Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Just saw it 5 minutes ago, quite a good documentary. The first hour and a half or so are quite lively, and Micheal Moore points out some very interesting facts, like how the Saudis have used the Carlyle Group to give the Bush family 1.4 Billion dollars. Then the movie's viewpoiont switches to the war in iraq. Moore uses this segment of the movie to show what war is actually like, contrary to what you see on the news of buildings exploding and everyone being happy. In fact, the movie gets QUITE gruesome at times. This is not a movie I would recommend to anyone under 15, notwithstanding the fact that I am 14 myself. Then the movie comes back to showing how Marine recruiters prey on low-income communities and Michael Moore trying to get congressmen to talk to their children about signing up for the military. And finally, it ends with a hilarious Bush quote that I have never seen anywhere before. Overall, quite a well put together movie regardless of political stance that I would recommending seeing, but not to children because the Iraq scene is quite gruesome.
You shouldn't have given your age out, you have effectively gutted most of you're arguments as we now know that you are too young to have any first hand experience with what you speak of. That aside however, F911 is not a documentary, it is a America Hater propaganda piece that I am basically ignoring.
SuperFlyingEngi In fact, the movie gets QUITE gruesome at times. This is not a movie I would recommend to anyone under 15, notwithstanding the fact that I am 14 myself. That'll just mean you'll have time to become more conservative as you grow older.
Yeah, because we all know there are no Democrats older than 25.
It's pretty important to point out that disagreeing with your government in a democratic society doesn't make you an "America-hater" or a traitor. It's a democratic society for fuck's sake. Your own constitution infers that can say and express himself however he wants. While I don't necessarily agree with everything in the movie, I think it's a good view into the democrat mind of the current administration. It's not surprising in any sense, but the humour factor of it makes it worth watching.
liberator You shouldn't have given your age out, you have effectively gutted most of you're arguments as we now know that you are too young to have any first hand experience with what you speak of. Which life experiences have I missed out on that everyone else has gotten in their 3 or 4 more years? liberator That aside however, F911 is not a documentary, it is a America Hater propaganda piece that I am basically ignoring. How do you know that if you've been ignoring it? Also, calling something America Hater propaganda makes you sound like a moron. YSLMuffins That'll just mean you'll have time to become more conservative as you grow older. Likely, but I doubt I'll ever be a Bush fan. NHJ BV Yeah, because we all know there are no Democrats older than 25. Both my parents are Democrats and are in their 40s. Javaxc It's pretty important to point out that disagreeing with your government in a democratic society doesn't make you an "America-hater" or a traitor. Ah yes, VERY important to point out, what with the Bush administration trying to make people feel like they are commiting wrong-doings by criticizing his actions. George Washington, I think it was, once said that the most unpatriotic thing you can do for your country is not to criticize it.
SuperFlyingEngi NHJ BV Yeah, because we all know there are no Democrats older than 25. Both my parents are Democrats and are in their 40s. sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. 3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
The United States of America is not a democracy, It is a republic.
re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk) n. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. A nation that has such a political order. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters. de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s) n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. A political or social unit that has such a government. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. Majority rule. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. I hope you're not infering that because of the Republican majority in the United States, that critizing and disagreeing with that government is treason. It goes against the constitution.
I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality. I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA.
What was so poor about it? It was a documentary, not a 100 million dollar action movie. I doubt a 10th grade video production class could put a movie together with Micheal Moore's wit, like when he goes to get congressmen to get their children to sign up for the war in Iraq. And there's no way in hell a 10th grade video production class could have enough connections to get their hands on the stuff Moore can. If France does hate the U.S., it's only because the U.S. hated France first.
Crimson I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality. I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA. The judges were AMERICANS. It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it.
The question becomes are your parents active, highly Liberal Democrats? Or are they Party Voters who would vote for Hitler as long as ran Democratic? BTW, America is a Republic governed by Law which is interpreted by Elected Representatives. Democracies are usually highly disorganized and almost impossible to maintain as they are vulnerable to both military coup and careful manipulation of Public Sentiment. This is "The Way It Is". I'm not going to break it up by party, but by philosophical bent. Liberals believe that the average person is incapable of making important choices themselves and want to allow the Government to become as large and powerful as neccessary to take care of everything. Conservatives are almost dead opposite, we believe that given the opportunity people will make good choices with what to do with their lives. Government should be small and limited, so as not to interfere with people's lives too much. That a nutshell version of the philosophy behind the two real movements in American politics.
