At least bring common sense to the table
… the movie – 2004 – By Michael Moore
Published on May 4, 2011 By BoobzTwo In Politics

I must confess that I actually thought I hated this man and everything he was about until I started experiencing an overload of inaccurate and fictitious information the USG keeps pounding out and calling it the truth … so I decided to try an independent review of what I thought I knew and didn’t really. So I never watched or read anything Moore was involved with but I was more than willing to tell you how screwed up he was. So I rented the movie from Netflix and watched it … and I was amazed.

I have watched it twice now and I cannot find one shred of much information that is not factual or accurate. Beyond some idiosyncrasies in his sense of humor (they are funny); he presents very valid arguments and backs them up with documentation and interviews. He brings to light many of the things I have discovered in my own research into deceit, terrorism and the USG.

When I was a liberal (before I knew better) the only accurate information had to come from another liberal else it was a lie??? Later when I made my second mistake and became a conservative I learned the error of my ways … the truth could only be had from like ilk … so imagine my confusion when I called the neolibs and neocons for what they are and went independent. Suddenly, I have no source of valid information at all now (seemingly hehehe). I have had no success at all trying to walk the moderate tightrope between all the sharks without one side or the other dragging me down, go figure.

As far as Democrats/Republicans are concerned, their only care about the independent majority is how many they can acquire each election. But no matter which side is the best recruiter or who gets most independent votes … matters that concern the moderates will largely be ignored or sidelined and the neo-politicians will go their own course virtually unrestricted and completely unaccountable.


Comments (Page 11)
34 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last
on May 10, 2011

SivCorp
And don't try Whiskey.  It isn't worth it.  If people won't apply the same standards to the Bible as other ancient texts, that is their problem.  You will not win that argument, because people are close minded to anything that resembles religion, God, or anything that doesn't center around them.

Oh, I'm not going to try. I'm simply submitting my opinion.

BoobzTwo
Whiskey144 – The Bible - the sacred book of the Christian (whatever) religion. I and several billion people around the world think differently about you’re ‘the truth’ is all?

Please resubmit your post, as it makes little grammatical sense.

EternalRequiem
do you know how many times the Bible has actually been changed and rewritten?

Aside from the fact that I was simply submitting my opinion, you will, naturally, provide proof that the Bible has been changed and/or rewritten. OTOH, I'll of course note that the standards used for other ancient texts isn't applied to the Bible.

Double standard FTW /sarcasm.

on May 10, 2011

SivCorp
Through this whole "discussion" I have yet seen anyone submit a solution to all these problems.... interesting.

psychoak
... just light them on fire in the streets of DC, the ones that don't burn we can hang as witches.

EDIT: CRAP, I think I just became a terrorist.

on May 10, 2011

Does all this mean the Obama Administration's non-truths are all lies?  Just aksin.

on May 10, 2011

SivCorp
Through this whole "discussion" I have yet seen anyone submit a solution to all these problems.... interesting.

Solution? I think the solution is an educated populace taught to critically think. The more the merrier.

  • Recognition propaganda is everywhere - both sides of the fence, all angles, including "MY" side of the argument, whatever that is
  • Willingness to critically think and Truth as the highest ideal

Absent acknowledgement of those two bullet points honest debate is meaningless imho. We live in a version of the Matrix - where propaganda and democracy (i.e. two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner) is the rule of the day. People regurgitate pundit arguments (both conservative and liberal). Those in charge of democracy (government, money creators/destroyers, news media, Hollywood, TV, etc) control information and propagandize to sway the majority. Edward Bernays, Noam Chomsky, and others have very insightful input on this. When you know your opponent is intellectually dishonest and is just trying to "win", regardless of the facts, it's eye opening.

Bottom line: it's difficult for us peons to truly know what is going on nationally or internationally due to the lack of or control of information. We do not experience these national/international events ourselves - they are shown and explained to us via different methods. Just as an attorney/judge can help sway a jury by making arguments to toss out or withhold evidence, the powers at be can control/manipulate information to sway us masses about any number of issues.

Bernays says this about us peons:

"In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time."

I highly recommend reading the book, who Edward Bernays was, and his impact to this day. Amazing stuff.

on May 10, 2011

Bernay is a very interesting person.

 

And I do actually agree with your two bullet points.... but what about personal bias that clouds soooo many people's minds?

Why do people always treat science, theology and religion as enemies?  All they do is ask a different question about life.

Science - How it works?

Theology - Why does it matter?

Religion - What is my role?

 

 

EternalRequiem

Quoting Whiskey144, reply 146Except for the problem that the Bible isn't "non-truths" or lies.

It is THE truth.
do you know how many times the Bible has actually been changed and rewritten?

This quote demonstrates that you have not done sufficient research into the writing and preservation of ancient texts.  Your personal take on what it contains and its message aside....   One must accept the Bible as it is and has been, or determine all other historical written artifacts as irrelevant. 

 

LoL myfist0!    a terrorizing... terrorist 

on May 10, 2011

Does all this mean the Obama Administration's non-truths are all lies?  Just aksin.

 

Well, there is a word to describe a multitude of truth's and lies along with an endless volume of smoke and mirrors making it virtually impossible to prove anything either way.... That word is 'politics'!

Solution... Keep your intuition keenly sharpened and your mind open!!

 

Edit: and trust no expert or group or individual or established fact.... well you can trust them but not with 'absolute' trust.... which comes under keeping an open mind.

on May 10, 2011

There IS a movie version of the book Fahrenheit 451....

on May 10, 2011

if i refered to the wrong person / post, I (conditionally) apologize.  I have a very limited amount of time to read here until I return home from IL.  I wonder how you know my intentions since you labeled them as "conviently ignoring."   The ONLY intent of my post was to point the discussion away from personalities (which contributes very little) and back to content.   But you labelmy post as 'conviently ignoring."   You must know my thoughts, intentions, feelings better than I do. I commend you on your super- knowledge....

on May 10, 2011

Quite a lively discussion going. I had nothing to add until SivCorp made this comment #147:

 

Through this whole "discussion" I have yet seen anyone submit a solution to all these problems.... interesting.

Elanahova posts 127:

Truth is truth, no matter WHO states it. False is false, no matter who states it. The fact that a person does not totally, 100% ACT according the the truth they espouse does NOT invalidate what they state.

Well said.

BT posts 130

People are going to remain malleable to the dictates of their government as long as they allow their leaders to politicize every aspect of their life. Politics bespeaks of strife and struggle, criminality, lies and deceit, fabrications

This is true however, it's not only politics that bespeaks of strife, criminality, lies, deceit. etc.

Fr. Owen Francis Dudley's (1882-1952) book, "YOU and thousands like you" is a very good and profitable read. He looks at life in the atomic era and sees the world bent on destruction. The following are his ideas and I have to agree.

The present ordering of the world is materialistic and the supreme acheivement of materialsim is the nuclear bomb. We are sliding toward a suicidal end and no government, no policy or military power, in fact there is nothing in the present materialistic ordering to avert final catastrophe.

People aren't made just to exist but to live, truly live to what the US Constitution calls pursuit of happiness.  To me, this happiness is in the end eternal happiness. To live is to live for God, Who is life and the source of all life and its End.

SivCorp,

According to Dudley and I quite agree, we change the world by changing ourselves. Only you and I, and thousands of other ordinary people can change that ordering and we can only change it by changing ourselves. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 10, 2011

And I do actually agree with your two bullet points.... but what about personal bias that clouds soooo many people's minds? Why do people always treat science, theology and religion as enemies?

Bias is a constant battle. All we can do is acknowledge that each of us see the world through our own unique rose-colored glasses... and continue to try to be as objective as possible.

I think theology and religion are generally considered to be antithetical to science. For whatever reason this Creation is full of dualities: right/wrong, left/right, up/down, Sun/Moon, liberal/conservative, Heaven/Hell, positive/negative, plus/minus, etc. Religion/theology is considered to be strictly faith-based, thus the opposite of science's methods of observation and experiment.

In the end are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so. I might derail this thread if I elaborate my own personal beliefs so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

on May 10, 2011

AlLanMandragoran
Religion/theology is considered to be strictly faith-based, thus the opposite of science's methods of observation and experiment.

And, most importantly, revision of your beliefs in light of new evidence. I personally think that they are polar opposites, but I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.

on May 10, 2011
Regarding this post and the one following it.....
  • Member No.3,485,114
  • Karma+31
Just think of what we could really do if the neo-politicians stopped pretending to oppose each other on non-political issues like...


1 GW, 
2 Abortions,
3 Religion,
4 The constitution, 
5 War,
6 Peace (???),
7 Human rights,
8 Civil rights,
9 God given rights,
10 Sexual divergences, 
11 Green whatever,
12 Racism,
13 Immigration reform,
14 Border control,
15 Energy restrictions,
16 Developing our own resources, etc.

