 AM
It's the difference between getting drunk once and being an alcoholic!
Fuck! I knew i was doing something wrong! I'll be over there--> working and makin some $ if anybody doesnt want to continue this discussion :)
I still stand by my saying... and nobody yet has disagreed with it..
I just want a president who can beat me in a spelling bee... thats all :) :yowsa:
Last edited by Hooper at Apr 1 2003, 01:14 AM
hooper, you can't expect a president to spell AND run the country!!!
that's what pa's are for!!
RawAlex
04-01-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by cj@Apr 1 2003, 01:12 AM
jesus JR, get over it already!!
don't you have anything better to do than give alex shit day after day?!!!?
:rolleyes:
cj, the funniest part is that he just doesn't get the humor... and doesn't realize that any question that starts with some variation of "hey asshole" doesn't get much attention...
But, he's the man. he is perfect. he knows this and is just playing. Got to love them those perfect people come down and play with us mere mortal 200 pound paperweights.
Alex
i agree, but ....
you stop it too young man or you'll go to your room and no television and NO COMPUTER for a week!!
and if that's not enough, both of you can stay in your room together until you sort this out like mature adults!!
and if you STILL can't behave appropriately, i'll send you both to daddy serge's house for a week and have him describe the last 6 weeks with a kidney stone in explicit detail!!!
NOW BEHAVE YOU 2!!!!
:biglaugh: :P :nyanya: :biglaugh: :P :nyanya:
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by cj@Apr 1 2003, 01:12 AM
jesus JR, get over it already!!
don't you have anything better to do than give alex shit day after day?!!!?
:rolleyes:
CJ, i admit that i am being very childish at times. sometimes its just to vent. sometimes its just because i personally find humor in something i posted.
Its his constant condescending tone, while trying to explain to everyone they are wrong that annoys me. its one thing to present an opinion and defend it. its another thing entirely to present opinion as fact, talk down to people because they have different views and then begin posts with remarks like "you just dont get it" while dancing around the questions.
I have tremendous respect for PornoDoggy. He has changed my views on many things and caused me to come more to center due to his ability to provide a balanced argument. He often does so knowing that the odds are not in his favor when he presents an argument that he knows will not be popular.
Alex simply spends his time trying to get everyone to understand that Alex is right. that Alex's perceptions are the only truths and that his opinions are fact. that to me is really annoying. it does not make it right for me to flip him shit... but at the same time, he does it while evading tough questions because he knows where they are leading. which really annoys me to no end.
People can attack me all they want. people have and people sometimes do. anyone who gets offended by something said on a messageboard has no business posting on messageboards. all messageboards are the same... whether they are about math, religion, investing or porn. the characters are the same... the conversations are the same and the arguments are often the same.
MikeAI, Vick and others were calling me a traitor and Communist when i was suggesting it was contradictory to assassinate Hussein in the name of democracy and freedom to choose. thats life. i dont respect them any less and i understand their opinions and why they feel strongly about what they said. they made their points and defended them. i respect that. thats what messageboards are often about. its almost never pretty. its certainly what this messageboard is about. i certainly never got pissy about it, threatened lawsuits or threatened to hurt them, their families and their business as Alex did with me.
I do have better things to do that flip him shit everyday BTW. i have reduced myself to flipping him shit every 3-4 days now.
i read half of this and i'm bored.
you've said it over and over, and its still a lame argument. you are posting to me, but really you are using it as a big disguise for yet another random dig at alex.
you see it that he is claiming he is right, i see it as he is arguing a point he feels might be right and is trying to get you to understand but you have absolutely no intention of trying to understand it because you've already made up your mind.
its frustrating reading it because you are both usually trying to say exactly the same thing, but you are both so stubborn and childish over whatever big dick contest you have going on that you sit there picking apart sentence structure and single words and trying to trap each other into saying shit that you can use as ammunition in your argument of WHY ALEX/JR IS A MORON.
you obviously both know a whole bunch of stuff the other one doesn't and you obviously both have strengths of knowledge in specific areas and weaknesses in others. both of you continue to raise valid points, but you will never learn from each other because you are too busy picking apart every verb and suffix you don't agree with!
for fucks sake, is it really all that important??!?!?
now, finish doing your chores and go straight back to your rooms!!!
:heil: :heil: :heil:
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by cj@Apr 1 2003, 02:22 AM
for fucks sake, is it really all that important??!?!?
now, finish doing your chores and go straight back to your rooms!!!
:heil: :heil: :heil:
no, its really not.
i am going to my room now.
:(
you had to go and do the sad face
oh ok then you can have some icecream with chocolate sauce, i'll even make it for you
* see why lisa only sends her kids over for short periods?!?!?!?
:biglaugh:
RawAlex
04-01-2003, 02:53 AM
for fucks sake, is it really all that important??!?!?
cj, that's the reason I won't play with JR anymore on the boards... it isn't going anywhere... it just ain't fun like this...
can I have some ice cream too? :P
Alex
only if you can play nice!!!
i had this image of the 2 of you locked in a room, with a pile of encyclopedia's and reference books around you, both yelling at each other about the decor, and how it relates to politics.
:biglaugh:
fuck, now i feel like an icecream sundae with banana and crushed nuts and chocolate fudge ... of this list, i can eat the banana. yippee!
Carrie
04-01-2003, 03:46 AM
Alex, if you think Rush is bad, you should take a listen to Michael Savage.
Let's just say he's the right-wing Howard Stern of politics.
I despise him and the self-tooting horn he rode in on.
I used to be pro-abortion, and then I got pregnant and realized I had a baby in me.
Now, I don't see abortion as "birth control" (which should be called "pregnancy control" because it stops pregnancy, not birth), I see it as killing a baby.
If that makes me a wacko, so be it.
Btw, back to the original question of the thread - I voted for Bush. The thought of Gore being President literally terrified me, with his national ID card and national database and all of that socialist crap.
Do I agree with everything Bush has done? Hell no.
And doesn't it figure, the only Democrat I would've loved to have voted for just got put into prison. *sigh* (Beam me up, Scotty!)
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 04:49 AM
ok. i will be nice and explain myself in the nicest way possible because i feel that this is an important behavior to notice when it comes to politics. we are all guilty of being biased. we all think we are not.
first let me clear the air and say that i personally dont like Rush Limbaugh at all. i share many of the same opinions that Alex does.
But this is about a basic flaw in human behavior that we all have, not about politics or Rush Limbaugh.
here is what Alex said:
Rush Limbaugh deceives people every day.
One guy on a daily basis spreads venom, half truths, and misleading facts which affects the way people vote...
I remember last summer driving across the US, listening to Rush (AM radio travels further) and trying not to laugh out loud that anyone would fall for his actions.
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...
this is what i am trying to say:
Alex characterizes Colins opinion of Rush Limbaugh as being biased because Colin is more likely to agree with what Rush Limbaugh says (supported by the political test which for the sake of this conversation can assume is accurate)
Alex then admits repeatedly to having a negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh and has said in the past that he has a negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh listeners - and used that fact to say that his opinion is MORE balanced because he is more likely to see the negative side of Rush Limbaughs preachings (i.e. the "half truths" etc).
What i was trying to point out (in the wrong way obviously) is that Alex is also biased (admittedly) AGAINST Rush Limbaugh which also causes him to both view Rush Limbaugh and his opinions in a negative light. It causes him to focus more on the "half truths" rather than weigh each thing said on its own merits. i think that the only way he could argue that his opinion about Rush Limbaugh is more valid than Colins is if he could prove that he had absolutely no opinion whatsoever about Conservative and Liberal politics and the Republican and Democratic parties, Rush Limbaughs politics and Colin.
Its my belief that we all behave pretty much in this way. we all see people, opinions, beliefs and ideas that we agree with in a more favorable light and those that we disagree with in a more negative light and we are almost incapable of weighing them evenly and without bias. i personally dont think its possible to do so.
This plays out on GFY at least 100 times a day. "CNN is propoganda, Channel 5 in Porvo, Finland tells the real truth (or the "my news is better than your news" debate)" - the reality is that one side is telling the news from a perspective that is relevent to the USA, US politics and current events that effect the USA and the other is telling the news from the perspective of people who live in a tiny, sleepy town in the Baltic Sea whos greatest concerns are how to grow a better potato and certainly not where is "osama bin laden" and "how do we deal with terrorism in the 21st century". This is what i believe to be the "accidental bias" of media worldwide. it leads to opinions and world views that are accidentally biased. no matter how bad we dont want to believe that they are.