My only issue with your definition of Conservatives is pertaining to the issue of gay-marriage. If what you say is true, isn't the amendment being passed contridictory?
liberator BTW, America is a Republic governed by Law which is interpreted by Elected Representatives. Democracies are usually highly disorganized and almost impossible to maintain as they are vulnerable to both military coup and careful manipulation of Public Sentiment. What you defined here is a direct democracy, meaning everyone gathers together somewhere and votes and all kinds of decisions. Completely unworkable in any modern country. Holland, for example, is a parlementary democracy, not a republic.
Aprime Crimson I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality. I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA. The judges were AMERICANS. It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it. Then they were LIBERALS. Plain and simple. Did you even SEE the movie, SuperFlyingLiberal? This whole bit about running up to congressmen? He talked to one who said he'd take a copy of the form, another whose answer that his nephew was in the armed forces was edited out, and a third who ran away from him. I'd run away from a fat scruffy looking guy who couldn't even be assed to get a haircut before filming his movie if he started coming at me with a mike. Besides that, what the fuck? No father or mother can "send their kids" anyway! Like my dad is going to come over to my house and say "Pack your bags, some fat fucker took a time out from eating a twinkie and convinced me to sign you up for the Army. Off you go!" No parent can make their kids join the armed forces. Sorry.
I didn't walk away from the movie thinking of it like that. His asking Congressmen to get their kids to enlist was more symbolic of how it's the lower class that goes off and does the fighting, while the richer America sits back where it's safe. But I think that's kind of a stupid point to make on his behalf. If you could safely make a living, why wouldn't you? It's human nature.
His point was... if they are so in favor of the war, why won't they send their own kids? It's obvious because they can't control their kids. Especially once they are old enough to serve.
I thought he wanted them to talk to their kids about the war and have a recruiting officer come visit them, not necessarily get congressmen to forcibly send their kids into the armed services... And it really is something of a problem in America where those who decide whether the country should go to war don't actually feel the impact of the war on them, except when the stock in some of their companies goes up, up, up. Back in the 1800's era, at least in Britain, all of the governing people with important positions were considered cowardly if they did not participate in one of the country's wars. And being considered cowardly was not a good thing back then. But now we have a system where the rich people who could actually make a profit from launching a war don't suffer from a war like the people in poor communities where military service may be the only way out of a slump. And the war in Iraq isn't just a little police action - it's the biggest loss of armed services personnel since Vietnam. And for what? Disarming the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Oh, but what about that Saren gas artillery shell? Well, I don't think some artillery shells with Saren gas in them are going to pose much of an imminent threat to the United States, first and foremost the fact that Saddam didn't exactly have the capabilities to shoot artillery shells over the Atlantic Ocean, and once you shoot ballistic projectiles that far, who knows where they are going to end up. And the entire concept of nuclear weapons was a joke. They only had a couple rudimentary experiments going on that basically lead up to nothing. This is a war we shouldn't be in, just like the Senate commity saying a couple days ago that the reasoning for this war was wrong, and then Bush making a public appearance where he said, "I know the cause was wrong, but it was really right." And too many people are dying for an unjust cause.
Crimson Aprime Crimson I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality. I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA. The judges were AMERICANS. It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it. Then they were LIBERALS. Plain and simple. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.
Where do you pull this shit from? WMD was one of four reasons to go to war with them. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/29/121539.shtml This article shows how the 9/11 commission has found that the war has definitely stymied Al Qaeda and severely limited their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." And don't forget your dear Mr. Clinton said the same things that Bush did: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/ http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Crimson Where do you pull this shit from? WMD was one of four reasons to go to war with them. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/29/121539.shtml This article shows how the 9/11 commission has found that the war has definitely stymied Al Qaeda and severely limited their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." The war in Afghanistan, maybe. The war in Iraq, no. The war in Iraq only increased terrorism, especially in the long run (more hatred against US in ME).
