Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Actually, you're making a lot of assumptions as to what I think. That's okay though if it floats your boat.
I think most of these points you;ve mentioned in your last post are what any clear-minded, knowledgeable, sensitive, and patriotic individual would have trouble swallowing. I hope you realize that so many people reading have enjoyed your participation in the last debate.
cheezy321
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2003
- 6,218
- 2
- 0
You know what I think is getting very funny about all these debates....How much the internet has effected EVERYTHING WE DO. From politics to shopping, everything has changed
The internet has certainly made me realize a LOT more about what goes on in the world. You can read every point of view possible and understand everyones stance on the subject is.
Also, do you guys think that not JUST george W. was doing this as a president? I mean, its very ignorant to think that the whole "crooked business" as a president JUST BEGAN in 2000.
We just have a lot more information about what every person in the spotlight does. This is a good thing. It makes presidents realize that there are a LOT more people watching them and A LOT more people criticizing what they do.
Im glad michael moore made this movie. I may not agree with what he said or how he put across his opinions, but im glad he did. We should never take things without a second opinion and a different viewpoint. Me, I still believe George W. is a decent president.
What sucks is that lots of people take this movie and complete and 100% truth. Just like the left says there are tons of sheep for George W. there are just as many sheep now that are gonna vote for Kerry. They are only educated by the extreme left point of view.
Its sad really
The internet has certainly made me realize a LOT more about what goes on in the world. You can read every point of view possible and understand everyones stance on the subject is.
Also, do you guys think that not JUST george W. was doing this as a president? I mean, its very ignorant to think that the whole "crooked business" as a president JUST BEGAN in 2000.
We just have a lot more information about what every person in the spotlight does. This is a good thing. It makes presidents realize that there are a LOT more people watching them and A LOT more people criticizing what they do.
Im glad michael moore made this movie. I may not agree with what he said or how he put across his opinions, but im glad he did. We should never take things without a second opinion and a different viewpoint. Me, I still believe George W. is a decent president.
What sucks is that lots of people take this movie and complete and 100% truth. Just like the left says there are tons of sheep for George W. there are just as many sheep now that are gonna vote for Kerry. They are only educated by the extreme left point of view.
Its sad really
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Great reading there. I thought that maybe this film would have less spin than BfC but I guess I was wrong.
We won't know. From the AP back in december: Iraq to stop counting civilian dead Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch over the source, its actually from the AP, you can find it on a number of sites if you google.
"For you don't count the dead when God's on your side."
This really belongs in P/N.
back on topic:
I enjoyed the movie. I was anti-bush to start with, but I was worried it might be too much of Michael Moore doing absurd things (like the ice cream truck scene) but that was kept to a minimum. He overdid it a bit with the mother who lost the child. After the first 10 minutes, I felt like he was really plucking heart strings there. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed the movie though.
this is indeed a great read. my only problems with the article were the following:
"The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn?t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998?five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm?s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president?s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus."
the editors leave the truth to a Carlyle spokesman....am i paranoid or something?
"Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm?s senior advisors is Thomas ?Mack? McLarty, Bill Clinton?s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton?s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton?s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC."
But NOT president Carter or Clinton. Though there advisers may have, they didn't have a personal stake.
"Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue?and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington"
the editors didn't specify whether Clinton's administration proposed the pipeline. Instead they imply that it was lobbyists. Well, under Clinton's administration the pipeline was NOT built. Under Bush, it will be. One can argue that the lobbyists were less successful with Clinton..
"It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight?conditioned on FBI clearance."
since we're believing what Clarke says...Clarke also claims that the Bush administration sandbagged his efforts to warn the president of an impending terrorist attack, while Bush was vacationing...
anyway, again a VERY good read, just a few minor points. When are we going to see an article that talks about both the FACTS and the LIES Moore presents?
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Originally posted by: gururu
this is indeed a great read. my only problems with the article were the following:
"The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn?t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998?five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm?s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president?s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus."
the editors leave the truth to a Carlyle spokesman....am i paranoid or something?
"Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm?s senior advisors is Thomas ?Mack? McLarty, Bill Clinton?s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton?s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton?s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC."
But NOT president Carter or Clinton. Though there advisers may have, they didn't have a personal stake.
"Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue?and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington"
the editors didn't specify whether Clinton's administration proposed the pipeline. Instead they imply that it was lobbyists. Well, under Clinton's administration the pipeline was NOT built. Under Bush, it will be. One can argue that the lobbyists were less successful with Clinton..
"It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight?conditioned on FBI clearance."
since we're believing what Clarke says...Clarke also claims that the Bush administration sandbagged his efforts to warn the president of an impending terrorist attack, while Bush was vacationing...
anyway, again a VERY good read, just a few minor points. When are we going to see an article that talks about both the FACTS and the LIES Moore presents?
