Disney cedes "Fahrenheit 911" [Archive] - The Tickling Media Forum

Jimblast

06-03-2004, 02:09 AM

I'm amazed that ANYONE would buy into that clown's B.S.! I think he ought to be either tried for treason or shipped to France. Anyone believing this moron's crap ought to have their head examined! The only difference between his propaganda and Osama Bin Laden's would be about 400 lbs, a bad haircut, 6 chins, and a stupid looking baseball cap. The problem that overweight unintelligent idiot doesn't seem to understand (we all know he hates Bush and everything it took to create this country so even pinkos like this dolt could have a voice) is that the Saudi Royalty is an extended family. Saudi crude is some of the highest grade oil in the world. Maybe that scumbag ought to do a documentary on Anwar, or is he in bed with the reindeer up there. Of course any administration would have to be in bed with a bunch of Arab's who hold the life's blood of capitalism. Of course America was an ally of Bin Ladin as Bin Ladin and his people fought the Russians to a stalemate. I could go on and on but trying to even grace this babbling idiot's propoganda is like trying to understand why terrorists would blow up the World Trade Center. Of course Cannes loved him, the French are a bunch of cowards also! At least Osama isn't cashing in on his propaganda like this unpatriotic, immoral, low life. What he is doing is dangerous. People like this traitor and those who follow him are exactly why the terrorists like Osama feel so emboldened. It's pitiful that ANYONE would give this warped clown a forum. No, I wouldn't see the movie if it were the last film on earth. This extremist is a danger to this country and should be exported. Maybe ole Michael ought to show that film to our troops in the Middle East. I'm sure they'll love it. After those of you decide to copy and paste choice sentences from this post and put your own warped spin on it, remember the plastic keys you're typing on, all the plastic in your computer, much of it is a biproduct of oil. What he's doing goes beyond political....it's treason. I wonder what that clown's view is of WWII. I just wanted to let most that have posted already in this thread know that luckily the vast majority of Americans don't agree with that traitor. I can't stand people who complain about what it took to make this the greatest country on earth yet hypocritically reap the benefit from it. If he hates our society so much, he should move to Syria. I'm sure they would allow him to dis their government without any retribution. He's a coward and an opportunist. Period. :sowrong:

august spies

06-03-2004, 11:12 AM

Well at least you admit your a former ally of bin laden. I for one, with Michael Moore, am not and never will be. You certainly share the blame directly for suporting his terrorism against the afgani people, and you share part of the blame now for his terrorism against us.

Yes the saudis have an extended familty, its a well conected,terrorist dictatorshp, monarchy (your perfect allies). Exposing such elementry truths about this administration and its imperialism with total disregard for human rights is a very dangerous thing to people such as yourself who are trying to support terrorism and make money by doing so(of course the sad thing is the only people making money of it are the ones in power, which i doubt you are)

p.s.
i heard blindy goosestepping behind an idiotic and immoral governet is very brave.

Bulldogge

06-03-2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Jimblast
Maybe ole Michael ought to show that film to our troops in the Middle East. I'm sure they'll love it.

Jimblast, in response to this portion of your opinion, I felt compelled to post this from www.michaelmoore.com - it's from a section of his website dedicated to the letters he's received from soldiers in Iraq.

SOLDIER LETTERS

This letter was sent by mail from Iraq from Specialist Mike Prysner:

Dear Mr. Moore:

I’m writing this without knowing if it’ll ever get to you. I’m writing it not knowing why, or knowing what I’m going to say. I’m writing it not knowing if I’ll ever finish it or mail it. I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand.

I was in Vicenza, Italy when I heard your Oscar acceptance speech. It was the day before I boarded a plane and experienced a “combat landing” in uncharted territory in northern Iraq. It was such a surreal feeling—the only light came from a red bulb—we sat shoulder to shoulder in silence. We were told to expect heavy artillery/chemical attacks. I can’t say I know what was on the minds of those men packed next to me, but I assume it was thoughts of family and religion. But me, a single 20 year old, I was thinking about what you had said. I joined the army as soon as I was eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words repeating in my head.

My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation. I discovered that the result of the war and the actions of G.W. cannot be treated as the same issue. Bush accidentally did a good thing for the Iraqi people. After the fact he's starting to claim humanitarian intentions for going to war - obviously bullshit. But he realizes that that is the only positive outcome. I could explain what I've seen here; a people forced into poverty & ignorance – but I'll spare you. I try not to think about the ultimate future of this place. I'm sure we'll cause them to fall victim to Banana Republic and Joe Millionaire, with a puppet president and monopolized oil industry. But there will be plenty of time in the future to worry about those things.