 

 

Ok, lets look at this list then, and see what I see here.

1 - stands for what?

2 - morality, what does one stand for?  If you can't defend the innocent and unborn you have no business procreating.

3 - not going there....

4 - If you can not live under a countries founding documents, then you should leave that country for one that you agree with.

5,6 - war and peace are simple conflict resolutions

7 - what rights do you want to have?  what rights will you give up?  and who decides?  Do you really want to go there?

8 - same as above

9 - still same as above

10 - the problem is in the definition.... going against the natural order of things is obviously a problem.

11 - slime?  I suppose it is good to be responsible with what we have, isn't it?

12 - I have none, just experience.

13 - A country without any law will degrade into lawlessness

14 - same as above

15 - politics should not influence the free market, period.

16 - same as above

 

I don't see how protecting a nations people is non-political.  I don't see how having law to protect the people i non-political. I don't see how providing a free market for productivity to thrive is non-political.

 

And I don't see how you can be taken seriously when you make these obviously flawed statements.

 

So many statements above are just so, well, American. Love it or leave it!!!!  'If you cannot live under a country's founding documents, then you should leave that country for one that you agree with.'  

We need to return to our g-d given constitution:  let us live under the founding fathers' views;  Blacks may be enslaved and become chattel.  Women may not vote, nor may they hold public office,. nor in many states even own property or sign contracts. The original owners of the land, the nations here before european-americans, should be pushed into the pacific, hunted for scalps, to collect the bounty european american governments placed on their heads, or killed with smallpox infected blankets given to them by european-americans.  Anyone who supports any abortion should "... not be allowed to procreate..." but be sent back to what ever heathen / non-christian country they came from,or killed./ imprisioned.  The constitution OBVIOUSLY supports the g-d given truth that human life begins the nano-second the sperm and egg meet.  It is vitally importent that no one be allowed to go against the 'natural order of things.' I mean, all my co-religionists, and allies / real friends, know, for a fact, exactly what the 'natural order of things' is... and those who disagree are definately believing / understanding / reasoning wrong.... (They probably don't believe the crristian bible is g-d's word.) 'Politics should not influence the free market, period.'  So, true, there are just too many goverment intrusions into the free market... it makes it so difficult for corporations and the ultra rich to accumulate...  General Electric just might be hurt if those damn liberals / fake christians keep intruding into the free market!  The best way for the people to deal with dangerious products, tainted food, is to allow the market to destribute it, and when people get sick, die,etc., word of mouth /news will tell everyone else, they will stop buying that company's tainted food,etc.   Same with mortage funds, etc.,  when a few million people see their investments swindled (re-invested) out from under them, others will stop investing in those products, and stock brokers will stop placing ther clients money in those products:  the free market will correct this error!   Stop the government from intruding.  And when the giants in the free market rig the game against the common people, well, thats free market as well.  

Lets get back to the founding principles that made this country great!  Too bad most of the founding fathers were really Dietists, and not christers.  Jefferson published an edition of the gospels that editied out all the (supposed) referernces to jesus' diety, and the 'miracalious' events.  Franklin had no use for religion in almost any form.  Adams, was a member of a congregation that would, today, bnest be described as unitarian (jesus not divine,etc.).  Most of the founders held to the newtonian view that g-d created the world / universe, like a mechenical watch, wound it up,and let it be / walked away.  So many people today read their christian / free market ideology back into the founding fathers and use it as a whip to try to get the goverment to enact and enforce their 'moral' views (natural order of things - law based on their interpretation of the christian bible - wrapped in the US flag and words like'heritage,' and 'family.' 

I really hope the folks who actually believe that the founding fathers were evangelical-fundy-christians AND die hard supporters of Adam Smith-Ricardo's  free market ideologues don't get the USA they are dreaming of.  If they do, the corporations will, when done with them ,throw them out like a piece of garbage. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' (that orders the free market) will reduce their persons to a mere commodity to be used and then thrown away, just like a soiled napkin, or other used up paper  product.  Capitalism, as an econoomic system is 'savage.'  Corporations separate individual profit taking from individual responsibility.  I got rich becuase my corporation fired workers, lowered wages, eliminated benefits, health care, pensions, etc., but I did not do it personally, its the corporation that did it.  I just collected even more dividends, and looked the other  way when my corp raided pension funds,or took other's investments and re-invested/swindled them.  Its not personal, it business, (apologies to the g-d father) and its exactly what the founding fathers would do. Its exactly what Jesus would do - totally, yes? 

on May 10, 2011

LightofAbraxas
Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 160Religion/theology is considered to be strictly faith-based, thus the opposite of science's methods of observation and experiment.