I dont believe that i am balanced in any of my opinions. i try to be. i want to believe at times that i am. but i really dont even believe that its possible to be. i find myself constantly accepting statements from people i like, agree with or respect with less question than those of people who i dont - at which point i then immediately find 6000 ways to rip that statement and that person apart. Alex does the same thing in my opinion... but he does so while trying to present admittedly biased opinions as balanced and accurate facts.
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 05:12 AM
[Deleted due to inappropriate material] - Serge
Last edited by Colin at Apr 1 2003, 05:21 AM
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 05:25 AM
[Deleted due to inappropriate material] - Serge
dig420
04-01-2003, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Torone@Mar 29 2003, 09:55 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaug...es-reality.html (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html)
not eeeeeeven close.
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 06:29 AM
Dig,
How's life? :)
Torone
04-01-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by dig420+Apr 1 2003, 06:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dig420 @ Apr 1 2003, 06:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Mar 29 2003, 09:55 AM
Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaug...es-reality.html (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html)
not eeeeeeven close.[/b][/quote]
What the fuck was that? It certainly offered no proof of anything except your liberal bias...
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 09:26 AM
Torone, what would be proving bias by posting a link that points out a lot of errors in Rush Limbaughs book (a book of which its main purpose was to discredit liberals) and remarks on his radio show
does this prove something about Dig?
LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)
REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."
what about this remark:
LIMBAUGH: "The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict."
or this:
LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White".'... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)
REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body that is not white.
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?" (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"
what about this nice one:
LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93)
RawAlex
04-01-2003, 09:27 AM
I have never seen edits like that before. I am impressed, I guess.
JR, I read your entire thing... one word stood out in the "quotes" section:
"PROBABLY".
You are taking for fact things that I am saying are probable. I remember Colin's little X/Y po;litical chart being something like +5 -1, or so... fairly strongly on the conservative side of things. On that basis, he probably agrees with Rush much more that I would (I was near the middle, -1 -3, I think it was).
"PROBABLY"
Someone who agrees with Rush is less likely to see the contridictions, probably. It's hard to say "your right" and "your full of beans" at the same time...
At the end of it all, I can say it is probable that you are reading my posts and adding and removing words in your mind to create the type of post you think I was going to put up here. You long ago stopped reading what I have to say. Now, you just appear to filter it through and read into anything you want.
I suspect that the two deleted posts were the impressive acts of adults. I think that sums up your side of things nicely.
Alex
OldJeff
04-01-2003, 09:36 AM
fair.org is a really funny name for that website :blink:
I did however bookmark it - seems like a good place to get the viewpoint of the extreme left
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 1 2003, 09:35 AM
I remember Colin's little X/Y po;litical chart being something like +5 -1, or so... fairly strongly on the conservative side of things.
Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.87
Only in the wide,wide whacky world of Alex would this be considered "fairly strongly on the conservative side of things".
Rush Limbaugh would consider me to be a borderline communist and definitely a lefty pinko.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 1 2003, 10:11 AM
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 10:07 AM
Alex,
What do you get for this one?
http://www.3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html
Me.
1) Libertarian Party 89%
2) Constitution Party 56%
3) Natural Law Party 44%
4) Green Party 44%
5) Reform Party 44%
6) Democratic Party 33%
7) Republican Party 33%
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 10:13 AM
NM, Alex. That test will give you different results because you have a different reference point.
Canadia v. US
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 10:15 AM
I guess this is how we missunderstand each other Alex. as i read things, you were clear in your dislike of Rush Limbaugh.
it seemed to be clear to me that you were trying to make a general point that your opinion about Rush Limbaugh is more valid than that of Colins because you dont like Rush Limbaugh. That logic as it is, makes some sense. - i.e. saying that Colin is biased in that he is more likely to agree. .. but this also assumes that you dont have any opinion of Rush Limbaugh whereas Colin does and thus you see things with more clarity. That would make sense if that was the case. Because that would mean you did not have a biased opinion. Furthermore, it would have to assume that you are not in anyway biased against Republicans and Conservatives... which is also not the case.
a big point Alex is that you had an opinion about the politics of Rush Limbaugh before you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh.
there is another dimension which also factors in to your opinion about Rush Limbaugh... the fact that you clearly, really dont like him. You are BIASED AGAINST Rush Limbaugh and you are also biased against Conservative politics... in the exact same way you say Colin is biased for him because he may "probably" agree with him.