I can't say I know what I believe. I am willing to accept that my opinions are a result of a given subconscious, not sufficient knowledge. Do I support care for the low income class because I truly understand the system, or because I've personified inadequacies and identified with those who experience struggle. Does a conservative oppose gay rights because he genuinely understands the issue or because he's scared to face deeper levels of humanity? What if you could be given a reason for everything you believe, but the reason is unrelated to the topic – the result of a life and a psyche? Will we believe those things the same way we used to? I call myself a liberal because I've been moved to tears by the words of Paul Wellstone, scenes in "The Awful Truth," the funeral of Matthew Sheppard, and the homeless people in the city I once lived in. It's not what I know, it's what I felt. It's dangerous to rely on emotions to guide your moral compass – but it’s the only way to be honest. I understand everything I believe may be wrong; that I believe for a reason, and that reason may not be reality. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. Maybe just that I can't look at this war politically. I can only look at it as an experience that has taught me that life is dictated by seconds and inches; one that has caused me to face death and loss and fear. And at its core, stripped of the WMD's and no-contest contracts, it's been about one thing: serving my country. The most difficult thing has been learning how to be proud of that. This country, I'm serving,…is it America? Has it ever been? It's always bothered me that, despite the American philosophy, it became NECESSARY for a civil right movement, it became NECESSARY to form the ACLU. I've simultaneously battled Saddam loyalists and these questions. Kind of an odd setting for suddenly doubting my patriotism. But while my fight with those trying to kill my friends & I is far from ending, the fight within myself has ended.

I found what I've been fighting for. It's been you, all along. I hated you on a plane ride in the dark with shaking hands. But you've been the roof of my loyalty, my bravery, and my dignity. Mr. Moore, you are America. This isn't a "I'm a hip liberal & I'll be cool if I get an autographed copy of Stupid White Men" letter. I've faced every weapon, from SCUDs to swords, and I've had to face why. And you've been the answer. I'm serving a country in which you live; where you're allowed to speak and PEOPLE LISTEN; where you're allowed to write and PEOPLE READ. What a beautiful country – every injustice has a prosecutor – every struggle has a defender. We are still a country being born. Compassion will never lose to conservatism…the country could be ruled by Jerry Falwell and Dick Cheney – but there will always be tears, as long as there is injustice and oppression and greed and hypocrisy. And there will always be you, the people you've taught, the lives you've influenced. You reminded me that America exists, and I suppose this letter is meant to thank you for that. I can't explain the pride you've instilled in me, and the comfort you've given me, to know that if I find myself fallen on the battlefield, I gave my life serving something I loved and truly believed in.

Sincerely,
Mike Prysner

Maybe his opinion isn't every soldier's opinion.... but I think it's worth hearing.

leafstk

06-03-2004, 06:42 PM

I'm not about to get involved in a political debate here. I appreciate Jimblast's oppinion and also that of the letter from the soldier above. I just really want to see this film. Like I said before, love or hate the guy, he's brilliant. Roger and me, Bowling for Columbine - he didn't win major awards here for nothing and I quite enjoyed them. I'm sure this one will be just as thought provoking, if nothing else.

Jimblast

06-04-2004, 01:46 AM

I have trouble believing that any American would not have sided with the Muja Hadin (spelling?) during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Osama was a member of the group who ousted the Russians. Of course we supported that group (which Osama was a leader) back then. Even Michael Moron likely would have sided with him, but then again, he was on the wrong side of history then as he is now. Also, in reference to that 'soldiers letter', I have trouble buying into it's authenticity. If it is authentic (which I seriously doubt) it represents a miniscule percentage of our soldiers out there. I'm a former soldier and have many friends there and not one shares that ridiculous opinion (a 'smirking President'? Whatever!). I don't see Micheal Moron dissing Clinton or Kerry when they considered Saddam a threat and that he needed to be stopped. I suppose they were in on the conspiracy also. No, this is both politically and selfishly motivated on that fat boy's part. As far as the comment of 'goose stepping' behind your leader....Saddam's soldiers did the goose step, Hitler's soldiers did the goose step, our WWII generation of soldiers stamped out evil dictators then and now and if you are not behind our President, then you are likely allowing those types of people to fester. The other response alluding to 'imperialism' is a joke. Name another country in the history of mankind who would oust an evil dictator for a country and give that same country back to it's own people while rebuilding and enhancing their prior infrastructure? The U.S. did this with Japan and Germany, I certainly don't see any complaints there as those countries have flourished. Feel free to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I challenge you to find one WWII veteran who didn't feel they would have possibly lost their lives fighting a war on Japanese soil. Chances are, if your grandparents had to fight that battle, there's a good chance you wouldn't be here right now. They estimated a million American soldier losses for that battle that never was, thanks to the development of the Atom Bomb. No, Michael Moron is a traitor and has no valid points. All can be disputed but thank God he's around because people realize what America could become in terms of indignation and hating our country. He is proof positive that those fine soldiers throughout history fought and died so that even a traitor like Micheal Moron could have a voice. Using that alleged soldiers letter to further his cause is lower than low. For every one letter like that you could find tens of thousands from soldiers over there who are proud and believe in what they are doing. We cannot lose the fight in Iraq, too much is at stake. Michael Moron should recognize that and keep his fat mouth shut. He's a criminal for trying to profit by demeaning a very worthy and important cause. He's giving the enemy a reason to believe they can win this, putting more soldiers' lives at risk. Iraq has been a proven haven for Al Kaeda. I'm curious as to what Michael Dolt would do if he were President (which he or his kind will never be) after those innocent people were killed during 9/11. Oh, that's right, trust the U.N.! LOL! The majority of American's (taking a line out of that idiot's undeserved Academy Award acceptance speech) say, "...shame on you Mr. Moore, Shame on you!". I'll go a step further..."Stay in France Mr. Moron, you should not be allowed to return to this great country you loser traitor! Shame on you!". I respect opinions in here, I just don't respect or have any use for Michael 'our country is evil and I'll profit off of my controversial film at the expense of our brave soldier's lives' Moron. That clown doesn't care about our troops or our national security, he only cares about his own lard ass. We shouldn't even dignify his traitor comments or movie. He's as evil as Osama and should be dealt with accordingly. Period. :D

BOFH666

06-04-2004, 04:43 AM

How on earth is Micheal Moore a "Traitor"? Because he's not repeating verbatim everything the current administration says? Because he feels that the war in Iraq was fought for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way? Well, I hate to tell you this but current polls from the last few weeks show that the MAJORITY of Americans agree with that viewpoint.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

All questions taken from Gallup Polls although the page linked above shows polls from other sources as well for those that are interested.