You'll never find anything that is clear cut enough to convince everyone that he lied. He's that good at twisting things and telling half-truths. Even if it is exposed that such and such is true it really doesn't matter to them because in their mind HIS version is the only true version.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
I thought you said you were done with this thread?
I'll take the bait. What blatant lies are we referring to?
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
I guess I am because I really have no idea wtf you are talking about. If you think calling someone stupid is the way to win the argument then you obviously need to grow up and learn a bit more about the world. Learn to think for yourself instead of saying stupid things like 'half truths are better than lies!' without qualifying wtf you are talking about.
You asked for truth, I LINKED TO TRUTH... now, if that's not enough, then I don't really know what the fcuk else I have to do. But, the last time I had a discussion with a diehard Bush fan face to face, it was in the form of 200 lbs sweat donning pear shape middle age female. So I figure, yeah, that must be it. I won the fcuking argument out right, and any one with a little reading comprehension could see that, but you on the other hand, are too damn stupid (that's right, I'm calling you stupid now) too realize that you're stupid.
I just thought some people might find it interesting that China will most likely allow this movie to be the *first* imported "documentary" ever shown in the country.
EDIT:
Link here: http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200407/01/eng20040701_148176.html
And crazymofo, what is up man? You seem like you have a lot of anger. It seems like people cannot have an intelligent debate on politics without degenerating into pointless statements and ad homnem attacks.
EDIT:
Link here: http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200407/01/eng20040701_148176.html
And crazymofo, what is up man? You seem like you have a lot of anger. It seems like people cannot have an intelligent debate on politics without degenerating into pointless statements and ad homnem attacks.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
Right, Halliburton was never the issue with me. What I'm trying to figure out is why you think it's a huge deal that Halliburton is repairing the Iraqi oil fields yet call them "Iraqi owned oil fields" like it's some sort of conspiracy to take the oil from them. I mean, you can believe in your conspiracy theories all you want. Mel Gibson was right in the movie so maybe you're right here. I can't argue with someone who is deluded into thinking that conspiracy theories hold any weight so if it makes you feel better to think that you have 'won an argument' with me then that's fine. It really doesn't matter to me either way.
Wow, I can tell by your post that you are the most intelligent person here. Of course your truth is the truth. No other fact is the truth, only the links you post. Everything else is a lie. A half truth is a lie as well. I wouldnt just run around calling people stupid. You may find that many of us are more educated than you think. But hey call people names and talk down to them becasue that is the real way to win an argument. I'm sure you are a complete badass sitting behind your computer....
Great, another one!... OK MR. educated, prove my conspiracy theories wrong then.
According to you and bush bandwagoneers, what's on FOX News, and the media, must be truth. So, I'm just grabbing tid bits of information from your credible news source and point out what is obvious, that make me wrong?
If anything that I've stated as fact and you can disprove it, then by all mean, please show me the light. Base on those facts, my opinion, and many others, can interpret them the way that they would appear most sensible. If you chose to think otherwise, then it's your opinion, but that doesn't mean the truth are not facts.
Did you read the last two pages, at least?
Yes, it has been known that I have a temper, but for you to assume that I only talk hind a monitor, well... let's hope that it's an assumption base on your own character.
Most people not only dislike him but also afraid of him. That false warning alert and terrorist threat attack from bush cronies is emotionally damaging; and it's sad because he's scaring the pants out of everyone. In this state, you can have people believe whatever you say and do your bidding.
I never called people names, and I'm not acting like I am a badass. On the other hand your tone is very aggressive. It makes me laugh to think of you sitting there, steaming with rage because you are the only smart person on Earth that truly knows how to read and that everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I think it is great fun and I am not even a troll. You may want to calm down before you rupture something.
On the other hand this could be a Bush conspiracy to get you to have a heart attack because you are so in the know!
I read your reply before reading what you quoted. It's kind of funny that without the quoted bit, it's impossible to tell whether you're referring to Bush or Moore.
Actually, reading posts like this gives me great laughs, they serve more as a comedic literature (if I can classify these as literature) than anything else.
Yup, just more of beating around the bush (pardon the pun) than any actual worthwhile arguments...
I never said anyone that disagree with me is an idiot, but for some one to keep at the same issue with nothing to back up their arguments (other than disagreeing with my facts), now that's stupidity.
For some one as educated as you are, I'm sure you'll see my point. You can do one of two things, either prove me wrong, and/or provide some validity in your arguments; or just sit there and spout some more rhetoric nonsense about me trying to be a badass.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter