Those Who Believe Michael Moore ...

For discussion of life's issues: current events, social trends and personal opinions.

Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250

User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Ford wrote:All of Europe has lived with terrorism for decades without this level of panic.
That's the problem. Europe prefers to live with it rather than to fight it. In fairness, America felt the same... on September 10, 2001. We lived with it, too. Not a big enough threat to justify the costs of committing to fighting it.

In the three months after Sept 11, the USA economy lost a million jobs. A MILLION jobs. The world trade center was not just a 110 story housing project where Al Qaeda managed to kill 2800 people. It was the largest single nerve center of our capital economy. The Pentagon is the nerve center of our military operation. The US Capitol building is the nerve center of our government. This was a successful strike not at individuals, but at an entire nation. We ALL suffer directly from this blow. We suffered economic losses totalling a trillion dollars as a direct result of the attack and its totality of impact. A TRILLION dollars. That's trillion with a Tee Arr up in front there. That's a million millions. Anybody who thinks that's no big deal isn't thinking at all.

This changed the ball game. This got us to thinking about what might happen if the terrorists could set off NBC weaponry in one of our cities. Chemical weapons, biological agents, bombs with radiological material, and god forbid, a nuclear weapon.


Have you ever seen the movie "The Poseidon Adventure"? After the liner is rolled over by the tsunami, the movie's main characters are gathered in the big hall, now upside down, along with a number of other people. The lead protagonist asserts that the people need to begin to climb. The ship is upside down and they are now under water. The ship's purser says that people should stay and wait for rescue. Only a minority of people follow the protagonist as he rigs a way to climb out of that big room.

So there we have the pursur claiming, "There is no drowning threat." Ten minutes later, everyone who listened to him is dead.

Moore is like that guy. He isn't thinking it through.


Your lightning analogy is a false analogy. We know how lightning works. We understand the phenomenon. We have lightning rods on all our tall structures. Did you know that lightning strikes the rod on top of the Empire State building THOUSANDS of times? Lightning is -not- a threat at ALL to New York City, because all of the lightning in the city, at least in the skyscraper districts, is caught and grounded?

* Lightning is not a thinking opponent, but a force of nature.
* We are already doing all that we can to counter the threat posed by lightning.
* We DO warn our citizens of coming storms. I see "severe thunderstorm warnings" on my local stations multiple times per year.

* Terrorists are thinking human beings. Some of them are quite clever -- and our estimation of their cleverness is on the rise, thanks to their demonstrations of cleverness in launching successful strikes, especially September 11 2001.
* We are not even close to doing all that we can about terrorists, although have been awakened by the September 11 attack, we're moving in that direction.
* We do not yet understand the nature of the threat, so caution is warranted. Pandora's box has been opened, and now instead of a few visionaries inside Al Qaeda dreaming up clever ways to attack, there are inspired terrorists all over the place putting more man hours into conceiving attacks on that scale, to follow the example Al Qaeda set on that day. To pretend the threat has not increased as a result of September 11 is to fail to think clearly.


We don't have time for slow thinkers in Europe and Canada and anywhere else, even our own country, to wrap their brains around enough information to put the puzzle together, to understand, to "get it". We need to get out in front of a WMD attack and stop it if at all possible.

The lightning analogy is preposterous. Fortunately, the American electorate on the whole contains better thinkers than Michael Moore. I'm not happy with the slimness of the majority, but it's good enough that we have a chance to head off catastrophe instead of HAVING to wait to be hit again before we get serious about this problem.


- Sirian
Ford Prefect
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1557
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Richmond,B. C., Canada

Post by Ford Prefect »

A fair enough evaluation of terroRism (damn I need spell check) and the U.S. response to it.
If this was a thread about that we might talk about response vs effective response (I think the U.S. has done both).
But lets get back to Moore.
a)Is he lying when he says there is no "terrorist threat"?
Or is he just:
b) quoted out of context so that it makes it appear that what he is saying is "there is no terrorism"
c) enjoying making comments that get his name mentioned in discussion forums all over the world.
d) b&c
e) all of the above

Yes I agree lightning is a natural force and so a poor analogy. It was just the best I could come up with on a Saturday morning.

I don't think anyone in Europe prefers to live with the possiblity of themselves or their loved ones being killed in a terrorist act. Nor do I think they have done nothing about it. Is the IRA still committing terrorist acts? Are there still Algerians committing acts of terror in France? That is a very simplistic view of world politics in the last 4 decades.
User avatar
Bold Deceiver
DBB Captain
DBB Captain
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Somewhere in SoCal

Post by Bold Deceiver »

Ford Prefect wrote:But lets get back to Moore.
a)Is he lying when he says there is no "terrorist threat"?
Or is he just:
b) quoted out of context so that it makes it appear that what he is saying is "there is no terrorism"
c) enjoying making comments that get his name mentioned in discussion forums all over the world.
d) b&c
e) all of the above
You know, I don't know the answer there, but my guess is that he believes he's right -- that there really is no terrorist threat, or at least it's so diminished that we should go back to "business as usual". Moore gets lots of positive feedback and remuneration for it, but I find him pretty insignificant.

Except for this. The democrats gave him a seat of honor at their convention, next to former President Jimmy Carter. Astonishing.

I think that diminishing the threat we all face from terrorism might well get me, or one of my countrymen, killed. And speaking for myself, I'm not having any of part of that, thank you. I saw those towers, and I saw those people leaping to their deaths because the flames were so hot they were being seared alive. I saw a lot of brave men, rescue personnel, go straight up into these deathtraps, to try and save the people inside. All of them had mothers, and fathers, and brothers, and sisters, and sons and daughters and newborn babies at home. So I very much appreciate you withdrawing your lightning analogy.

If my voice counts for anything, I will always use it to keep America from slipping back into our old ways. I will strongly counter the speech of Michael Moore whenever I see it -- with my own speech.

BD
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Moore wrote:But lets get back to Moore.
I don't know what Moore means, or intends, exactly. I do know enough to know that he is not among those to whom I turn when I want a thoughtful point of view that disagrees with my own position.

I DO turn to those with opposing views, and gladly, to seek to test my own views, to see if there are facts or important elements I have not considered. This is pure win-win for me, because either my own view will be confirmed through this testing, or I will discover that I am in error, in some regard, and I will expand my view.