Ok. I'm almost afraid to reply to this, but my natural inclination to argue is taking over. First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events. That being said, I feel there are a few points that should be addressed. 1. Michael Moore skews his stories ridiculously. He edits statements and takes them out of context. 2. Bush, and his PR people, skew their stories ridiculously. They edit statements and take them out of context. What does this tell us? First, everyone lies. The political industry in America is built on shit. Lots and lots of shit. Second, it's impossible to get the truth from just one side of any discussion. And Michael Moore makes it especially difficult. He's out to convince people, not just reveal truth. This makes me sad, as I feel that his arguments would be stronger if they were presented in a less biased way. After all, there's no denying that some things were done poorly, but how much does it help to present half truths? All that this does: 1. Liberals say, "yeah, we hate that" ... but they didn't need to be convinced in the first place, as he's attacking things done by conservatives. 2. Conservatives say, "no, look. he lied about this and messed this up" ... meanwhile they miss the main points cause they're pointing to the details. End result? Nothing changes except people get mad. As seen here. No one makes any changes; things aren't done differently. Companies don't change how they do things, so that Michael Moore has nothing to make films about; instead they give their employees mandatory "dealing with Michael Moore" seminars. How does this help? Now they're fucking shit up, AND they're learning to lie about it better. I do have a few ... problems? ... with people saying stuff about "people who don't send their own children to war." Mainly because these people praise Clinton (a draft dodger) as a great president. I'm not saying he was or wasn't, or that politicians do this or that ... I'm just saying it's kinda hypocritical. now on to specifit quotes: Crimson His point was... if they are so in favor of the war, why won't they send their own kids? It's obvious because they can't control their kids. No, I think SEAL was on the right track there; it's better to make a living safely rather than going to war. But if it's somethign you really believe in, if you're willing to ask others to die for it ... then shouldn't you be willing to die for it (or at least send your own kids)? And you KNOW that high-ranking politicians procure spots in the National Guard or Coast Guard for their kids. (I'm not insulting either of those Guards ... I'm just saying it's safer than being a Navy SEAL.) SuperFlyingEngi This is a war we shouldn't be in, just like the Senate commity saying a couple days ago that the reasoning for this war was wrong, and then Bush making a public appearance where he said, "I know the cause was wrong, but it was really right." And too many people are dying for an unjust cause. Could you provide a link to this, please? I'm not saying he did or didn't, I just wanna read it. Preferably on cnn.com, or usnews or something (ie, not "The Onion" ). NHJ BV The war in Afghanistan, maybe. The war in Iraq, no. The war in Iraq only increased terrorism, especially in the long run (more hatred against US in ME). Please. The war in Iraq perhaps increased the hatred of Americans in NOT the Middle East, but it's doubtful that it changed how people felt about us there. Maybe more fear, but probably not hatred. People who hated us before hate us now. People who liked us (and hated those who hated us ... enemy of my enemy, and all that) still like us, and are glad we killed people they hated. Now, I'm not saying what we did was right, but I would prefer a moral argument based on our action, not on presumptions about how what we did makes people feel about us. If a cop throws a drug dealer in jail, and the drug dealer hates the cop, does that make the cop evil? No. Now, does that mean that we (America) should act as the cops for the whole world? Again, no. We're more like the guy who sees the drug dealer, goes home, gets a shotgun, and kills the drug dealer. Then for good measure, kills all his friends. And a few members of his family. And a few innocent bystanders. Is the world better afterwards? You be the judge. Do we have a right to do it? I'll be the judge: no. Still, what really bothers me is when people blame the shotgun. Support the troops; they're doing their duty and trying to protect us. Maybe that's not what they're accomplishing right now, because they're being pointed in the wrong direction, but you MUST respect them. They feel America is the greatest country on Earth, and are willing to give their lives for it. Finally as for weapons of mass destrucion, I'd like to quote something Dana Carvey said: "Well, if they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, then they were pretty stupid. All they would have had to do would have been let the weapons inspectors in. Instead, they kicked them out of the country. Now they're like, 'Oops ... I used to live in a palace ... now I live in a ditch.' "
ViperFUD First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events. No, I quite literally am 14. Just because I choose the path of logical reasoning over that of borderline illiteracy doesn't mean I can't be 14. Thanks for the compliment. ViperFUD Could you provide a link to this, please? I'm not saying he did or didn't, I just wanna read it. Preferably on cnn.com, or usnews or something (ie, not "The Onion" ). Hm...I saw President Bush saying this on the news, CNN I believe it was, but I can't find a transcript for it. A rough highlight of what he said about ddefending the war can be found here, http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=2ACDAB99-362C-4399-BF9053D983E2F0AC, where he defends going into Iraaq despite the Senate Intelligence Commity releasing a report the serious flaws with our pre-war intelligence. ViperFUD Please. The war in Iraq perhaps increased the hatred of Americans in NOT the Middle East, but it's doubtful that it changed how people felt about us there. Maybe more fear, but probably not hatred. People who hated us before hate us now. People who liked us (and hated those who hated us ... enemy of my enemy, and all that) still like us, and are glad we killed people they hated. Attacking a country, especially in the Middle East, is going to raise resentment by the people there. If a man sees his child killed by a U.S. bomb, he's going to be quite angry, and influenced by all of the hate propaganda over there, he may feel like he needs revenge against the hateful United States. When Israel was first started and was attacked by the rest of the Middle East right after the country was established, we sent our U.S.S. North Carolina over and started shelling the Bekaa Valley with 17-inch shells that weigh as much as a Volkswagen car. That's where a whole lot of the terrorists we are currently fighting come from, but we Americans like to forget about that. I agree with you when we say that we should always support our troops, and never become hateful towards them because of what they have been ordered to do. If they are going to die for us to live safely, no matter how just the cause, they should always be respected. EDIT: Spelling errors.
Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out?!
ViperFUD First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events. Grammar isn't that hard a concept to grasp (hell, even monkeys can understand it). You'll rarely ever see me make a grammatical error, and I'm only 16. Most people are just too lazy to care about the way they type on the internet. To me, it's just a few more keystrokes to type "you" instead of "u," so why not type out the whole word? Oh, and the fact he's such a hardcore liberal should be enough evidence he's only fourteen. SEAL Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out?! Of course it did. Why the question mark?
I don't know where Michael moore gets off saying the military is full of lower class people. That is completely untrue. It is true that people who have no hope in ever getting job join the military but it is better than nothing. the Army is full of succesful people. There are hundreds of thousands of every day people who are in the national guard and reserves. Lawyers, doctors, buisiness men, and teachers. Every type of person is in the military. Not just lower class people. My family is what i would call upper middle class. Both my parents spent well over two decades in the Army. We are not low class bums. Michael moore is just some fat fuck. It is terrible that I have to share the name Michael with him.
hydra1945 SEAL Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out?! Of course it did. Why the question mark? http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html Quote: "The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them." I just google searched "iraq kicked out weapons inspectors". I always thought they were pulled out, not kicked out... I do not mean to argue. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Nodbugger I don't know where Michael moore gets off saying the military is full of lower class people. That is completely untrue. It is true that people who have no hope in ever getting job join the military but it is better than nothing. the Army is full of succesful people. There are hundreds of thousands of every day people who are in the national guard and reserves. Lawyers, doctors, buisiness men, and teachers. Every type of person is in the military. Not just lower class people. My family is what i would call upper middle class. Both my parents spent well over two decades in the Army. We are not low class bums. Michael moore is just some fat fuck. It is terrible that I have to share the name Michael with him. I wouldn't worry about his assesment of class structure in the military. He isn't exactly a veteran.
Yes, of course I would admit that the Republicans like to give their buddies contracts, and the Democrats lie through their teeth. Big deal. That's not the reason I am a conservative. I am a conservative because through all the muck and muddle, their GOALS agree with what I think the best direction for the country is. Through all the bullshit, I know the Republicans are going to do their best not to add more to my financial burdens as far as taxes are concerned. I know that the Democrats want to grow the government and take over more and more responsibilities above and beyond what the Constitution grants them the right to do, and use over 70% overhead in the process.
Humans are complex creatures, capable of having constrasting (even contradicting) opinions about different things. Some people may agree with the "liberal" point of view on some issues and the "conservative" issue on others; in fact, most people function this way. Hence, what is the point of trying to slap labels on each other, when truly everyone defies this type of label? Even the most fervent politically "liberal" or "conservative" person will have some opinions that contradict the label. I say this because the majority of the political discussions here have been filled with people tossing these names around at each other, when it accomplishes nothing.
hydra1945 Oh, and the fact he's such a hardcore liberal should be enough evidence he's only fourteen. Um...WTF? I think you must be tragically mistaking me with someone else, for I do not exactly consider myself an incredibly hardcore liberal. Also, I don't think my political viewpoint will switch around in two years. Political viewpoints switching as they changing refers to people under 30 generally being more liberal than their later selves, not a gigantic switch between 14 and 16.
