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 12)
34 PagesFirst 10 11 12 13 14  Last
on May 10, 2011

LightofAbraxas
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?

I'll point out that you can't really use said analogy; if there is a Creator (which I believe so), then said being is so immensely powerful and different that their motives would be fairly inscrutable to mankind.

Put another way: who are we, the created, to judge the One who created us?

on May 10, 2011

AlLanMandragoran

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 161Quoting 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.

 

 

 

Oh, interesting post!

but i think it will eventually be possible to scientifically prove God exists despite the fact that God has set things up so that he cannot be detected scientifically (for various reasons of faith free will, and probably some aspect of Startreks Prime directive thrown in as well??!!). But God for obvious reasons cannot hide the fact that life exists, and i feel that it is life that must eventually scientifically prove God exists. Despite all the scientific work on Evolution, and despite all the discoveries from what is dug up from beneath the earth, i reckon DNA will eventually be the key to fast traking a proper understanding of Evolution, its limitations with regard to the origins of species (what God built and what changed naturally thereafter) and its utter failure to explain the beginning of life. DNA is basically a recorded history of everything we want to know right under our noses, all we have to do is figure out how to access all that hidden information! Oh wait, i hope God didn't do anything sneaky with DNA such as something along the lines of 'source code'???

 

As for Gravity and the speed of light etc etc well were seeing it from the perspective of our dimention, but i have a theory that our dimension operates as a reflection of a primary dimension...well reflection is not quite the right word? (continued later i'm busy at work)

on May 10, 2011

LightofAbraxas
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?

  1. My own rose-colored glasses.   Without a doubt that's certainly possible. The Universe itself may be it's own creator and all of us may just be the Universe understanding itself. The dilemma is none of us can prove it thus enter the faith thing.
  2. Life certainly could be possible but I daresay if gravity was half the strength or light traveled 10x as fast would we be the same? Probably not.
  3. Now that is an interesting point, one in which I've struggled with myself. I have a serious issue with adults who mess with kids - why would the Creator allow that? Why do horrible things happen? Dunno. It may boil down to context - without evil, does good exist? It gets back to the duality question - if a Creator exists it certainly appears he/she gave each us of a choice to believe or not to believe. It certainly does appear we have freewill - within the boundaries of the sandbox. As a parent I could make the perfect sandbox for my children to play in. In fact, what if I had the power to make perfect children who always make perfect choices in a perfect sandbox? Do they truly have freewill if they're preprogrammed act like little perfect robots? Freewill creates the ability to choose imperfection, whether intentional or not.
  4. I've pondered this idea before: if I was the Creator and I had the power of perfection, how many perfections would I make before I said "Hmm, what if I made something where I impart part of me (freewill), and I observe what happens?" If I'm omnipotent, is it logical to assume I could also turn off the omnipotent power (i.e. grant freewill to the creation)? I set up a sandbox of rules, turn off the omnipotent power, and observe what happens. Using Brad as an analogy: he could code his Sovereign to always make the perfect decisions or he could impart within the Sovereign freewill - the ability to choose independent of Brad's direct "strings".

Ahh, hell I don't know. Just throwin' this out there around the Fahrenheit 9/11 campfire. Maybe we're all really plugged into the Matrix and Energizer batteries for robots.   Puff puff give!

on May 10, 2011

To continue with my philosophy of only addressing posters that are willing to engage at a more than superficial level:

Also, what about the dinosaurs? If the Bible had said: "You won't believe this right away, but, one day you will discover that before I tried creating Man, I messed around with giant lizards. You'll find their bones eventually," then I wouldn't have any problem with believing.

It's some food for thought.

 

on May 10, 2011

I can sum up Fahrenheit 9/11 in one word:  joke.

OK, maybe it needs two words:  sick joke.

on May 10, 2011

Mystikmind
Oh, interesting post!

but i think it will eventually be possible to scientifically prove God exists despite the fact that God has set things up so that he cannot be detected scientifically (for various reasons of faith free will, and probably some aspect of Startreks Prime directive thrown in as well??!!). But God for obvious reasons cannot hide the fact that life exists, and i feel that it is life that must eventually scientifically prove God exists. Despite all the scientific work on Evolution, and despite all the discoveries from what is dug up from beneath the earth, i reckon DNA will eventually be the key to fast traking a proper understanding of Evolution, its limitations with regard to the origins of species (what God built and what changed naturally thereafter) and its utter failure to explain the beginning of life. DNA is basically a recorded history of everything we want to know right under our noses, all we have to do is figure out how to access all that hidden information! Oh wait, i hope God didn't do anything sneaky with DNA such as something along the lines of 'source code'???

As for Gravity and the speed of light etc etc well were seeing it from the perspective of our dimention, but i have a theory that our dimension operates as a reflection of a primary dimension...well reflection is not quite the right word? (continued later i'm busy at work)

Good stuff. I've always wondered this too: what does the surface of an electron look like and could some form of "life" exist on it? Are both "small" and "large" infinite? What if the smaller space becomes, the slower time interaction becomes? What if the larger space becomes, the faster time interaction becomes? In a way this makes sense because our interaction with Creation is dependent on how fast signals travel to our brain via nerve endings. The smaller distance in space, teh faster said signals travel. What if our measurement of time, a year (revolution of our planet around the Sun), is equivalent to 1 trillion electron years (I have no idea how many times an electron revolves around the nucleus in a year or even a second). Are there little Brad's coding EWOM AI on the surface of little electrons and little dudes like me reporting bugs and crash reports? Dunno but far out nonetheless. LOL.

[Edit] Apparently a hydrogen electron rotates at around 2,200 kilometers per second. Hell if I know how many orbits that is over that short distance. It must be in the billions or trillions.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/electron_01.html

on May 11, 2011

LightofAbraxas
To continue with my philosophy of only addressing posters that are willing to engage at a more than superficial level:

Also, what about the dinosaurs? If the Bible had said: "You won't believe this right away, but, one day you will discover that before I tried creating Man, I messed around with giant lizards. You'll find their bones eventually," then I wouldn't have any problem with believing.

It's some food for thought.

 

It's possible, as with any good public speaker, the message limited in scope and tailored to the audience of the time. On the flip side of the argument the book could say "one day you'll figure out how to fly in the air like birds or travel to land on that big circle you call the moon." That statement wouldn't mean much to the people of the time I gather.

I guess what I'm saying is tailoring a message to fit the "age" of the audience - kind of like not trying to teach calculus to my 2 year old son. It would be pointless, he's not ready.

on May 11, 2011

AlLanMandragoran

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 161Quoting 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.

 

 

 

An excellent way to visualize it.
I guess sometimes smoking will unlock ones prejudice and catch a glimmer of light.

 

 

LightofAbraxas

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?

 

 

I have my own view on those points.....

1) unprovable, therefor faith.

2) the fundamentals of "life" could have been anyway the Creator wanted, but this is what He set up, so this is all we can see and test.

3) Who said He left?

4) I think the answer lies in one area that you are all missing.... Love.

 

I see the Creator not as a scientist or old man, but like a child.  Now, follow this line of thought... A child wants to be loved, wants to be in contact with love.  This is the way God is.  He made a creation that could love Him.  Free will gave that possibility to His creation.  If we were all robots, then that is not love, that is slavery. No one can be loved by a robot.

Well God wants companions, not slaves, so that is why only one "sentient" being is on this planet, in this realm.  He made us to be that companion. 

He also gave us this AMAZING sandbox!  It impresses me every time when we find out more about this world that we never thought possible.  And what is amusing is this, the more we discover, the closer we come to the truth.... The truth that this universe COULDN'T have been random, that there necessitates a start, a Creator.  And this creation is in conflict, conflict with free will, and the consequences therein.

 

/preaching.... sorry, I get carried away sometimes.

on May 11, 2011

AlLanMandragoran

Good stuff. I've always wondered this too: what does the surface of an electron look like and could some form of "life" exist on it? Are both "small" and "large" infinite? What if the smaller space becomes, the slower time interaction becomes? What if the larger space becomes, the faster time interaction becomes? In a way this makes sense because our interaction with Creation is dependent on how fast signals travel to our brain via nerve endings. The smaller distance in space, teh faster said signals travel. What if our measurement of time, a year (revolution of our planet around the Sun), is equivalent to 1 trillion electron years (I have no idea how many times an electron revolves around the nucleus in a year or even a second). Are there little Brad's coding EWOM AI on the surface of little electrons and little dudes like me reporting bugs and crash reports? Dunno but far out nonetheless. LOL.

