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 17)
34 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last
on May 19, 2011

LightofAbraxas
I'm not going to say that I disagree with you outright, but I just don't trust anyone who looks at war in purely black-and-white terms like this. War is a costly, bloody, unfortunate business, but that doesn't mean that wars aren't worth fighting.
It is not black and white at all and I am sorry if I left that impression, but we are up to 240 comments and there has been many other discussions. Just so I get to understand better, which war have we entered in the last 30 years, that you considered worth fighting from the perspective of the American people?

LightofAbraxas
I think that it's important to note that something like 30,000 French civilians were killed during the Allied invasion of Normandy, many by US naval and air bombardment. Tragic? Yes. But I'd still say things would be much, much worse today if the US hadn't entered the war.
I cannot go back in history and say because we did not do this, that would or would not have happened. Not in this context anyway as I do not feel qualified. But I understand what you are saying. I cannot find it in me to compare WWII with Iraq on any level.

on May 19, 2011

hypocrisy

1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.
three examples there...
sometimes it's best to understand a word before using it and this is not pointed at anyone comment in the thread.
on May 19, 2011

Whiskey144
Abraxas hit the nail on the head. Civilian casualties are part of warfare, and war isn't a pretty thing. BT, you seem to subscribe to the idea that war is a somewhat gentlemenly affair when prosecuted for morally correct reasons.
Not really, I just think we should at least have one valid reason before we violate a sovereign nation, destroy their infrastructure, kill all those people you expect to die because it is war and occupy them for years is all. You sure do get strange impressions of me though, that's for sure.

Try looking at the clip here ...

on May 19, 2011

EternalRequiem
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
That one works for me, how about you?

on May 19, 2011

BoobzTwo
I cannot find it in me to compare WWII with Iraq on any level.

First, thank you, I always appreciate when these threads turn into a civilized discussion.

And yeah, I do know what you mean. But, I think that if you look a little bit, there is a fair analogy to be made between the Jewish population of Germany/Poland/elsewhere and the Kurds of Iraq. I'm not sure how the numbers stack up, exactly, but both populations were the target of chemical warfare, and both populations are significantly better off post-US intervention. The Kurdish North of Iraq has been surprisingly prosperous and stable the past four or so years. It's not something that you tend to hear about in the news, but it's a significant consideration, nonetheless.

on May 19, 2011

Ok - time to get back off topic. What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

on May 19, 2011

AlLanMandragoran
Ok - time to get back off topic. What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. External fertilization of eggs was present long before the modern chicken had come around.

Geez.

How about this one: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

on May 19, 2011

LightofAbraxas
Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 246Ok - time to get back off topic. What comes first, the chicken or the egg?


The egg. External fertilization of eggs was present long before the modern chicken had come around.

Geez.

How about this one: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

If it's Woodchuck Norris, all of it. If just an ordinary woodchuck, the equivalent of a one pound coconut.

on May 19, 2011

BoobzTwo
It is not black and white at all and I am sorry if I left that impression, but we are up to 240 comments and there has been many other discussions. Just so I get to understand better, which war have we entered in the last 30 years, that you considered worth fighting from the perspective of the American people?

The invasion of Grenada, for one.

on May 20, 2011

Oh man, I love this thread! It provides me so much entertainment for me every day! Conspiracy nuts are my favorite kind of crazy

on May 20, 2011

Crazy is believing you are in Iraq spreading Demoncracy. Crazy is swallowing the lies of your government, hook, line and sinker when they are proven to have lied over and over and over. Crazy is swallowing the desensitization of believing Iran is the next threat so you can easily see where your troops will be going next from your new PERMANENT bases in Iraq.

A history lesson for Dummies

Empire - Iran: Influence or Threat

and everyone thought the world waited to long to remove Hitler.

 

 

 

on May 20, 2011

There is a not-so-fine line seperating healthy skepticism of the government and crazy. This thread has blown past that line

on May 20, 2011

Whiskey144
The invasion of Grenada, for one
Hardly, but it does demonstrate the imperialistic West for sure. Haven't done much research on Grenada, but I know enough to know they were no threat to us, their neighbors or the world ... justified how? Heartbrake Ridge, go Clint, hehehe.

on May 20, 2011

kyogre12
There is a not-so-fine line seperating healthy skepticism of the government and crazy. This thread has blown past that line
Maybe instead of yapping about conspiracy crazyness, you could actually look at some of the information provided and explain why they are crazy ... Or even better still, how about stating what you as a sane pereson believe in the USG byline. Beliving what the USG says, based on what it does ... is insanity. If you actually believe their rhetoric, what can I say?

on May 20, 2011

AlLanMandragoran
Ok - time to get back off topic. What comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Why??? There is no correct answer to this question asked in this manner as this could not take place in an instant ... because the process took Millennia to achieve, by Nature. But this is a good example of how people are prone to mentally wander and is why we can achieve very little politically. If you let the suppositions slip by without questioning them, then you have just been propagandized and confusion will be the result.

If you just somehow believe that we were just to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have to ask why? Most JU’s seem content without an answer … I am not, not without the suppositions explained.

34 PagesFirst 15 16 17 18 19  Last