"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." Winston Churchill
Just to be partially irrelevant, Newsweek misspelled "fahrenheit."
Nodbugger "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." Winston Churchill When Winston Churchill said that, he wasn't referring to being a Democrat at 20, and then being a Neocon at 40. The kind of conservative he was referring to back then was more like a Barney Frank liberal, not the bunch we have today.
SuperFlyingEngi Nodbugger "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." Winston Churchill When Winston Churchill said that, he wasn't referring to being a Democrat at 20, and then being a Neocon at 40. The kind of conservative he was referring to back then was more like a Barney Frank liberal, not the bunch we have today. Did he personally tell you that? And can you admit this. If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar?
Nodbugger Did he personally tell you that? He didn't have to. Back when he was around, there was no such thing as the neocon we have today. In fact, they didn't really exist at all before the 1950's and only really came in to the spotlight with Nixon, where they discovered that many people without opinions can be easily swayed if they are fed false opinions through sources such as FOX News over and over again. Nodbugger And can you admit this. If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar? Nice punctuation. When the U.S. goes to war, they need a big majority to do it. Basically, everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, and all congressmen should be able to trust the President to provide valid information, instead of construed bullshit, like intelligence from OTHER COUNTRIES while OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war?
SuperFlyingEngi Nodbugger If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar? everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war? You just made Nod buggers case for him. Kerry and Bush were using the same information to make the decision to go to war. And just because popular opinion says "Go to war!" that does NOT mean one should go against his conscience. Unless of course you are John Kerry, and you need that plausible deniability to make the case for ignorance. Basically it's this: 1. Kerry flip flopped on a critical issue and you think that was ok because he was under popular pressure to do so. By not voting his conscience, he defines himself as a weak popularist. 2. Kerry is being a hypocritical SOB by telling the nation that Bush is a warmongering liar because he led us to war. After all, he used that SAME INFORMATION to base his judgement to go to war in his very own words. Either way my friend, there are SERIOUS accountability issues here. My personal opinion: President Bush is standing firm. That makes him accountable, and credible. He made a decision based on information from sources he deemed credible, and acted. John Kerry is a flip flopping popularist who sways with public opinion, and is accountable to no one. Had he been president, we would still be debating the popular choice, and Al Quaeda would have a bunch of terrorists still alive, with a country under thier influence, and a sympathetic dictatorial anti-US leader with the capabilty to make WMD'S in thier court. This has been a difficult course to follow. Bush told us it would be. No one seemed to have believed that war had been declared by attacked American soil. Do you beleive now? Do you think the lives of 3000 plus Americans are accounted for now?
Nodbugger If Bush lied so did Kerry. He did after all vote for war with the same exact information. So when will he admit to being a liar? SuperFlyingEngi everyone votes with the war, because they can be called a sissy when they are campaigning for re-election, OUR OWN CIA WAS TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FALSE! And how did Kerry lie by voting for the war? KIRBY098 You just made Nod buggers case for him. Kriby, come on. Read the posts well. Bush knew what the truth was, and acted on false information. Thus, he lied. Kerry didn't know what the truth was, and acted on false information. He did not lie. However, he flipflops like a fish outta water. He lacks discipline. Vote Arnold 2004. ps. SuperFlyingEngi where they discovered that many people without opinions can be easily swayed if they are fed false opinions through sources such as FOX News over and over again. Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ... Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"?
I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"? I don't know about you, but I don't second guess expert sources of information, unless I have reason to suspect them.
What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose. What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it? And don't say oil.
KIRBY098 This has been a difficult course to follow. Bush told us it would be. No one seemed to have believed that war had been declared by attacked American soil. Do you beleive now? Do you think the lives of 3000 plus Americans are accounted for now? Actually, I seem to remember Bush telling everyone that the war was over a looooooong time ago... almost before any Americans had even died. (I believe his exact words were "Mission Accomplished" or something like that.) Also, no, I don't think we can account for American lives by butchering a bunch of Muslims in the Middle East. And it may be true that if Bush hadn't done anything, Al Quaeda would still basically have control of a country and have WMDs at their disposal, are we really any better? Almost on a whim, we just waltzed into Iraq and butchered hundreds of people, toppled their government, and imprisoned their leader. Al Quaeda *might* have destroyed a country. We DID destroy a country. In my personal opinion, a pre-emptive strike is NEVER justifiable. That's like saying you could just go up to someone on the street and kill him and then say "well, he was probably going to hurt me someday."
Nodbugger What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose. What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it? And don't say oil. Maybe a religious crusade? Also, I don't really care if he lied or not. He's such a complete moron that I don't even see how that's relevant. He's such a retard that it kinda makes me ashamed to be an American. ....Kerry vs. Bush? ...... just one more reason that I don't vote....
SuperFlyingEngi If France does hate the U.S., it's only because the U.S. hated France first. Y'know what seriously cracks me up? Back when France disagreeing with the US was just starting to be a hot issue, I kept seeing patriotic pictures of the Statue of Liberty all over the place. If those were supposed to make people more firm in their beliefs that the US was right and France was wrong, that's just ridiculous. (For those who may not know, I say this because the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.)
KIRBY098 I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"? The Bush administration was putting intense amounts of pressure on the CIA to pin Iraq for various bad things. ViperFUD Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ... Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"? CNN isn't exactly liberal media...They used to be sort of in the middle, but now they are taking the FOX course of action. Everything they run now is just bullshit. I was watching their show recently, and they couldn't stop re-running Bush's new campaign commercial, and didn't touch on Kerry's at all. That's not unbiased news. Then, when they brought in some "experts" to talk about Kerry picking Edwards as his running mate, They brought in some guy from the Democratic party, and only asked him questions such as, "How will this hurt John Kerry?" and, "How bad is Edwards for John Kerry?" Then, they brought in some guy from the Republican party for apparently no reason at all except to agree with Edwards being a bad running mate. That's not unbiased. Nodbugger What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose. What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it? And don't say oil. Well, it's not WMDs, pretending it's a humanitarian issue is stupid, as we do not invade countries for humanitarian issues...I'm going to go with Saudi Arabia. They've used the Carlyle group basically as a tool to give the Bushs 1.4 billion dollars. And now, they want more control in the Middle East. So George W. Tool is going to get that done for them. And please, I knew about this before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.
mahkra ....Kerry vs. Bush? ...... just one more reason that I don't vote.... I fail to see how you feel it's justified that you can complain without exercising this basic democratic right. If you feel this strongly support a candidate that promotes your ideals. Even if you don't think he can win.
SuperFlyingEngi KIRBY098 I assume you have some information then that shows the president saw through the CIA's deceptive analysis, and "knew the truth"? The Bush administration was putting intense amounts of pressure on the CIA to pin Iraq for various bad things. ViperFUD Or CNN, or NBC, or any of the Liberal news media ... Isn't it funny how "our" opinions are "valid" and everyone else's are "false"? CNN isn't exactly liberal media...They used to be sort of in the middle, but now they are taking the FOX course of action. Everything they run now is just bullshit. I was watching their show recently, and they couldn't stop re-running Bush's new campaign commercial, and didn't touch on Kerry's at all. That's not unbiased news. Then, when they brought in some "experts" to talk about Kerry picking Edwards as his running mate, They brought in some guy from the Democratic party, and only asked him questions such as, "How will this hurt John Kerry?" and, "How bad is Edwards for John Kerry?" Then, they brought in some guy from the Republican party for apparently no reason at all except to agree with Edwards being a bad running mate. That's not unbiased. Nodbugger What I want to know is why people think Bush lied on purpose. What would be his purpose for going to war? Why are doing all this stuff and spending all this money? If it isn't for the humanitarian/wmd/getting rid of assholes...what was it? And don't say oil. Well, it's not WMDs, pretending it's a humanitarian issue is stupid, as we do not invade countries for humanitarian issues...I'm going to go with Saudi Arabia. They've used the Carlyle group basically as a tool to give the Bushs 1.4 billion dollars. And now, they want more control in the Middle East. So George W. Tool is going to get that done for them. And please, I knew about this before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. All kinds of conspiracy theory there.
If you work for the government you are connected to the Carlyle group. So that theory goes out the window.