However, to say that terrorism does not belong in a discussion about Michael Moore is like saying that sports do not belong in a discussion about John Madden or Pele. Terrorism is high stakes politics, and Moore has made himself prominent by producing works and forwarding opinions about that very topic.

How is one to judge Moore's views and his works if not by checking them against the facts? What IS the real deal with terrorism? What IS the real deal with American policies? I'm not getting how you think that sort of discussion is out of place here.

I'll tell you why. I don't give a rat's @$$ as to what Moore's INTENTIONS are. That's a politically correct left-wing self-indulgence, to give poor performers and poor thinkers and failing efforts a passing grade IF THEY MEANT WELL. Meaning well is important, and a mitigating factor when things go wrong, but it is not carte blanche, and ESPECIALLY not for those who do not learn from their mistakes and experiences. Whether or not Moore is well meaning in what he does is between him and any higher powers he may believe in. What counts to me is whether he has something useful to say. Do his positions hold up when scrutinized? That's the important question.

Regardless of whether he means "there is no terrorist threat" literally, or as Goob suggests, only within a certain context, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because I disagree with every possible permutation he might forward. "There is no terrorist threat" is wrong in ANY context, and my previous post explains why I believe that.


- Sirian
Sickone
MIA Host/Admin
MIA Host/Admin
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 3:01 am
Location: Antelope Valley, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Sickone »

sheepdog....

my view of moore is based far more on interviews I have seen. Maybe 66% on that 33% on his work.

he is a propogandist, nothing more.
for him to call his work documentary is a joke.

If he were honest, and called himself a shockumentary film maker... hey I still wouldn't like or agree with the guy, bugt i would have no problem with him.

To pass his ★■◆● off as facts - is pretty twisted.
Ford Prefect
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1557
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Richmond,B. C., Canada

Post by Ford Prefect »

A good post Sirian and I have no problem with any of it. I don't agree with all of it but that is not important at all.

I meant to reply to Sheepdog but it got lost.
Moore may say there is no racisim in Canada I don't know I haven't seen the movie but he is of course wrong if he does.
In Canada we have treated, and are still treating, our native population in a racist manner. Up until 1960 native indians were not allowed to vote. We took their children from them by force and in many cases beat their native language and culture out of them. They are disproportionaly represented in our prison populations and under represented in our schools and workplaces. Not a proud legacy.
In my home province in the eighties there was a large influx of immigration from India. Mostly Sikhs from the Punjab and Muslims from Pakistan. While these immigrants were working their way into the culture there were many incidents of violence against them, I heard the name Paki or Hindu used many times in the same context as ★■◆● would be used in the U.S. Another low moment although relations are much improved the last few years.
There are no more saints in Canada than anywhere else. We may not have had slavery or segregation between black and whites but the base of our population until recently was British and they ran the slave ships that supplied the plantations in British owned Jamacia as well as your southern plantations.
I don't know what Michael Moore said of Canada in Bowling for Columbine but if he said there is no racisim in Canada he was wrong. Like many things our countries share ours is just different. (And usually more polite :) )
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

Well FP suit yourself. I have lived in the NorthEast US for 20 plus years and have been competing against Canadians in dog trials for about 13 years. I certainly don't think you are saints, but I know that you have your strong points. Oh, and I grew up in Idaho Falls, Idaho just northwest of the Blackfoot Indian Reservation, FP. No need to be telling me about the destructive history of our respective cultures and the Native People who lived here first.

I just hate to see a nice guy with a good head on his shoulders trying to fit a round peg in a square hole that's all. Just watch the movie. It's great (VERY thought provoking re: violence in America)and it gives Canadians credit where credit is due. How often do Americans do that? You should watch Bowling for Columbine for the novelty of that experience if nothing else.

Most of these guys are dyed in the wool conservative ideologues and they don't give a rat's rear end if Moore is telling the truth about anything. They're annoyed because Moore is one of the few Americans who has actually been able to frame a critique of Bush and the Republican right and get it out there to the people.

I just watched the first third of Farnheit 9/11. It is absolutely NOT about denying the presence of a terrorist threat. So far it has been a series of interviews with congressional leaders, FBI agents, political writers and WTC victim families regarding the Bush administrations reluctance to support complete investigation of the terrorist threat in this country even in the days immediately following 9/11. It also discusses in detail the ongoing business dealings between the Bush family and the Saudis in general and the Bin Laden family in particular.

More tomorrow! It's too late for an old lady to finish it tonight. :)

edit

Sicky,

I didn't see your post buddy! I did a search on you and see that you are killing yourself with work. My husband is too! :(

You're still my hero, even if you have gone all right wing on me!

Love ya and thanks for this place.

Margo
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

sheepdog wrote:They're annoyed because Moore is one of the few Americans who has actually been able to frame a critique of Bush and the Republican right and get it out there to the people.
Senator Kerry got the most favorable coverage of any presidential candidate (of any party) in the history of network news. Meanwhile Bush got mostly negative coverage.

The New York times ran 48 front page, top of fold stories about Abu Ghraib in a blatant partisan attempt to make that the focus of the campaign. (Compare to other major papers who printed about half that many stories on that topic, while they were timely, then let it go.)

Let's not forget Rather-Gate. CBS put blatantly phony documents on the air, claiming them as "evidence" against the President in regard to his National Guard service. These forgeries were so pathetic, some bloggers debunked them within hours, shaming CBS into an eventual apology and retraction. The viewers were so disgusted with CBS, that CBS finished behind FOX in terms of election night viewership. What a humiliation for a once-mighty broadcast network. Yet they made their own bed with that scandal.

Michael Moore got gobs of free publicity about his movie and his political views, got a seat of honor at the Democratic Convention in Boston, and yet the Democrats lost the election to an historic degree, with an incumbent president not only winning a second term, but also picking up House and Senate seats for his party. That hadn't happened in 68 years.

If you think conservatives are afraid of Michael Moore, think again. 8)


- Sirian
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

Sirian,

I don't think conservatives are afraid of Michael Moore. I think most of you are too shallow and arrogant to be afraid of him. I don't mean that all of you are necessarily shallow or arrogant in general. I know Will, Iceman and Woodchip well enough to know that they are capable of looking past appearances when they really want to and really need to.