You use what seems to me to be some pretty flawed logic to make a point that your opinion is more valid than Colins. (thats the way i understood what you posted)
you said exactly:
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly.
You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...
in your post, you were attempting to say that Colins "probable" bias gives you a more balanced opinion. .. but that assumes you have no bias at all.
i am saying that if you have a biased opinion - its exactly that. nothing more, nothing less. it is hard to make the case that one biased opinion is more valid than another biased opinion.
Last edited by -= JR =- at Apr 1 2003, 10:26 AM
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 10:23 AM
I'd say my opinion on Rush Limbaugh is pretty close to Alex's.
Since i'm right of Alex there would tend to be more overlap though I'm not sure why that is pertinent in light of the clear evidence above that Alex THINKS just like Rush Limbaugh.
Just for grins
1) Libertarian Party 73%
2) Constitution Party 64%
3) Republican Party 50%
4) Natural Law Party 41%
5) Reform Party 36%
6) Democratic Party 32%
7) Green Party 27%
RawAlex
04-01-2003, 12:06 PM
JR, you are so wrong. I had no opinion of Rush until I listened. I had heard all sorts of things, that he was the savior, that he was hot, that he spoke what the people wanted to hear, that he was rooting out the corruption and stupidity in Washington...
I was shocked listening to him. I am not American, and I know enough about the last 10 years of American history to poke holes in almost everything he was saying. He wasn't rooting out anything except votes for his team.
After 2 weeks of him, I learned that there was nothing going on here except massively partisan crap, dressed up as investigative reporting. I am not biased against his politics, I am biased against his careful framing of facts to mislead people.
Based on the results of the test that Colin so carefully charted a couple of months ago, he is much more likely to be in tune with the sorts of things said by Rush than I am... that is ALL I said. If you keep adding words, and keep adding thoughts I just don't have into things, you will get the answer you appear to want to get.
What you call "BIAS" is the fact that I don't agree with you. You are looking at what I say as "wrong" because it doesn't match your opinion. Bias is a dislike from the word go, and that isn't the case.
I will say that if any bias does exist, it is against extremism on all sides - from communist social programs to extreme religeous based conservatism. They both push my buttons, but you rarely see what you would consider an anti-liberal bias because the political makeup of this board is almost entirely conservative ( I think Iron Horse is the major exception... he was way off the other side :-) ).
More importantly, I don't like your current President much. I think he is smug, I think he is not very articulate, he is school yard bully agressive, and he is a little transparent. I disagree with his policies because it is hard to find the sense in them (particularly economic, why give a tax cut when you are already running a deficit? Aren't you just crippling the future like that, borrowing from your children to pay for your current expenses? Isn't it also a bad idea to give a huge tax cut while engaged in a VERY expensive war?). It isn't about being biased, it is about having an opinion.
Finally, JR, on a more personal level, let me just say that you are one of the most insulting, rude, and boorish people I have even met on the boards. You cannot seem to post anything without insulting people, and when people don't want to play your game, you insult them more. That is so childish as to be beyond words. You act like a child, so I treat you like a child. In that respect, I am biased.
Alex
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 12:09 PM
My name has definitely been mentioned in the same sentence as Rush Limbaugh's way too many times for my comfort level this week. :P
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 01:42 PM
one of the many things you said Alex in trying to explain that you have a more balanced view is the following:
The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both..."
you are talking about "my opinion" and i am talking about what you posted and your exact words and the point you were trying to make.
as i read things, you were comparing your ability to form an opinion about Rush Limbaugh and Colins ability to form an opinion about Rush Limbaugh. You tried to make the point that you have a better ability to form a balanced opinion by virtue of the fact that you dont like Rush Limbaugh. is that not correct? i guess i am missing something but the language seems to be pretty clear.
you have done this previously by trying to make the point that Americans are brainwashed by the government, dont watch enough varying news sources, US news is only propaganda etc. as i read things, it was the same arguement. you are questioning someones ability to form a balanced opinion why holding yourself above the same criticisms for varying reasons. you have never admitted any possible fault while pointing out the faults of others that i am aware of.
i did not say that you dont agree with me or make that assumption. its not important to me that you agree with me. i dont think i have ever tried to get you to agree with me. i simply laid out what i felt to be a logical argument that clearly states my perception of what was said, backed up with the evidence of your own quotes - only to have you tell me that i am quoting you wrong as a defence.