KIRBY098 mahkra ....Kerry vs. Bush? ...... just one more reason that I don't vote.... I fail to see how you feel it's justified that you can complain without exercising this basic democratic right. If you feel this strongly support a candidate that promotes your ideals. Even if you don't think he can win. That's a bullshit argument. I fucking hate it when people say "you don't vote, so you can't complain." I have lots of reasons for not voting, but I'll try to present the most simple: I don't agree with our political system. I think that the general public is too stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of electing a president. (And the electoral college is even more shit than that.) I do like the idea of a democracy, but the entire country is too big for John Q. Dumbass to know who is best suited to run it. If anything, I think that people should elect mayors, who in turn elect governors, who in turn elect the president. Or something to that effect. I don't like our political system. Voting would demonstrate my support of the system. Therefore, I WILL NOT VOTE. Also, you cannot tell me (without lying to yourself) that my vote actually matters. The uneducated, uninformed public is such a huge majority that all intelligent votes are overwhelmed by the votes of mindless sheep who just vote along party lines or just vote based on what the union leader tells them to do.
So your solution of course is to do nothing, and watch the whole thing go down the tubes in apathy. Now that's what I hate.
KIRBY098 Nodbugger I don't know where Michael moore gets off saying the military is full of lower class people. That is completely untrue. It is true that people who have no hope in ever getting job join the military but it is better than nothing. the Army is full of succesful people. There are hundreds of thousands of every day people who are in the national guard and reserves. Lawyers, doctors, buisiness men, and teachers. Every type of person is in the military. Not just lower class people. My family is what i would call upper middle class. Both my parents spent well over two decades in the Army. We are not low class bums. Michael moore is just some fat fuck. It is terrible that I have to share the name Michael with him. I wouldn't worry about his assesment of class structure in the military. He isn't exactly a veteran. This isn't just Michael Moore's assessment. It's a simple fact. The *majority* (which does NOT mean "all") of soldiers are from lower class society. Most rich people don't join the army because they get a free ride through college. Lots of poor people do. I'm not saying that people who are in the army/navy/nat'l guard/air force/coast guard/etc can't be successful. I'm just saying that there are more lower class people in the army than upper class people.
This is the least on Michael's list of questionable items.
KIRBY098 So your solution of course is to do nothing, and watch the whole thing go down the tubes in apathy. Now that's what I hate. Would you prefer if I organized a revolt and overthrew the government? That's the only realistic way to change the political system. Fuck off and leave me be. I tolerate the government, even though I don't like the way they run the country. I can't change the system, and I don't really give a damn because for the most part they let me live my life the way I want to. I WILL NOT support the government by voting, though. And I'm not being apathetic. I'm just choosing my battles wisely. Trying to change the system of government is a fight I cannot win, so I focus my energies on other parts of my life. To do otherwise would be foolish. Also, from what I've seen/heard of Michael Moore (which, admittedly, is not very much) his facts are 100% true. The way he presents them, though, is very biased and 95% BS. You condemn him for his methods, but you seem to forget that there actually are facts hidden behind his asshole facade.
mahkra Fuck off and leave me be. I wasn't aware I was forcing anything on you. If you don't like what I write, then don't reply or read it. Quite frankly, I don't like your whiny "I'm not going to play this game" mentality, but I'm not taking offense to it, or dropping the F bomb over it. Lastly, the ideals this country were founded on go against the attitude you are taking in this regard. The founding fathers response to Great Britain when they felt oppressed and disagreed with the authorities was the same, but the meaning was far different.: Goerge Washington Fuck off and leave me be. The only difference? They did something about it. I would urge you to use the vote that was hard won by these very same ideals.