Michael Moore is a chubby slob and who talks with a slightly high pitched voice and who asks oddball questions in a leading insinuating way (kind of like my mother ;) ). I think his "feminine" verbal style is where all these "whiny biatch" comments are coming from. Anyway, let's face it, most middle class voter-types wouldn't be too thrilled to stand next to him in line at the grocery store.

But, I didn't say Moore got the word out to the voters, I said he got the word out to the people. Big Difference between the two.

When I was in college, I read Michael Moore's articles in a left wing mag called Mother Jones. Mother Jones is still around btw but I have become too emotionally what's the word?... "fragile" to enjoy it. It's just too relentlessly negative for someone like me who has problems with depression. And like all extreme entities Mother Jones requires a lot of energy for me to figure out what's true and false in it's pages. But, I still remember reading Moore and Joe Klein for the first time in Mother Jones. Up to that point I wasn't particularly vested in politics. I was still a part of what I think of as "the people, a free agent as far as politics go. Even though I was in college, I might have gone a long time without voting. Mother Jones, and the writing of Michael Moore, Joe Klein and Barbara Erenrich (sp?)played a big part in politicizing me.

Now, I'm definitely that relative rarity, a left leaning middle-class democrat, a voter. I voted for Kerry in the NH primary because I thought he had the best chance of beating Bush and it was only through the campaign that I realized that Kerry was a very good man and a competent leader. Michael Moore had absolutely nothing to do with my choice.

Sirian, I didn't say that Moore reached the informed, established voters. He didn't. Moore made voters for my side. Look at the faces on Sorry.com. See many blue haired ladies or gray haired golfers? No, there's some gone too seed liberals like me there, but by and large they are kids and I'll bet 90% of them were confirmed in their politics by the films of Michael Moore. l

So, no I don't think conservatives are afraid of Moore and his work. By and large the consevatives in this country don't have the sense to be afraid of him. To tell the truth, I think it speaks well of Paul that the guy bugs him. He might not know why but the guy annoys the living crap out of him. Good instincts there Iceman.*

Margo

*Don't flame me for saying something nice either, remember liberals have feelings too!
User avatar
Ferno
DBB Commie Anarchist Thug
DBB Commie Anarchist Thug
Posts: 15162
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 1998 3:01 am

Post by Ferno »

So much for me seeing Farenhype 9/11. I'll just read a review or two, and an interview.

Oh well.
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

Ferno wrote:So much for me seeing Farenhype 9/11. I'll just read a review or two, and an interview.

Oh well.
:(
Wait a minute! I haven't finished watching it yet! What kind of review do you want and I'll try my best to oblige. I can't watch the end until tonight.*

Margo

*I don't watch any WTC stuff with my kids around. I protected them from it while it was happening and I think they are still too young to experience terror unless they absolutely have to. I don't know if Moore includes pics of people jumping and stuff, and I'm not sure if even I can handle that.
User avatar
DCrazy
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 8826
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2000 3:01 am
Location: Seattle

Post by DCrazy »

Well, he does include pictures of people missing limbs and undergoing field surgery during battle...
User avatar
Ferno
DBB Commie Anarchist Thug
DBB Commie Anarchist Thug
Posts: 15162
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 1998 3:01 am

Post by Ferno »

Margo: I'm glad you've decided to watch F9/11. that alone puts you higher than most people here because you were willing to take the chance to see what someone from the other side has to say.

/applause

Also, I'm not expecting any kind of review. I believe that would taint your honest opininion about it. so say what you think you should say about it.
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

Thanks Ferno, really. I'm not from the other side though. I had a lengthy lapse of judgement after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but I've since regained my senses. Along with a lot of other people, I got a clue when there were no weapons of mass destruction.

I urge all of you to see Farenheit 9/11. It's tremendously entertaining and thought provoking.I feel like I took a big step forward tonight. :)
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

sheepdog wrote:Along with a lot of other people, I got a clue when there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Does your clue extend to Iran and North Korea?
Ford Prefect
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1557
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Richmond,B. C., Canada

Post by Ford Prefect »

That is called "misdirection" Sirian. The subject of the comment is Iraq.
User avatar
woodchip
DBB Benefactor
DBB Benefactor
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 2:01 am

Post by woodchip »

Sirian wrote:
sheepdog wrote:Along with a lot of other people, I got a clue when there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Does your clue extend to Iran and North Korea?
Perhaps the more appropriate response would be:
No WMD's were "Found" in Iraq. Doesn't mean they were not there nor that the possibility that WMD's were not moved to Syria or Iran
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

Guys,

The film's scope with regard to evidence of misconduct on the part of President Bush, former President Bush, Bush family members, Bush administration chief officers and cabinet members is broad and complicated. Nothing that I have read here gave me a sound understanding of the film's content, and so I am confirmed in my belief that those of you who are sincerely concerned with thhe U.S.' response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon should see it.

Moore is a political editorialist and filmmaker. To me, he has more than fulfilled what can be legitimately expected of him in his role. He provokes interest in important issues. What should we expect of him? Some of us have chosen to respond to Farenheit 9/11 as if it were the product of a large scale news organization. That's not the case. It's an independent small-scale documentary intended to be a dramatic critique of the Bush Administration's conduct.

It successfully raises a number of legitimate questions:

Did the Bush campaign and the Bush family behave inappropriately with regard to voter registration, vote counting and reportage of campaign results in the 2000 election?

In his first term, did George Bush work long and hard and did he conduct presidential business with the proper degree of seriousness and respect?

Did President Bush acquaint himself with specific reports of an iminent terrorist threat? If he did, did he take appropriate action in response to that information?

Does the Bush family, it's business partners and friends have direct financial ties to the Bin Laden family?

Has the Bush administration made it possible for Saudi Arabia in general and the Bin Laden family in particular to gain enormous financial power within the U.S. economy?

Has the Bush family and it's business partners made it possible for the Bin Laden family to enrich itself via the war on terrorism?

Are chief officers of the Bush Administration enriching themselves in direct proportion to the amount of money that is being spent on the war in Iraq?

Was the Bush effort to destroy AlQueada and to find Bin Laden undersupplied, understaffed and slow?

Did President Bush believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were of greater importance than the effort to bring Bin Laden and Al Queda to justice? Did this effect the speed and effectiveness of the US efforts to find and punish the 9/11 terrorists?

If 13 of the 15? hijackers were Saudi, why did the U.S. not detain and question Bin Laden family members and other Saudi relatives of the hijackers in the U.S.?