And, most importantly, revision of your beliefs in light of new evidence. I personally think that they are polar opposites, but I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.

In short, here goes my basic assumptions:

  • If there is a Creator, Creator is by default above his/her Creation - let's call Creation "Brad's EWOM Sandbox" and the Creator "Brad"
  • Science is limited to observing and experimenting within the boundaries of Brad's EWOM Sandbox - our self-aware Sovereigns checking out their little world. What is this fertile land?
  • Thus, observing and experimenting beyond the boundaries of Brad's EWOM Sandbox is impossible, i.e. proving Brad exists. Why am I here asketh the sovereign? Did someone or something make me?
  • Faith may be the only way to bridge the gap between Brad's EWOM Sandbox and what, if anything, such as Brad, lies beyond

Now personally I find it fascinating that we can observe and experiment things such as gravity, the speed of light, etc. but have no idea why the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second vs. a much slower 2 mph. We can deduce that we wouldn't exist (at least in present form) if light traveled at 2 mph but we don't know why the sandbox is organized that way (either from random chance from a Big Bang or outside will). In the end we may see the rules giving the Universe structure but never be able to prove why the structure is the way it is.

In the end I truly have no idea. I came up with this stuff long ago smokin' while playing Master of Magic.

 

 

on May 10, 2011

ElanaAhova
There IS a movie version of the book Fahrenheit 451....

This has already been noted and has been dismissed as irrelevance to the topic at hand, due primarily to my (initially) mistaking this thread as discussing the book Fahrenheit 451 and the terribadness (or so I've heard) of the movie.

ElanaAhova
if i refered to the wrong person / post, I (conditionally) apologize.  I have a very limited amount of time to read here until I return home from IL.  I wonder how you know my intentions since you labeled them as "conviently ignoring."   The ONLY intent of my post was to point the discussion away from personalities (which contributes very little) and back to content.   But you labelmy post as 'conviently ignoring."   You must know my thoughts, intentions, feelings better than I do. I commend you on your super- knowledge....

I label your post as "conveniently ignoring" because you ignore the fact that BoobzTwo has been dismissing the arguments of her opposition on the basis that they hold opposing views and are, therefore, simpletons.

OTOH, I've just been insulting her and trying to force her to actually prove that her view is correct, as well as that those who hold an opposing view are "simpletons" for doing so.

on May 10, 2011

AlLanMandragoran
In short, here goes my basic assumptions:

If there is a Creator, Creator is by default above his/her Creation - let's call Creation "Brad's EWOM Sandbox" and the Creator "Brad"

Science is limited to observing and experimenting within the boundaries of Brad's EWOM Sandbox - our self-aware Sovereigns checking out their little world. What is this fertile land?

Thus, observing and experimenting beyond the boundaries of Brad's EWOM Sandbox is impossible, i.e. proving Brad exists. Why am I here asketh the sovereign? Did someone or something make me?

Faith may be the only way to bridge the gap between Brad's EWOM Sandbox and what, if anything, such as Brad, lies beyond

Now personally I find it fascinating that we can observe and experiment things such as gravity, the speed of light, etc. but have no idea why the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second vs. a much slower 2 mph. We can deduce that we wouldn't exist (at least in present form) if light traveled at 2 mph but we don't know why the sandbox is organized that way (either from random chance from a Big Bang or outside will). In the end we may see the rules giving the Universe structure but never be able to prove why the structure is the way it is.

In the end I truly have no idea. I came up with this stuff long ago smokin' while playing Master of Magic.

First, fantastic, you are a man after my own my own heart. But... a couple things I'd like to say.

1) What do you think about the arguement that might suggest that: what you have said presupposes a Creator and then looks for clues to support that idea?
2) Who is to say that life would be impossible (although possibly very different) if the Universe's fundamental values took different values?
3) What is to be said about a Creator that defines the variables of his world and then leaves that world to its own devices?
4) To use another analogy, what would you say about a father that has a bunch of kids, boots them out of the house leaving only a handbook on how to live, and says: "I'm not going to have any part of actually raising you, but if you misbehave, I'm going to come back and spank your asses raw one day." Would you call child services?

34 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last