if you want to tell us all that you had a completely open mind when listening to who is arguably the worlds most hardcore conservative in the media, there is nothing i can really say to dispute that... but i would say that based on your entire history of posting, your remarks and your political views, you are VERY Liberal in your political beliefs and it is a statement that does not exactly jive with your history of attacking Conservatives and Conservative policies while defending Liberals and Liberal Policies. i respect your opinions about politics. i have no problem with that in any way. but i dont think its totally honest to say that you fall right in the middle of the political spectrum. I can quote PD for example who said "from what i see, Alex seems like any other Liberal Democrat" - i can point to numerous posts where people said "i cant believe i am agreeing with Alex" - and at one point you were accused of possibly becoming the "anti-Torone" (so its not only my view or opinion)
so, in the end, it appears your stance is not any different than any other time:
"JR, you still just dont get it"
- thats ok. you are again saying that you are not biased in any way in your opinions (with the exception of pointing out extreme examples for safetys sake).. and that others are. not much of a surprise either and its a behavior that i have pointed out in the past.
What you call "BIAS" is the fact that I don't agree with you. You are looking at what I say as "wrong" because it doesn't match your opinion. Bias is a dislike from the word go, and that isn't the case.
i never said this Alex. i sleep quite well at night knowing that some guy, somewhere does not agree with me. i did not say anything about you "not agreeing with me" - that again is your words and a twisting of the truth, not supported by fact. i did not say anything that i can recall about you agreeing with me at all and i was very careful not to state anything as fact and referred only to opinions. if i fucked that up, as hard as i was trying not to, then i am a total moron.
i also did not say that you said anything you said was "wrong"- i spoke only of opinions. nothing more. you are adding these words.
you say that Bias is "a dislike from the word go". Right now, today we are talking about two peoples ability to form an opinion based on objectivity and why you feel that one persons ability to do so is impaired, whereas yours is not. you were comparing your ability to form an opinion to anothers ability to form an opinion on a person that you ALREADY dislike. We are not talking about 14 years ago. You have made a decision that you dont like that guy. You have said it again and again. So if you were to make a decision today about Rush Limbaugh - it clearly could not possibly be an objective decision... and could not be more objective than Colins opinion simply because he may "probably" be more likely to agree with him. Making that decision years ago to "dislike" Rush Limbaugh means that today, you are not seeing anything he says or does today with any degree of objectivity, yet you are twisting logic in an amazing way to try to argue that it gives you a more superior and objective view.
again, all i am saying that you are using flawed logic to argue that Colins opinion is not objective because he may be more likely to agree with Rush Limbaugh - yet you freely admit that you are more likely to dissagree and that somehow, makes your opinion more objective.
Thats both contradictory and impossible.
i dont know why you add "more importantly, i dont like your current President much". that does not have any connection to this discussion.
i am not being rude or offensive and you just said i was. two posts were NOT DELETED. it was just an April fools joke that Serge did not catch. Sorry if you felt that something was posted that was so offensive by either Colin or myself that Serge of all people, would feel the immediate need to delete. personally, i did not think that was a reasonable assumption or i would not have done it because if it was a reasonable assumption, then it would not be humorous. i really think its unreasonable to believe that Colin would say something that Serge would feel compelled to delete in seconds. i dont think anyone here would believe that would happen.
You cannot seem to post anything without insulting people, and when people don't want to play your game, you insult them more.
you are confusing everything i have ever said to you - with everything i ever said - to mischaracterize my general behavior. its not true.
i dont blame you for making that clearly erroneous remark or for your ability to distinguish between how i have spoken to you and how i have spoken to everyone else i have ever spoken to
- i forgive you for that, because i know your opinion is just a little biased on the matter. :awinky:
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 1 2003, 09:35 AM
I suspect that the two deleted posts were the impressive acts of adults.
Nope,
Impressive April Fool's Day joke from 2 "kids". :wnw:
Almighty Colin
04-01-2003, 01:52 PM
I'm now the poster child for Rush Limbaugh. What a crazy week!
-= JR =-
04-01-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Colin@Apr 1 2003, 02:00 PM
I'm now the poster child for Rush Limbaugh. What a crazy week!
sorry Colin. next week, i will make you the poster boy for Al Sharpton to negate this weeks posts.
:bdance:
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.