Why weren't Bin Laden family assets frozen and examined scrupulously by the U.S.?

Did former President Bush continue his business dealings with the Bin Laden family for a year or two after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Did the Bush administration place business associates in the highest government positions in Afghanistan?

Is the U.S. military presence in Iraq accomplishing any of its democratic goals or is it creating chaos and increasing danger for Iraqi civilians and U.S Militarty personnel?

Are corporate employees based in Iraq(emplyees of coroporations like Haliburton and EnRon) being paid in dispropotionately greater amounts than the U.S. military personnel who guard them?

--------------

Well that's a partial list of the questions Farenheit 9/11 raised for me... It was certainly clear that Moore and many of the people he interviewed believe the worst of Bush and his administration, but I didn't get the sense that Moore and Bush's critics were smugly pleased to have caught the president out. On the contrary, the overriding sense was that they were reluctantly facing a deeply troubling reality. But, don't go by my account. Watch the movie and decide for yourselves.

Oh and Dcrazy, thanks for the heads up on the body parts and field surgery. I was ready and averted my eyes from the worst of it. You forgot to mention the beheading...
Sickone
MIA Host/Admin
MIA Host/Admin
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 3:01 am
Location: Antelope Valley, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Sickone »

Ms Sheepdog(Margo)

I am way past killing myself with work :)

In short my issue with Moore and those like him is that he 'portrays' his stuff as fact.

If everyone viewed it as 'thought provoking' I would have no issue, it is certainly though provoking. I have just seen so many young people take it as 'fact' since Moore portrays it that way, and backs that up in interviews.

I am just as bothered by right wing jerks doing the same thing.
User avatar
woodchip
DBB Benefactor
DBB Benefactor
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 2:01 am

Post by woodchip »

Margo, of all the questions asked, were any of them answered in a responsible manner instead of presenting such questions in a politically purient manner? In that I mean were the questions merely a ploy without any substance? I'll rely upon your honesty for a answer.
sheepdog
DBB Ace
DBB Ace
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by sheepdog »

I think the manner in which the film presents many of its questions would offend you and make you very angry, Woodchip. There are a few people here who probably shouldn't watch this film and you are one of them. Aren't you already aware of the Bush family's connections with the Saudi's? Haven't you already come to terms with the political implications of that? To me, that was far and away the most important message in the film and in retrospect I realize that most of this information is not original to Moore, but comes from "House of Bush. House of Saud." by Craig Unger, a book that many politically savvy people (unlike me) have already seen.

You must know that for left leaning liberals like Moore (and me) George W.Bush is as utterly offensive as Bill Clinton is to you, and so I get a perverse pleasure in Moore's self indulgently disrespectful attitude toward Bush in the lighter golf course chainsaw stuck in the cottonwood scenes.

There's a bunch of really sad, tragic stuff about the war. Our wounded, maimed young soldiers, burned and maimed Iraqi children. Terrified, desperately grieving mothers. Confused burntout kids sitting in tank turrets. Amputees in VA rehab. I thought Moore dealt with this appropriately and respectfully, but I don't have your sensitivities. I haven't been there.

I hope that's an honest and complete answer. I'm still coming to terms with this stuff myself... I never imagined that I'd ever have a conservative internet friend whose feelings I would respect so I'm probably making a mess of it.

Margo
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Ford Prefect wrote:That is called "misdirection" Sirian. The subject of the comment is Iraq.
sheepdog's remark is a powerful one-liner, and I'm sure that's how she feels, but it focuses on one fact to the exclusion of the totality of the evidence. Does getting it wrong on one point, even one as big as that, negate everything else?


Does the proof of absence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq equate to proof of absence of WMD threats from Iran and North Korea? Does it equate to an end of any danger of Al Qaeda obtaining WMD and using it?

What about the video tape of Al Qaeda testing chemical weapons on dogs in Afghanistan? Where did they get the chemical weapons to do that or the know-how and materials to assemble their own? Are we sure that Iraq played no part in that? If it wasn't Iraq, then who was it? Do you know?

More to the point, President Clinton used the same intelligence as President Bush to arrive at the same conclusions and launch his own attack on Iraq. The difference? His was of the "lob a cruise missile" variety. Bush sent in the tanks. Clinton launched the kind of attack that fails to get the job done. Bush launched a successful attack. One gets a complete pass from liberals SOLELY because their guy made the decision, and the other gets condemned by liberals SOLELY because it wasn't their guy making the decision. Two presidents with identical information making decisions to attack on identical grounds, and the one is hunky-dorry while the other is the end of civilization as we know it. :roll:

We got it wrong about the weapons stockpiles. We got it wrong about "active" weapons programs. We did not get it wrong about the intent, the deception, the danger, the threat. So... What should we have done? Wait? Continue to keep the sanctions in place for another decade or two, suppressing the Iraqi people while Saddam sat in his palaces untouched by the deprivation, hoping that Saddam would die off before the international community gave up on the sanctions? Continue to let the corrupt UN and the duplicitous governments of France and Russia cheat on the sanctions and fill Saddam's pockets with BILLIONS of dollars? Continue to let the Oil For Food money that Saddam was skimming pay for suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories?

Folks need a lot more than one clue here.


- Sirian
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

sheepdog wrote:The film's scope with regard to evidence of misconduct on the part of President Bush, former President Bush, Bush family members, Bush administration chief officers and cabinet members is broad and complicated.
Here's a better question: if there were any substance to or evidence of wrongdoing, why aren't the Bushes being investigated and prosecuted by the government?

There were improprieties galore -- or at least the appearance of and allegations of improprieties -- during the Clinton administration. Travel-Gate, the Rich pardon, the FBI documents, loss of nuclear secrets to China, fundraising irregularities, and more. There were charges leveled and even indictments and special prosecutions conducted.

The Clintons were not convicted on any of these charges. That means that in a court of law, they were determined to have no merit. No wrongdoing could be proven. Does that mean none occurred? We can't answer that, but absent proof, legally, the presumption in our nation is that of innocence. I'm willing to go with that. What am I going to believe? What I would like to believe? Or what the evidence shows?

What do you think of all these scandals and charges and allegations about the Clintons? The allegations against the Bushes don't even rise to that level.


Here's another thoughtful question. Have you ever watched any Nazi propaganda? Are you familiar with the techniques used by propagandists to twist the facts? Do you know what to look out for?


- Sirian
Birdseye
DBB DemiGod
DBB DemiGod
Posts: 3655
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Birdseye »

Here's another thoughtful question. Have you ever watched any Nazi propaganda? Are you familiar with the techniques used by propagandists to twist the facts? Do you know what to look out for?
Hehe, says a bush supporter!

Strange how a Nazi basically summed up what (to me) happened fairly recently. Especially the last sentence.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
User avatar
MehYam
DBB Head Flapper
DBB Head Flapper
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by MehYam »

Ow.
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Goering wrote:All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked...
There's the key. Propaganda is the art of deception.

Birdseye wrote:Strange how a Nazi basically summed up what (to me) happened fairly recently.
How can you share Herman Goering's contempt for the common folk? I know that Michael Moore shares that contempt; that's why I dislike him. From you, though, I expect better. What Goering is really saying is that most people are too stupid to know when they are being misled. Be careful now, Brian. Is that what you mean to say about the American people? Are you sure that you have reached the correct conclusions?


- Sirian
User avatar
woodchip
DBB Benefactor
DBB Benefactor
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 2:01 am

Post by woodchip »

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

More succinctly, it is one thing to tell the citizenry that they are being attacked, yet another to watch live how 3000 of your countrymen perished.

Nazis propaganda had at its roots the extreme poverty Germany suffered after the end of WW1. Hitler and Goebbels played on the hate that generated amonst the German people from how they were treated by the "victors". It was easy to go from there to hating jews and from there to getting back what was "stolen" by the allies. Unless I am mistaken, Germany was not physically attacked prior to the official declaration of war as the U.S. was at both Pearl Harbor and the WTC building. So using Goerings statment is really a dodge at best.

"I hope that's an honest and complete answer. I'm still coming to terms with this stuff myself... I never imagined that I'd ever have a conservative internet friend whose feelings I would respect so I'm probably making a mess of it." Margo

You give answers and replys that are thoughtful and devoid of the vitriol that some others here use. Which is why we can respectfully agree to disagree on certain topic and not worry about hurting the friendly feelings we have.

Now as to Moores imaging of the sad consequences...I view them as a cheap ploy akin to a newsie sticking a microphone in the face of a parent who just lost a child from a horrible auto accident and asking , "how do you feel"?
If moore wants to do a real documentary on the Iraq war then to balance the situation he should be showing the gassed bloated bodies of Kurdish parents still holding their children as though to ward off the greenish yellow cloud that blanketed them in deaths mist (reading this Sirian? A bit better than saying that gas crap eh?). Or even interview the survivors of the Iran Iraq war? I take it Moore does not do this and thus succumbs to the Noam Chomsky school of thought that only when america fights a war do bad things happen.
Birdseye
DBB DemiGod
DBB DemiGod
Posts: 3655
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Birdseye »

More succinctly, it is one thing to tell the citizenry that they are being attacked, yet another to watch live how 3000 of your countrymen perished.
As John Kerry said to Bush in the debates, Saddam Hussain did not attack us.
So using Goerings statment is really a dodge at best.
Not really. I know you are trying to figure some knee jerk way out of the quote, but since you didn't figure it out (Goerings is pretty accurate) here you go: Argue that the Iraq war was fought for the right reasons, and the reasons that the administration stated.
How can you share Herman Goering's contempt for the common folk? I know that Michael Moore shares that contempt; that's why I dislike him. From you, though, I expect better. What Goering is really saying is that most people are too stupid to know when they are being misled. Be careful now, Brian. Is that what you mean to say about the American people? Are you sure that you have reached the correct conclusions?
Interesting that you pick on Goerings. Our own founding fathers had the same "contempt." It's evident in the electoral college. Why do we have the electoral college then? Why do the common folk need some external elector to cast their vote? (this doesn't need to include the minority vs. majority argument)

Sirian, have you heard some of the polls about all the things that are proven to be false that americans still believe? Many Bush voters still believe there is a strong Iraq/9-11 connection. The voters ARE mis-informed. Most of the time they can't even keep the issues straight. This is very easy for me to proove, or for you to google. Maybe it isn't that they are too stupid-maybe it's that they just don't really care. Maybe some people are dumb and others careless.

More proof for Goerings is the Patriot Act. PA was planned even before 9-11. Right after it happened, it passed. IMO, it is a huge orwellian erosion of civil liberties (in principal, it is not a widely abused power AFAIK). Just think about the NAME of the act sirian! If you don't go along with the act, you'll be known as voting against the Patriot Act.
And there is nothing Patriotic about the act. It is probably the least patriotic thing passed I can think of. But the air at the time--you couldn't be known as voting against it. I think a lot of the congressmen probably felt the patriotic tide and went along with it.

I felt the air around the country right before the war. Everyone had war fever. The pacifists were being berated as being anti-american--I know, it happened to me. We were told we were exposing the country to more danger. Although the country was told a few reasons to go to Iraq, the big fish that was never caught was WMD. For me, the Goerings quote is complete.

Bird-sigh.

p.s. Moore doesn't hate the common person. That's just being silly--although I am sure you have some drawn out rationalization as to why he is insulting everyones intelligence, etc.
User avatar
Will Robinson
DBB Grand Master
DBB Grand Master
Posts: 10124
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am

Post by Will Robinson »

Birdseye wrote:As John Kerry said to Bush in the debates, Saddam Hussain did not attack us.
And as G.W.Bush said we can't wait for these monsters to become an imminent threat. 9/11 proved that.
Saddam had enough marks against him to justify his removal. If you think you can wait for every threat to attack us before we act then you are spawn camper bait.

I'll keep saying it until you all get it:

It's the "War on Terror".

Not the 'War on Some Terrorists...but not all terrorists...just a few terrrorists...ones who are hiding in a cave in Afghanastan and a few others of whom we have twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin' what each one was, to be used as evidence against them'
Gooberman
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 6155
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 1999 3:01 am
Location: tempe Az

Post by Gooberman »

Of the estimated 50,000 people whom have been killed by American forces between Iraq and Af.: What percentage of those who are now dead, do you think would have participated in an attack against America, had we not gone to Iraq?


We are killing people whom we think might of tried to kill us. We carry out the punishments often before the crime has been commited! To an extent that may be ok, to this extent.....