Current figures:

Was it worth going to war in Iraq? 52% Say no

In general, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly? 26% say Moderately, 31% say very (and in fact the total percentage of moderate or very badly has been over 50% since September last year aside from a blip in March 04)

Do you think the war with Iraq has made the world safer or less safe from terrorism? 51% say less safe

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? 58% disapprove

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the issue of the apparent abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers? 57% disapprove

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? 50% say not

Do you think the United States has gotten bogged down in Iraq, or do you think the United States is making good progress in Iraq? 65% say bogged down

Do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq? 59% say does not.

Iraq has been a proven haven for Al Kaeda

When? Where? The only report I've seen of this before the US went into Iraq was of a camp in Kurdish-controlled North Iraq. Now AFTER the 'liberation' I'd agree that Iraq's become a front line for al-Qaeda, but when your commander-in-chief says the following that really shouldn't be a huge surprise:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation" - President George W Bush, July 2nd 2003.

Well they came. They came from terrorists organizations, they came from militia groups in Iraq and they came from the Iraqi people themselves and we've seen the results. And we learnt the lesson of Vietnam all over again, namely that overwhelming force only works if you have a target.

I just don't respect or have any use for Michael 'our country is evil and I'll profit off of my controversial film at the expense of our brave soldier's lives' Moron

So all those companies that are making big profits off reconstruction efforts, 'contract' work for the US government and oil contracts are evil? Glad we agree on that. And when did Michael Moore ever say America was evil? I'd say it would be far closer to the mark that he supports the ideals of the country that have been slowly stripped away (and in some cases, stripped away in the blink of an eye these last few years) rather than a specific party. In fact, Bowling for Columbine attacks Clinton for much the same reasons Moore attacks Bush. Now if you agree with those reasons or not is of course your choice and you're entitled to that choice and that view. But so is he, and to call him a traitor because he doesn't agree with you is frankly appalling. It's the sort of thinking that leads to incidents like this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/30/GALLERY.TMP

Dozens of art lovers and First Amendment defenders turned out Saturday outside a San Francisco gallery to bolster the flagging spirits of owner Lori Haigh, who has been under siege for the last two weeks for displaying a controversial painting depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.

The supporters had hoped to persuade Haigh, 39, to reconsider her decision to close the Capobianco Gallery, which came after she was threatened, spat upon and, most recently, punched in the face for showing Guy Colwell's painting of torture. Gathered on the sidewalk outside the small studio, her supporters talked of vigils, petitions and even providing volunteer security to help keep the gallery going.

"The people came out in support of Lori and in support of freedom of expression because that's what is really being attacked here," said North Beach poet Jack Hirschman. "The attack is not only on the gallery but on art. If they close, it's not just (one artist) that is censored but all artists."

Visibly moved by the show of support, Haigh said Saturday she is weighing her options.

"This is all too scary for me," said Haigh, who spent most of the time hidden in her gallery. "I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm going to try and absorb this."

The furor began on May 16 when Colwell, an East Bay artist, made an addition to his monthlong showing at Haigh's gallery on Powell Street. Angered by the pictures he saw of Iraqi prisoners being abused, he created a black and white painting depicting three hooded and naked men undergoing electric shock torture by American soldiers. Colwell, who took down his paintings Saturday, declined to comment.

Two days after the painting went up, Haigh arrived at her gallery to find broken glass, eggs and trash strewn outside her storefront. Haigh also began receiving the first of about 200 angry voicemails, e-mails and death threats.

A week ago, a man walked into the gallery and spit in Haigh's face. On Tuesday, Haigh decided to temporarily close the gallery and began to consider giving up on her dream of owning an art gallery. Just two days later, another man knocked on the door of the gallery and then punched Haigh in the face, knocking her out, breaking her nose and causing a concussion.

It's more than Haigh ever imagined. She opened the studio 1 1/2 years ago, hoping to display the works of important and possibly controversial modern artists.

"I enjoyed listening to people's different opinions on what they saw," said Haigh, a mother of two. "That was part of the joy of having a gallery."

On Saturday, Haigh's supporters tried to remind her of the joy in owning a gallery in North Beach, long a haunt for counterculture poets and artists.

"When this can happen in the middle of North Beach in San Francisco, where people always expressed themselves, it means Iraq is not the only place being occupied," said Daniel Macchiarini, a North Beach gallery owner himself. "But this is an act of desperation. The people who attack like this, their ideas have failed."

But despite the support, Haigh said she's still not certain what she will do.