KIRBY098 If you don't like what I write, then don't reply or read it. This is one of the most illogical statements ever. How can I possibly know I don't like what you're writing until AFTER I read it? In any case, I'm not offended by your opinion. I'm offended by your refusal to even listen to my opinion. KIRBY098 Quite frankly, I don't like your whiny "I'm not going to play this game" mentality, but I'm not taking offense to it, or dropping the F bomb over it. You may not be taking offense to it, but you're not even listening to my side of the argument, which is why I'm getting pissy and swearing at you. If you would actually listen to my side, then I'd be more polite. But you just keep saying "so go vote," not realizing that THAT IS NOT A SOLUTION. I CANNOT change the way a president is selected by voting for a president. KIRBY098 Lastly, the ideals this country were founded on go against the attitude you are taking in this regard. So? I contend that the US government is NOT PERFECT. Maybe the ideals that formed the government way back when were good for that time & place, but I don't think all of them really make sense any more. The world in the 21st century is a very different place than the world in the 18th century, and things that worked back then may not be the best solution any more. KIRBY098 The founding fathers response to Great Britain when they felt oppressed and disagreed with the authorities was the same, but the meaning was far different.: Goerge Washington Fuck off and leave me be. The only difference? They did something about it. I would urge you to use the vote that was hard won by these very same ideals. First, the Revolutionary War didn't start because the colonists wanted Britain to "fuck off." It started because the colonists wanted representation in the British government, but Britain wouldn't let them have any representatives. Anyway, they started a war. I can't believe you really think I should go start a war against the US government. In any case, you're free to think and say whatever you want. If you like our current system, then go vote for whomever you think would make the best president. But if you tell me that I should go vote, it means you're not listening to anything I'm saying. All I ask is that you respect my opinion and stop telling me to vote. I have perfectly valid reasons for not voting, and I'm sick of people belittling them. You may not feel the same way I do, and I respect that. All I ask is that you respect my opinion and stop telling me it's my duty to vote. You spoke of the ideals the country was founded on. Well, above all else, I think the country was founded on the premise of FREEDOM. Along those lines, voting is a privelege, not an obligation. I'm free to disagree with our government, and (to some extent) I'm free to refuse to participate in it. ----- I'll try to say this all more simply, because I'm not sure I'm getting my point across very well: I do not like the "democratic" system by which the US government is run. Voting would be participation in that system of which I claim to disapprove. If I voted, I would essentially be giving up my right to dislike the system. To some extent, I think it's stupid of people to say "Bush sucks; Gore would've been better" if they don't vote. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "the method of electing presidents sucks." There is no alternative offered, so I simply refuse to participate. It's either that or create my own alternative, but that would involve overthrowing the US government, which is not a step I'm prepared to take.
So if you refuse to participate, and don't want to worry about the government, why in the hell are you writing page long essays about the system of government that you hate so much? Shut up or something, it'll help your blood pressure.
Aircraftkiller So if you refuse to participate, and don't want to worry about the government, why in the hell are you writing page long essays about the system of government that you hate so much? Shut up or something, it'll help your blood pressure. Don't presume to think you know anything about me. I'm in perfect health. Actually, I would be willing to bet large sums of money that I'm less stressed than you are, ACK. Also, are you saying that I'm stupid because I choose to write about something I don't like? Why don't we replace "system of government" with "Renegade mod" and see who the sentence refers to then... Quote: why in the hell are you writing page long essays about the Renegade mod that you hate so much? *cough* Reborn *cough* People have positive opinions about things and negative opinions about things. I would think that you of all people would understand that sometimes there's a reason to express the negative ones. EDIT: Also, I said that I refuse to participate in an election. I didn't say I refuse to participate in a discussion.
I do see your point actually. Fair enough. We agree to disagree. And the comment on not reading the posts refers to the ignore feature on these forums. I'm not that much of a simpleton.
mahkra Also, are you saying that I'm stupid because I choose to write about something I don't like? Why don't we replace "system of government" with "Renegade mod" and see who the sentence refers to then... Quote: why in the hell are you writing page long essays about the Renegade mod that you hate so much? *cough* Reborn *cough* Classic stuff right there.
mahkra It's either that or create my own alternative, but that would involve overthrowing the US government, which is not a step I'm prepared to take. I know treason is illegal, but if I want to overthrow the American Government, for the good of it's people, is that treason, or just free speech?
ViperFUD mahkra It's either that or create my own alternative, but that would involve overthrowing the US government, which is not a step I'm prepared to take. I know treason is illegal, but if I want to overthrow the American Government, for the good of it's people, is that treason, or just free speech? Free speech only covers the act of speaking.
Quote: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century A Report of the Project for the New American Century September 2000
liberator wrote on Sat, 10 July 2004 02:01 You shouldn't have given your age out, you have effectively gutted most of you're arguments as we now know that you are too young to have any first hand experience with what you speak of. That aside however, F911 is not a documentary, it is a America Hater propaganda piece that I am basically ignoring. Your a good american, still good to see people who support their country and hate...haters.....Michael moore is all crap, his movie was just all a 911 conspiracy mumbo jumbo put into a movie...really if you were there, you'd physically see a FREAKIN AIRPLANE hit the twin towers. Yeah...i'm sure a cruiser missle really hit the trade center and pentagon...it all makes sense really, it solves where the 2000 some people went "mysteriously" missing, guys get real, anti american terrorist blew the crud out of the twin towers with a airline, it's on camera.....
Not th at it makes your opinion invalid, but did you have to bump a 3 year old topic to make it?