I hope you guys are right.
User avatar
woodchip
DBB Benefactor
DBB Benefactor
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 2:01 am

Post by woodchip »

"Not really. I know you are trying to figure some knee jerk way out of the quote, but since you didn't figure it out (Goerings is pretty accurate) here you go: Argue that the Iraq war was fought for the right reasons, and the reasons that the administration stated." Birds

Right reasons are simply with Afghanistan taken out of the equation, where do you suppose the next most logical place for al Queda to set up base? Hence Bush's statement that Iraq with Saddam in power was our most logical next threat. Bird, do you honestly believe terrorist with plans on killing our citizen would not have found a cozy new home in Iraq?
Since the Iraq war, has there been anymore of our embassies bombed? Or our warships bombed while peacably docked in a foreign country? Or even anymore attacks on U.S. soil? So far I'd say Bush has done exactly right.
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Birdseye wrote:Interesting that you pick on Goerings. Our own founding fathers had the same "contempt."
I'm "picking on" Hitler's number one? American founding fathers had the same contempt for common folk as did the Reich Marshal of Nazi Germany?

Birdseye wrote:As John Kerry said to Bush in the debates, Saddam Hussain did not attack us.
Saddam did not attack the US mainland, but his forces fired many hundreds of times at our peacekeepers enforcing the UN no-fly zone.

If North Korea fired hundreds of times at our peacekeepers enforcing the DMZ on the Korean peninsula, and Senator Kerry said that they had not attacked us, would you believe him?


Let's take a more direct accounting, shall we?

Nazi propaganda CLAIMED that Poland attacked them first. The claim was false.

Did you know that, Birds? Did you know that the state controlled press in Nazi Germany baldly and blatantly falsified reports claiming that Poland had launched armed attacks against Germany? There were no voices to offer another point of view, no checks and balances in place to obtain independent verification of the reports, and no time for whomever may have taken the bold step to question what they were being told to have been able to investigate.

For you to compare the American assertion that Iraq possessed WMD stockpiles with the Nazi trick of reporting blatant falsehoods to justify the launch of wars of annexation is grossly incompetent.

* Iraq in fact possessed large stockpiles of chemical weapons at one point. The evidence that chemical weapons were used by Iraq in the Iranian war is widely known, as is the evidence that chemical weapons were used on the Kurds in 1988.

* Iraq in fact possessed large stockpiles of biological weapons at one point.

* Iraq in fact conducted a program to manufacture its own nuclear weapons. The sticking point was not in obtaining a design, but in obtaining the materials necessary to complete construction.

* Iraq claimed to have destroyed all of their existing stockpiles, but they failed to provide convincing evidence. Even Dr. Blix's final report in winter 2003 reflects this, with page upon page of listings of unresolved issues involving whether or not the stockpiles had been disposed of and the programs shut down.

* The USA was not the only nation making this claim. Russia claimed that Iraq had weapons stockpiles. Egypt claimed it. Jordan claimed it. Britain claimed it. China claimed it. France claimed it. The United Nations claimed it. President Clinton used the same set of justifications to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iraq in 1998.


In the case of the Nazi falsehood about Poland attacking them, there was a deliberate lie involved, a lie of the most blatant and malicious nature, which could have been easily refuted with any degree of investigation. That lie was used to prevent the German people from questioning the war of annexation launched against the state of Poland.

In the case of the US intelligence error about the existance of weapons stockpiles, there was mass confusion on the facts, Iraq stubbornly refusing to give full and transparent cooperation on obtaining the facts, and an increased urgency on the side of the USA to reach a satisfactory conclusion brought on by the September 11 attack. The USA put its grievances before the world at the UN General Assembly and obtain validation of those grievances through the UN Security Council via Resolution 1441.


John Kerry wanted us to wait until we got hit, and only then to respond. George Bush wants us to identify the threats before they become imminent and deal with them before they can be launched. I refer you to the Canadian Logic thread for my arguments on why Bush is right and Kerry was wrong, on this point.


What happened in Nazi Germany could not happen in the United States for the following reasons:

1. The Nazis had state controlled press. The USA has a free press.

2. The Nazi government believed in obfuscation. The American government believes in transparency.

3. The Germans had no strong centralized governing document founded on principles of freedom, equality, and human rights. The USA has its Constitution, which we so cherish that we fought a Civil War to preserve it and to preserve our faithfulness to it. We lost ten percent of our population in that conflict. Our commitment to the US Constitution as compared to the commitment level of other peoples around the world to their forms of government is second to none.

4. The Nazis answered to one unquestionable and unaccountable figure: their Fuhrer. Hitler ruled those people. In America, no man or woman stands above the law. The USA is ruled by government set out according to our constitution, with strict separation of powers and balance of powers.

5. The Nazi government did not tolerate being questioned. The American government embraces questions, embraces debate, and submits itself to the will of the people via the forms laid out in our Constitution. Freedom of the press, judicial review, powers of impeachment, free elections, and more.


The error of state-controlled press is not being made by the United States. In fact, the ones still making that error are the Europeans. Seems they haven't learned the lessons of that one yet. Britain's got a free press, but the Beeb is funded by the government to the tune of billions and effectively runs a monopoly on media at its level of penetration. The folks who tune in to the Beeb only hear one point of view. France has state-run press and is actively engaged in propaganda. Same with Russia.

Meanwhile, here in the States, we have five major broadcast networks, which all report news, three major "hard news" cable networks, numerous other cable networks that report news, live broadcasts of the doings of our Congress on cable, and despite the Beeb-like dominance of the New York Times among print media, at least a much more robust and engaging print media than anywhere else on this globe.

Birds, have you been inside a major newspaper? Do you know how things work? I've had a close personal friend who worked for the Washington Post, one of this nation's top newspapers. My credentials as an independent writer allowed me to attend events at the National Press Club, in Washington, DC. The building is located on F street, NW. I've been inside the room on the top floor where you see our national political figures give speechs to the Press Club. I've spoken with editors and reporters. I've had a drink with some of them. I've held in my hand a newswire service printout hot off the ticker.

Could this apparatus fail in the way that the Nazi state-run press failed at the start of World War II? Would American press report blatantly false government claims about armed attacks? There is no way in Hell.

Birdseye wrote:For me, the Goerings quote is complete.
This may be your last chance to come in off that limb before you manage to saw it off.