"I'm disheartened and disappointed," said Haigh. "I don't want to have a gallery if I can't show artists like Guy Colwell. Their art reflects the world around them and if I have to resort to showing Thomas Kinkade the rest of my life, I'm not interested in doing that."

http://www.aoya81.dsl.pipex.com/ba_prisoner45.jpg

Jimblast

06-04-2004, 06:18 PM

Bush will win this election and the majority of people will have spoken. I don't believe those polls. We'll see. Also, not believing that Al Kaeda had and still has a presence in Iraq is like sticking your head in a hole in the sand! Ask the head of that guy who had it chopped off who killed him! Hmmmm....would it have been an Al Kaeda Lieutenant? Why do you think there are insurgents fighting the Americans? They are scared to death that there could be peace and stability in the Middle East. The liberal media has been bashing this administration from day one. This war is no Democratic Party orchestrated war like Viet Nam was. This is the real deal. Those people don't care if you're democrat or republican....they just want to blow you up, pal. Trust me on that. I would rather see us fight that battle on their soil than within our borders. I hope we go into Syria and Iran also....then let's see how many terrorist havens are left. We cannot settle, we have to be on the offensive....ANYWHERE in that region. Blow them up, ask questions later. They're a bunch of Cockaroaches! It's all very simple....level it and lime it. If you don't, they blow you up. Bottom line. Don't be a Clinton or Kerry and let polls drive your decisions, do what's right. What's right is blasting those idiots...and strap Michael Moron to the missile. Period. Now back to tickling discussion....this argument isn't even an argument. You're either prepared to get your family blown up, or you're prepared to blow terrorists (they should be called cowardists) into little pieces. It's all very simple.

maniactickler

06-04-2004, 06:25 PM

you can bet your bottom dollar if a liberal was in office now, micheal moore would be wholeheartedly supporting the war. this propaganda movie would have never been made. make no mistake about it, all this whining and bitching from the liberals has nothing to do with the war. its ALL about bashing Bush, hating republicans, anti american rhetoric and getting their power back. period!

BOFH666

06-04-2004, 08:06 PM

*Sigh* never fails, raise some issues that are uncomfortable, get arm-waving retoric back. Let's try this one more time, and while I'm not trying to change your opinion in the least, if you could at least attempt to answer in a civil manner with factual evidence it would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Jimblast
We'll see. Also, not believing that Al Kaeda had and still has a presence in Iraq is like sticking your head in a hole in the sand! Ask the head of that guy who had it chopped off who killed him! Hmmmm....would it have been an Al Kaeda Lieutenant?

If you read my post above I asked where al-Qeada were BEFORE Iraq was attacked. In this case Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was indeed thought to be Iraq. Specifically he was in a camp in Northern Iraq. For those that don't know that part of the country was under the control of the Kurds, not Saddam. In fact the camp was barely outside the no-fly zone setup to protect the Kurds and the Pentagon knew exactly were he was. They drew up three plans to attack the camp in 2002 but these plans were rejected by the white house in a move that many see as a desire not to weaken their case to invade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=123&art_id=qw1049878263603B262&set_id=1

Originally posted by Jimblast

Why do you think there are insurgents fighting the Americans? They are scared to death that there could be peace and stability in the Middle East.

Okay, let's add some other possibilities to that list shall we?

There's 140,000 foreign troops in Iraq and this, to many Iraqis, is seen as an ocucpation force.

Coalition forces have killed over 10,000 people in Iraq, the majority civilians. The exact number is not known but the 10,000 quoted here is a very conservative estimate.

The coalition engaged in a campaign of "shock and awe" against major cities with weapons that are classified as weapons of mass destruction.

The last time there was a "Gulf War" the local population was encouraged to rise up against Saddam, then abandoned to slaughter.

Coalition forces occupied and safeguarded palaces and oil facilities while museums and holy sites were left defencless and, as a result, were looted.

The hand over of power to the Iraqi people on June 30th, the transfer of sovereignty as it's being called, is a sham with the interim government having no control over coalition troops and no powers to alter anything the coalition has put in place in terms of contracts and laws.

Virtually all of the reconstruction work has been given to companies who have brought in their own people from other countries rather than hiring skilled local workers.

The reaction of the American forces in Faluja was, to say the least, heavy handed and cost many civilians their lives. Many were trapped indoors for days for fear of snipers targeting them.

The disgrace of Abu-Ghraib and reports of simillar abuses at other facilities in the country.

The complete failure of border security that has turned Iraq into a fully fledged war zone AFTER it was 'liberated'.

Failure to restore basic services as a top priority.

Mass arrests of innocent people despite a total lack of evidence.

As for "they're scared to death of peace and security in the middle east", do you REALLY know that little about the conflicts going on over there, or about history in general for that matter? Peace cannot be achieved at the point of a gun, and for democracy to take root it must be SHOWN to be a good, workable solution. Indeed, in Iraq's case it is doubtfull that any Democracy will hold, as the region is basically made up of three states with very little in common. Iraq was, in the late eighties and early nineties, probably the biggest threat to security in the middle east, and it got to that point thanks to support for the US, both politically and with military sales and support. The invasion of Kuwait was known about ahead of time by the US and they (or their representative at least) gave the green light for it saying they would not interfere. It was only when Saddam turned his attentions to Saudi Arabia that he became the enemy.

The biggest threat to stability in the Middle East is, I'm sorry to say, Israel and Palastine. Thanks in part to this administrations bungling of the road map a peacfull solution is looking less and less likely. Only once that is accomplished will the region even begin to settle down, and before that can happen the US needs to shed it's perceived bias towards Israel.

Originally posted by Jimblast

Those people don't care if you're democrat or republican....they just want to blow you up, pal. Trust me on that.

Yes, and no-one is arguing that this is not the case. BUT, well put it this way, how many people were involved in September 11th? 20 wasn't it or thereabouts? 20 people. Just 20. Understand a terrorist does not NEED a country to 'sponsor' him, there is no need for a miliion dollar budget. Private individuals can supply funds or, in some cases, they can support themselves either through savings or regular employment. Yet because some funds DO come from a country we should bomb the hell out of that country? Well, by that logic, please turn your bombs on yourself as American citizens contributed to the IRA, and believe me they did enough damage. You'll notice however Ireland is still happily getting on with life and isn't a parking lot because someone in the British government realised there are other ways to deal with the problem. Dealing with Terrorism is NOT a traditional military scenario, you have to pick your targets carefully. It is this reason that makes it such a difficult thing to accomplish.

Originally posted by Jimblast
I would rather see us fight that battle on their soil than within our borders. I hope we go into Syria and Iran also....then let's see how many terrorist havens are left. We cannot settle, we have to be on the offensive....ANYWHERE in that region. Blow them up, ask questions later. They're a bunch of Cockaroaches! It's all very simple....level it and lime it. If you don't, they blow you up. Bottom line.

Now this is interesting, because it's an attitude I see a LOT and I don't understand why anyone thinks Terrorists must all come from Middle Eastern countries? Let me remind you of recent history: Timothy McVeigh, born on April 23, 1968 and grew up in suburban Buffalo, N.Y. Joined the US Army at age eighteen and served in the Gulf, rising to the rank of Sergent. And then, on April 19, 1995, he detonated a bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. This was, until the events of September the 11th, the worst terrorist act in US history and it was performed by an American citizen. Yet if all these 'terrorist countries' are destroyed the world instantly becomes safe from terrorism? Also, I can't help but notice that Saudi Arabia isn't on your list. Strange considering the majority of those involved in September the 11th were Saudi, there is considerable funding in the country for terrorist causes and it most definately is NOT a democracy.

Originally posted by Jimblast
Don't be a Clinton or Kerry and let polls drive your decisions, do what's right. What's right is blasting those idiots...and strap Michael Moron to the missile. Period. You're either prepared to get your family blown up, or you're prepared to blow terrorists (they should be called cowardists) into little pieces. It's all very simple.

Right, perfect, except you DON'T KNOW WHO THE TERRORISTS ARE! This is the point that seems to be overlooked time after time after time. Iraq was NOT a clear and present danger to the US or anyone else, including its neighbours at the time the coalition invaded it. The only danger was to the Iraqi people themselves from Saddam, and while it cannot be argued that removing him was a good thing, doing it in this way has caused thousands of unnecesary deaths AND damaged the "War on Terror" as a result.

My view on terrorism I've said before, and is born not out of fear of a single incident that has been revenged in blood many times over, but out of living all my life in a county where Terrorists attacks were a fact of life. I now live in London and in the last few years at least three bombs have gone off within two miles of my home. My work has been hit by a bomb, the building flooded and declared unsafe. Yet I will NOT live in fear, and neither does anyone else I know. Even when the IRA was at its most active we never once gave in to them, we didn't live in fear, and we didn't do anything more than keep a careful eye out for abandoned bags and suspicious packages. And you know something, we've got through it. The worst is, for the moment at least, over thanks it has to be said in no small part to Bill Clinton. And we occasionaly got it wrong and both sides paid the price for that. But we learnt from our mistakes when they were made and, we're now well on the road to peace.

As for "polls driving your decisons" are you SERIOUSLY suggesting this isn't how the current administration operates? Good god, just go to ANY news source and see what their reaction has been to the polls, there has been more spin coming from them than our own Labour government and that's an achievment in and of itself!

If Bush had been interested in doing "what was right" he would be concentrating on the real ways you combat terrorism, the ones that happen behind the scenes where no-one sees them. Surgical strikes on identified targets with a minimum loss of life and casualties. But of course this doesn't play well on TV does it?

BOFH666

06-04-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by maniactickler
you can bet your bottom dollar if a liberal was in office now, micheal moore would be wholeheartedly supporting the war. this propaganda movie would have never been made. make no mistake about it, all this whining and bitching from the liberals has nothing to do with the war. its ALL about bashing Bush, hating republicans, anti american rhetoric and getting their power back. period!

Which is why, in Bowling for Columbine, he attacks President Clinton for the "Largest one day bombing by U.S. in Kosovo War" which happened on the same day as the Columbine shootings and was (in his argument) conveniently ignored by the media for the local tragedy?

And how on earth can you call something a propagande movie without having seen it and assesed the validity of it's sources, and the message it uses them to portray? For that matter, how is someone speaking out against an administration that they believe has acted against the best interests of the country (and, whether you believe that or not you must surely admit there is a case that can be made supporting that view) "anti-american".

I know, I'm not a US Citizen, but from where I stand America has always been about the simple statement:

" I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Nowhere does that say you pledge allegiance to the government. You pledge allegiance to the COUNTRY, to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, and indeed to fulfill that pledge it is every citizen's duty to hold those in government responsible for their actions and to ensure that they confirm to those ideals.

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

By the people, for the people - in other words, government represents you, it does not define you. Rather it is the people that define the government and it is in their hands to ensure that the US as concieved, a land of liberty and equality, endures.

ticklebutton

06-04-2004, 09:30 PM

Tilting at windmills again, are you, BOFH?