[Edit] Apparently a hydrogen electron rotates at around 2,200 kilometers per second. Hell if I know how many orbits that is over that short distance. It must be in the billions or trillions.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/electron_01.html

 

Well may we wonder things about electrons/atoms but what i wonder is what is an atom if there is no time?

 

If you look at a standard 30cm ruler, you will see that it has two ends, an a centre. Also the ruler has different mathematical points of measure relative to its centre and its ends, you can identify different locations, 12cm, 23cm etc etc How long is your finger, 8cm, there is the point it connects to the body and there is where it finishes. All matter throughout the universe has mathematical statistics about it's size and location that you can measure. Now assuming the universe extends forever and has no ends, therefore it has no centre either. And if the universe has no ends or no centre then therefore how is it possible to have a fixed location in space where say a planet is located? or a solar system? or a galaxy? or even your finger?? I'm not quite sure how, but to me this seems to indicate that it is impossible for any matter as we perceive it, to exist! Or am i just crazy? And assuming for a moment that I'm not crazy, then the only possible explanation is that time dos not really exist, since if you eliminate time from the equation, then the paradox of location within infinity is solved, ,,, i think???

 

Edit: i just Googled the paradox of location within infinity and got nothing? hmmm, perhaps i am just crazy?

 

on May 11, 2011

lol know what I find funny... lots of people call the creator a HE, HE could actually be a SHE

on May 11, 2011

The universe does not need to have a center for you to section it up as far as the latest telescope can see.  You simply make Sol sector 001, as in Trek.  It's no less arbitrary than the standard ruler.

on May 11, 2011

EternalRequiem
lol know what I find funny... lots of people call the creator a HE, HE could actually be a SHE

 

Is fire a 'HE', is water a 'He' is love a 'HE'? It is a quirk of language that when you refer to any kind of communicative being it requires a 'he' or 'she'. 'It' is somewhat derogatory. Or... I watching the ten commandments movie (Charlton Heston) this past Easter. When Moses asks God what shall he call him, God says "I am" I like that!

on May 11, 2011

psychoak
The universe does not need to have a center for you to section it up as far as the latest telescope can see.  You simply make Sol sector 001, as in Trek.  It's no less arbitrary than the standard ruler.

 

Arbitrary, arbitrary,,, a curious word in this particular topic! Or perhaps you like "I think therefore i am" or "it is there because it's there" hehehe Nah, not nearly good enough.

Perhaps it would be easier to follow the logic in steps.

Step one) here we have an infinite universe

Step two) Within this infinite universe, where is Earth located?

Step three) Panic!

on May 11, 2011

LightofAbraxas
To continue with my philosophy of only addressing posters that are willing to engage at a more than superficial level:

Also, what about the dinosaurs? If the Bible had said: "You won't believe this right away, but, one day you will discover that before I tried creating Man, I messed around with giant lizards. You'll find their bones eventually," then I wouldn't have any problem with believing.

It's some food for thought.

Biblically-speaking, the dinosaurs were created first not because God was "messing around with them", but because Man was intended to be the pinnacle of Creation. Generally-speaking, why would you make your masterpiece first, especially if there is nothing to compare it to?

Mystikmind
*snipped for length*/*wierd infinity-based philosophy stuff*

If the universe is infinite, then select an arbitrary point in space to use as the "origin" for the purpose of plotting positions. Simple really.

EDIT: I hate noting that I need to reply to multiple posts, and then hitting the post button and not replying to half the posts I intended to.

EternalRequiem
lol know what I find funny... lots of people call the creator a HE, HE could actually be a SHE.

Very few widely-known religions have feminine creator-beings. IMO, it's because the role a creator-being has generally corresponds to the strict-but-loving father-stereotype. Which is pretty obviously male.

on May 11, 2011

Whiskey144

Quoting Mystikmind, reply 174*snipped for length*/*wierd infinity-based philosophy stuff*
If the universe is infinite, then select an arbitrary point in space to use as the "origin" for the purpose of plotting positions. Simple really.

That is just as ridiculous as Dr who coming back into existence simply because Amy Pond remembered him!

34 PagesFirst 10 11 12 13 14  Last