- Sirian
User avatar
Mobius
DBB_Master
DBB_Master
Posts: 7940
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Mobius »

This whole thread is pretty lame. Why even bother? You are a country in which 60% of the population now believe the Moon landings were faked - after seeing it on Fox TV.

It would be of concern to me if 10% of the population fell for this pathetic attempt to discredit the greatest technological achievement of man-kind, but instead, it's more than half the population.

If that doesn't convince you the average american is gullible in the extreme, and is totally incapable of deciding what "the truth" is - then I don't know what will.

It wouldn't make any difference if Moore was as impartial as the day is long - if you say it on-screen, people believe it. It's that simple.
User avatar
bash
DBB Master
DBB Master
Posts: 5042
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: Texas

Post by bash »

Cue the STFU MOBIUS! pics...
User avatar
Top Gun
DBB Master
DBB Master
Posts: 8099
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 3:01 am

Post by Top Gun »

More than half? Mobi, did you pull that figure out of your @$$? Honestly, a 5-year-old could have seen that TV show and smelt the BS.

Edit: As you request, Bash :P

Image
Birdseye
DBB DemiGod
DBB DemiGod
Posts: 3655
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Birdseye »

Sorry, I didn't intend a direct comparison between the Nazi situation and the Iraq situation. I should have assumed that was were people would have lept. I'm sorry you wasted some words.

The Goerings quote can be studied without having to be a direct comparison. Although the situations were different, there is wisdom in the words of *how* someone was able to control a nation, even if they are dispicable.
I'm "picking on" Hitler's number one? American founding fathers had the same contempt for common folk as did the Reich Marshal of Nazi Germany?
No. I think you are forgetting what I replied to originally. Here is what you said:
What Goering is really saying is that most people are too stupid to know when they are being misled. Be careful now, Brian. Is that what you mean to say about the American people? Are you sure that you have reached the correct conclusions?
I'm simply saying that the founding fathers, as well as goering, understood the herdability of the masses, and how dangerous it can be. Why else is there an electoral college (minus the large state vs. big state issue, focusing on the need for "electors".
Saddam did not attack the US mainland, but his forces fired many hundreds of times at our peacekeepers enforcing the UN no-fly zone.
Big deal. We were over on his turf. What do you expect to happen?
For you to compare the American assertion that Iraq possessed WMD stockpiles with the Nazi trick of reporting blatant falsehoods to justify the launch of wars of annexation is grossly incompetent.
Not my assertion. Sorry you wasted your breath.
John Kerry wanted us to wait until we got hit, and only then to respond.
Not what I heard out of Kerry.

Birds, have you been inside a major newspaper?
No, but some of my closest friends have been apart of a worldwide news story. This is a really long story, but to summarize the lead story guy got tired of answering his phone and I ended up doing interviews with BBC world service, La Monge, San Francisco Chronicle, Fox. I also went with him to the SF Fox station for his live TV interview.

Anyway, my impression after all that was that:
1) The american media is easier to manipulate than most people think because most news organizations rely on wire-news services like AP and reuters
2) The media will take things grossly out of context to the point of seemingly purposeful lying.
3) They will lie.
4) The will play up the emotional portions of the story and ignore the meat.
User avatar
Will Robinson
DBB Grand Master
DBB Grand Master
Posts: 10124
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am

Post by Will Robinson »

Birdseye wrote:...
4) They will play up the emotional portions of the story and ignore the meat.
You mean like the way they (and you) ignored the many other reasons Bush gave for the war in Iraq and only focused on the sexy WMD angle?
Big deal. We were over on his turf. What do you expect to happen?
Yea we were just out for a walk...with our whole freakin' army and airforce and got lost...ended up in his backyard by mistake and had no reason to be poking around there! It's a wonder he didn't call the cops on us....
User avatar
Bold Deceiver
DBB Captain
DBB Captain
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Somewhere in SoCal

Post by Bold Deceiver »

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, I didn't intend a direct comparison between the Nazi situation and the Iraq situation.
Please. Your quote from Goering (I received this regurgitated quote from my liberal buddies back in 2001) was and is silly and indefensible, Birds. Liberals love to trot that out, as though the American people are just a pack of silly sheep to be herded about by clever sheepdogs (no offense meant, sheepdog). Sirian just took you to history's woodshed for that presentation, and you deserved it, in my opinion.

If you're going to take a strong position, first -- be sure about it; then stand up and defend it. Acknowledge the weak parts, hammer the strong parts, and above all, be intellectually honest about it.

But for God's sake, don't try and pretend as though it never happened.

BD
User avatar
Sirian
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Sirian »

Birdseye wrote:I didn't intend a direct comparison between the Nazi situation and the Iraq situation.
In the Canadian Logic thread, I didn't intend to exclude the contributions of allies by focusing on the moral authority obtained by America through the wars of the twentieth century. Sometimes we say things in small packages that do not accurately portray what honestly requires much more verbiage to express.

I'll go with the intent you are claiming.

So let's look at your clarification.

Birdseye wrote:The Goerings quote can be studied without having to be a direct comparison. Although the situations were different, there is wisdom in the words of *how* someone was able to control a nation, even if they are dispicable.
Despicable is an interesting term to apply. To despise someone is such an intense level of rejection as to approach evicting them from the human race. Too often, we have resorted to the comfortable emotional response of despising and failed to engage the critical mental response of analyzing.

Hermann Goering was a genius. He spun his prosecutors in Nuremburg around in logical circles and defied most of their arguments. The judges didn't buy it, and he was convicted and sentenced to hang, but even there he outwitted the court, taking his own life on his terms, defiant to the end. He dominated the other prisoners, led a form of spirited resistance to the whole war crimes process. One good look at his actions, it is easy to appreciate how he rose to number two, as Hitler's named successor. That he ended the war in disgrace, dismissed from his posts, is not to overshadow his genius. He made the mistake of confronting Hitler with logic when the Fuhrer had descended into madness, and out he went, a victim of the very madness that he had worked to forward.

One should not lightly call any Nazi a genius. Even when it is true, there is a hysteria around the world that so loathes and fears what the Nazis did that even reasoned debate is not tolerated. Raise any kind of praise for a Nazi, expect to be shouted down in short order, labeled, filed, stamped, numbered and discarded. You're right, Birds. There is wisdom in studying why the Nazis were successful. One ought to be extremely careful, though. On the subject of history, there are no hotter irons. Mishandle one at your own risk.


You must also be wary of mistaking Goering's defenses at trial for any sort of wisdom. The man was snapping out one liners. A lie can easily be expressed in a few words. Refuting a clever lie can take paragraphs, pages, or entire manuscripts. This is why trial by jury takes so long. The arguments must be forwarded and evidence presented, and then the totality judged with great care. There is plenty of wisdom to be had in matching Goering's explanation with the facts. The real secret lies not in what he claimed, but in what the Nazis actually did. Look not so closely at the man's words. Rather study his deeds.

The state-controlled Nazi press presented any story it liked, any way it liked, subjecting itself to no cross-examination, no investigation, no debate, no accountability, no delays, and no verifications. That is how to control a people: tell them what you want them to hear AND PREVENT THEM FROM HEARING ANYTHING ELSE. Without that last, the lies will only be exposed, debunked, and discredited. Without that last, the liars can be held to task. Even in Nazi Germany, the good people outnumbered the bad. The government kept them silent through use of terror.

To examine the Nazi performance for lessons is a worthy pursuit. To slap half-baked analogies and quotes pulled out of context onto current American activity is sloppy. To claim that a Nazi "summed up" what has happened with Iraq is grossly irresponsible.

Birdseye wrote:Strange how a Nazi basically summed up what (to me) happened fairly recently.
Use of the word "strange" in this context reveals a degree of contempt. You were mocking me.

There are people calling my "Canadian Logic" thread title a sucker punch, brutality, a cheap shot, bullbaiting, and more, but it's about four orders of magnitude less intense than what you pulled with Goering's quote.

Birdseye wrote:The media will take things grossly out of context to the point of seemingly purposeful lying.
You're absolutely right. They will and they do distort stories. However, every time they do that, they put their credibility on the line. This is why the major networks are losing market share. A wide swathe of people grew tired of the spin. When alternative sources of news opened up, many fled.

All news organizations get it wrong sometimes. That is why a free press is so important. A free press is, to some extent, self-correcting. When the news outlets overrely on a single source, as they did with Voter News Service for election-day exit polls and results projections in 2000, leading to the Florida debacle in the media, twice having to retract their projections of who had won, the pressure on the media BY THE PEOPLE and by one another mounts, and reforms are enacted. This is a slow, cumbersome process, but so is politics on the whole.

When there is no competition, no checks and balances, no watchdogs, no fact checkers, no accountability, then it is easy to lie and get away with it. In the free press that we have, one can also catch people in a lie, as CBS was caught with the fake documents about Bush's national guard service, and corrections can be forwarded.

Getting at the truth is never easy. But the clearest lessons to be drawn from Goering's words are not the ways in which America is similar to the Nazis, but the ways in which we are different. Those differences are ignored by many around the world, particularly by those who have things to gain if America loses.

Birdseye wrote:I'm simply saying that the founding fathers, as well as goering, understood the herdability of the masses, and how dangerous it can be.
The founding fathers were not of one mind in all things. They debated heatedly, much as we are doing here. Some were more right than others on the vital issues. Nevertheless, they practiced enough of the art of compromise to satisfy the bulk of the concerns of the prevailing points of view. Here's a bit I pulled from "howstuffworks.com" to explain this:
howstuffworks.com wrote:The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
The conservatives wanted the people to elect the Congress and then have the Congress elect the President. The liberals wanted the popular vote to elect the President. They compromised.

Politics is the art of the possible. The founding fathers were UNABLE to reach compromises on some issues, slavery foremost among them. Rather than insist on perfection, however, they took what they could get and left the rest for us to deal with later.

Birdseye wrote:Why else is there an electoral college (minus the large state vs. big state issue)
I presume you meant to say the large state vs small state issue?

You cannot subtract that issue. That WAS the issue, and it remains the issue today. If the nation's president were elected by popular vote, the campaign could focus only on the largest states. You must remember, the Constitution of the United States REQUIRED UNANIMOUS CONFIRMATION. That is a key to its success, all states and all peoples of the nation had to agree that it served their interests. To be admitted to the Union, all territories wishing to become States had to ratify the Constitition and swear to uphold it as their supreme law of the land.

The small states would not have signed without the Electoral College compromise. You may find fault with this balance, but the self-same balance is reflected in the US Senate. One chamber of Congress votes on the popular vote basis. The other votes state by state. The Electoral College combines these two principles, apportioning the presidential vote state by state, with the popular vote (as represented by number of seats in the House) on the one side, and two votes per state (as represented by the number of seats in the Senate) on the other. This distribution provide more checks and balances.

Do you also reject the wisdom of the US Senate? Shall we amend our Constitution to do away with the Senate and move to a process derived wholly from the results of popular votes? Perhaps we should do away with States and Counties as well? And State Legislatures? Why do we need Mayors and Township Supervisors? Why not elect one President and let Him or Her sit on a Throne and rule over us as a Constitutional Monarch?

We are called the united STATES for a reason. Our government includes principles of equality for individuals, but within the law, there are also principles of equality for the states. Many have criticized this system, but none have produced applied theory that actually outperforms it.

To compare the Electoral College with the philosophy of Hermann Goering is astounding. Image I tried to reach out a hand to grab you, but you just kept sawing away at that branch.


- Sirian
Sickone
MIA Host/Admin
MIA Host/Admin
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 3:01 am
Location: Antelope Valley, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Sickone »

what is this thread about ????

The war in Iraq ?

Moore and is movies ?

- War is bad...
Bush shaded some issues to go into Iraq... Oh wait - that is how every fucken war has started.. Keep in mind here, virtually no Iraqi's are sorry Sadam is gone, they just don't want us there.

Certainly I can't say I am happy we are there, several people I know, and a couple that are sons of friends of mine have been wounded there, one alomost killed.

But - there is little question that the weak intelligence we had did indicate possible WMDs, that was all Bush needed, cause he wanted to go in, no doubt

As for Moore...

Hey he can say what ever he wants, the only issue I have with the guy is to claim being a documentarian, he doesn't do documetary movies.

He does opinion pieces, and completely slants things to make that/those points. That is all fine, as long as you don't call it a documentary...

Frankly I would love to see Moore's work IF he did a movie about himself using the same approach - I would roll out of my seat.

As I said, I would feel the same repugnance toward anyone with any view offering their heavily slanted BS as a documentary.
Post Reply