Your capacity for reasonably & peacefully responding to outrageous spittle-spraying screeds continues to amaze me.

Soldier on, good man!

Button :bubble:

Mimi

06-04-2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Tilting at windmills again, are you, BOFH?

Your capacity for reasonably & peacefully responding to outrageous spittle-spraying screeds continues to amaze me.

Soldier on, good man!

Button :bubble:

I agree, button. He's a godsend to the forum. Wish we had more like him :)

I for one am highly anticipating the release of this movie. I happen to be a big fan of his. Funny thing about Moore is how the public is so black and white concerning him and his work. You either love him or hate him. There does not seem to be any room for indecisiveness.

Mimi

Jimblast

06-05-2004, 03:16 AM

Unfortunately, with each documentary you write with each point that I make, it just plain takes too much time to answer, you, like most liberals, seem to filibuster to death. You contradict yourself tremendously, albiet a very well thought out contradiction. Unfortunately, with your rhetoric and Michael Moore's self serving propaganda (possibly you should work for him and reap some of his monetary benefit?), I'm curious as to your solution to this problem. I will bring about a few points where your logic is flawed as would be your view of history:

Peace was never acheived by looking down the barrel of a gun?

Sorry, I'm too filibustered out by your responses to go back and find your exact words but in response: Reagan's arms build up causing the German wall to come down, and the demise of the Russian Empire.

Warning Japan before we dropped the first atom bomb, then dropping the second, MacArthur helping them mirror our constitution and wouldn't you say that country is at peace now along with Germany and Russia? Case closed, call it what you want, their people are better off and I don't see them as warmongers these days. I could site more examples, but let's stick with those three for now shall we?

Your numbers:

I'm supposing that since with technology terrorists don't need countries to operate (again, flawed logic....think before you type this time)....training time? Bank Accounts, purchasing materials for weapons? Safe havens for these cowards? I suppose you believe not keeping these people on the run is the solution? Hmmmmm....interesting. If it takes one million troops to stop 1000 insurgents, send them. Oh, that's right, they don't need countries so of course Syria and Iran don't have our soldier's blood on their hands. Maybe we ought to have the U.N. that solves everything create an 'Oil for Food Program' in those countries as well. Interesting point that it only took 20 to blow up the World Trade Center. I'm sure they just trained themselves, those terrorist training camps IN OTHER COUNTRIES were a myth. Maybe they thought all of this up on another planet or maybe even a deserted island! Wow BOF, I'm seeing the light here! Why don't we do like Michael Moore and profit off of other's misfortune by doing movies and writing books complaining with no solutions! Heeey! Now THAT'S a thought!

So since these people are in such small numbers and can operate anywhere, I suppose we just give up, right? Your amount of filibustering rhetoric is astounding, but like all Liberals, no solution. Iraq's fledgling democracy has to start somewhere, just like ours did. But then again, maybe you're right, by Michael's and your logic, maybe we shouldn't have fought the British for our freedom...after all civilians might have perished. Maybe we shouldn't have fought in WWII, I mean we bombed a lot of civilians. Hey, for that matter, it must've been our own fault when 9/11 happened! Maybe we owe Al Kaeda an apology! Let's just ask them kindly not to blow us up because we're skeered! Wow! You and Michael Moore have me thinking here! I feel so enlightened I think I'll write a book or maybe even do a documentary! Cannes will love me! I can eat and grow my hair out and wear a baseball cap and go to Academy Award parties! That's it! The formula is: Complain and NEVER come up with a solution!

Unfortunately, neither you nor your idol Michael Moore seem to believe that we are currently in WWIII. Possibly it's because of the nature of this war being fought on many many fronts. I'm not sure what the point of throwing Columbine into the mix was...but then again, it's fairly sickening to see folks like your hero profit off of that tragedy as well. So, since we absolutely disagree on everything and I have faith in this administration's strategy and solution in an ongoing effort to keep terrorism in check....let's hear your solution. Kerry, of course complains and doesn't give any solutions, but he's great at waffling, Teddy K. - same thing. I'm just not seeing any solutions coming out of your hero nor yourself. So tell us all, rather than stating what you wouldn't do, let's hear what you WOULD do. If you do come up with even an attempt at a solution, I'll be fascinated to read it. Complaining and disputing each point is so tired. And try to do this without bringing Palestine and Isreal into it....we all know they'll find other reasons to hate us. How would you go about solving the terrorist problem? I'll be 'shocked and awed' if you were to come up with what you WOULD do. I won't be surprised if you duck the question.

;)

BOFH666

06-05-2004, 05:17 AM

Duck the question? Why, I've answered this one at least twice before in different threads on this forum, but since you asked so polietly:rolleyes: I'll do so again, and in as much detail as my brain allows at 09:00.

How would I combat terrorism? Simple answer: Surgical strikes and education. What follows is an extreme example but it is not beyond the relms of posibility to accomplish:

Establish a dedicated military force specifically targeted at fighting terrorism. This would be a small, focused unit trained to the highest standards and ready to deploy at a moments notice. Creating such a unit would be relatively simple as we already HAVE such a unit in existence, the SAS. Considered the best special forces team in the world, the SAS (term used to include SBS) trains for anti-terrorism duties as part of its daily routine and is specifically designed to go anywhere and do anything with no reliance on external resources and to improvise where necessary. This new force would be based on the same rigourous training programs with additional training where deemed necessary.

The team would ideally be an international force, with entry open to any who meet the standards and security checks demanded of the service. Uniquely in the military this force would not be answerable to any one government but to the UN, and even then this would only be as a reporting mechanism for ongoing activities. Decisions on missions, targets and priorities would be established by military personnel, preferably under British command as they simply have the most experience at running this sort of operation succesfully. They would be answerable to the public at large as details of all missions would be made available as soon as it is safe to do so for those involved and within a maximum period. Where such public disclosure would threaten the lives of both troops and human intelligence resources this report can be made in private to the security council or other body.

Funding would be delivered through the UN and would be fixed at a high level with a facility in place to ensure that the organisation can, at any time, execute any mission regardless of existing budget levels. Again, this expenditure would be broken down in a presentation to the security council or other body at agreed periods.

International cooperation would come in three forms. One has already been mentioned with recruits being drawn from any military force that can pass the security, fitness and ability tests. The UN shall be responsible for forming international agreement in two areas. The first, and most simple, is the right of these forces to operate in any country in the world without reprisal from the rulling party or military forces of that country. While this sounds impossible at first glance, this is made considerably easier by the fact that this unit is not politically motivated and will only act against terrorist activities. In a particularly ironic note the invasion of Iraq would probably be an encouragment to others to join up, better to do so and face surgical strikes than invasion. Note that this does not exclude this force from responsibilites under international law and they would indeed by held accountable for their actions.

The second agreement is harder and that is the need to establish strike points in secure areas across the world. Thankfully it is not necessary to establish such points in every country, and indeed local considerations should be taken into account when choosing these locations so as to avoid the problems caused by, for example, US troops in Saudi Arabia. Troops would be rotated through these bases on a regular basis, with on-base training being tailored towards the environment and situations they are likely to deploy to from that base, though not at the expense of other skills.

Finally, for the military, there is a desperate need for real cooperation between intelligence services. This is always a difficult issue but such a unit would need its own extensive analysis brance with access to data from intelligence service worldwide. This would be suplimented by national intelligence services stepping up their own international cooperation and a much more focused spotlight on terrorism. Many more human intelligence assets would need to be cultivated within both local populations and the terrorist organisations themselves if possible as this is the one area that is most lacking today.

This creates a rapid-response force with a mandate to eliminate terror worldwide and the resources to do the job. The thought of black helicopters and SAS (or equivalent) troops coming to call will provide far more sleepless nights for terrorists than the thought the country they are in at that moment could be attacked in a few weeks. But it is not the only thing necessary.

I mentioned education above, and this is exactly what I mean. It is not enough to capture or kill confirmed terrorists, we must cut off their source of new recruits. This means being fair and even handed in dealings with the middle east and elsewhere, and avoiding the sort of mistakes that act as rallying cries and recruitment posters (abu-Ghraib for example). By removing the need to focus on terrorism to a separate organisation governments can focus on human rights violations and military actions by states. Iraq should be rebuilt by Iraqis for Iraqis with coalition aid being just that, aid. Not debt to be repayed but help given freely as an apology for the mistakes made there.

And education is not limited just to the potential terrorists, it applies to everyone. When a terrorist states an ideology, listen. If it's something that can be corrected (I've mentioned one of these already with US troops in Saudi Arabia being a big motivator for bin-Laden) then correct it. If not, respond with the other side of the story, let people make up their own minds. Stop condemming alternative view points (arab news outlets for example) and acknowledge that they are entitled to that viewpoint. Anything that can be done to start to heal the damamge caused in the middle east needs to be done, and done soon.

Educate the public. This sounds awful, and it is only my opinion, but the majority of people are easily led and they have recently been led by lies. This needs to be corrected, we need to show the world that the so-called guiding lights of democracy are just and fair and live up to the principles of liberty, equality, truth and freedom.

And finally, this will not be a quick fix, no such thing exists. Everyone, regardless of their 'side' needs to be prepared for this to go on for a long time, and there will be casualties. That is sadly unavoidable. It took 30 years to bring peace to Ireland, how long will it take the world? 50? 100? The honest answer is there will never be a point where terrorism is eliminated totally but we can strive for that goal nonetheless.

As to the rest of your points: In both the Cold War and World War 2 the populations knew full well they were involved in a war and welcomed peace when it came. The cases you cite were the end of conflicts started (in World War 2's case) by other parties and in the case of the Cold War it was an arms race that nearly destroyed both countries and that neither population wanted to see continue. Take Iraq for example and this is not, for many Iraqi's, liberation, it is occupation and there is a huge difference. Yes, in war peace can be achieved by beating your enemy, but when you START a war against a people who, by and large, have done nothing against you... that's a different thing all together. Once more the key point is that terrorists are not tied to any one state and dealing with the problem on a nation level is holding a population by force of arms and that will never work for long.

The 9/11 attacks required no training in foreign countries, period. What was needed was basic flight skills, easily obtainable and not expensive, a ticket on the airliner in question and a ten buck knife in carry-on luggage. That was it. And there, really, is the point again. Look at 9/11, REALLY look at it and it involved 4 aircraft that were hijacked in flight using a security problem that has been highlighted before and could have been solved by a simple lock door on the aircraft. No massive international network required, no WMD used, no millions of dollars required to fund the operation.

The American war of independence, once again you're missing the point. YOU fought that war for YOUR independence. France and Spain won it for you by drawing British forces into conflicts they could ill-afford to fight but YOU fought it. If Iraq had been liberated from within, which is what many in the "anti-war" marches believed should happen, then it would be a suitable analogy and we wouldn't have the mess we have now. The same with World War 2, the allied forces were responding, not attacking. To use this as a suitable analogy, America has attacked and invaded a country without first being fired upon, in the literal sense of the analogy you are now in Germany's role, and we know how well that worked out.

When did I throw Columbine into the mix in replying to you? The only reference I made was to maniac to show the Mr Moore has attacked BOTH parties for the same thing and his argument was therefore invalid.

Again you seem to miss the main point, which is simply this: No-one is saying 'let's give them all a hug and it'll go away', most are just saying "let's be sure of the target before we pull the trigger".

As for Michael Moore, you proceed from a false asumption. I have said, on numerous occasions in both this thread and others, that while I support SOME of his points by no means do I support all of them and I do not like some of his methods as they are seem unnecessary to get the point across. I do however feel that ANYTHING that inspires people to go and look the facts up for themselves, even if only to disprove a suggestion or idea, is a good thing.

BOFH666

06-05-2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Mimi
I agree, button. He's a godsend to the forum. Wish we had more like him :)

I for one am highly anticipating the release of this movie. I happen to be a big fan of his. Funny thing about Moore is how the public is so black and white concerning him and his work. You either love him or hate him. There does not seem to be any room for indecisiveness.

Mimi

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: - can I interest you in a position as an official BOFH minion? ;)

As for why Moore polarizes opinion, let's dub this one the FOX effect shall we? The presentation of ideals from the far left or right (not extreme left or right, there's a difference ;) ) in a form accessible to millions of people and presented in a way that it is the untarnished truth will always find favour in it audience and fury from its opponents. However, in Moore's case, there is usually substance behind the rant and the point is made in a more, uhh I hate using this word but, 'liberal' way. Or to put it another way he goes more for subtle digs at those that disagree (not those who are the subject matter, they get the full-on attack) and relies on sarcasm rather than SHOUTING and SCREAMING and furious ranting. Oh, and I'm kinda in the middle by the way, agree with some of his views, think others are WAY too flimsy and don't like some of his methods. But I'll support him being out there and presenting another view to the public, the world would be a poorer place without people like him.

I'd also suggest he's one of the bravest men in history! Saying what he does in a country where certain segments of the population tend to be a bit.... let's be polite and say, vindictive and are heavily armed into the bargain takes a certain degree of testicular fortitude (and one suspects some XXL size kevlar, hmm, wonder if that's why he's always got the baseball cap on...)

Jimblast

06-05-2004, 10:58 AM

You're a Brit! No wonder! You're welcome for us winning the war for you against the Germans! Just when ARE you guys going to get rid of the royalty out there anyway? What's the point! And we're sorry that along with a couple of other countries, we beat the crap out of you all for our independence and that we're the only superpower left standing. We do love you as an ally and Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher are your greatest leaders in history. Thank you for them! You seem to know a lot about terror, are you a soccer hooligan! You guys need to chill! LOL! J/K! The SAS albiet is a fine fighting force, it isn't the best by far, I can assure you. We are already working on the solution you mentioned. It's been thought of before. Yes these people need countries for training. They are funded by both governments and individuals who exist in countries as safe havens. You're right, France, Germany, and Russia did lie and steal in the 'Food for Oil Program'. Not sure how they would contribute to a world wide elite force with surgical strikes. Your sometimes hero Micheal Moron wouldn't allow for a strong enough intelligence community to support all that anyway. Rumsfeld has already set up a similar force with cart blanche power. Yes, we work very well with other countries intelligence (including your own) and it could be better. But with what we have right now, we have to act. Everything you mentioned is wonderful pie in the sky logic, that takes time. We don't have it pal. With what we have now...what would you do? If 9/11 happened tomorrow, would you wait that long to act? Do you have any idea how much stronger these terrorist organization would get? We start with the countries and governments, we are getting them to back down and cooperate through force, we isolate those who haven't fled, have the insurgents come to one place as well, and kill them. At the same time, they are already working toward a solution very similar to what you gave. Sorry, if we waited for you to solve things, the terrorists would have a nuke, and you would be 'blowed up'. You and your 'minions' and Mousekateers would be dead. Next. :rolleyes:

Cosmo_ac

06-05-2004, 11:15 AM

Jim, you say questioning your leaders is an insult to both your country and the soldiers who fought for you. I couldn’t disagree more. In a Democrocy, it is not only a persons right, but their responsibility to question the actions of their leaders. Do you ever wonder why you have congress? The Reason is, the four-fathers were great men, but they were also balding, fat, middle aged men who knew one thing. No matter how great a leader that may be chosen, they would still be human, capable of the same mistakes, prejudices, and faults of any human. The Government was created not to be served by the people, but created BY the people, FOR the people. You have Senators to be your voice, to express your views, your beliefs, and your thoughts. You do not serve the President, it is he who serves you, as YOUR elected representative. Your Soldiers fought to free you from soverenty, so you might be able to live how you wanted, free, proud, and able to voice out opinion, no matter what it is.
Jim, you say questioning your leaders is an insult to your country, and those who died for it. I disagree. I believe that NOT questioning the actions of your leaders, NOT standing up and voicing your concerns, NOT saying “Mr.President, I think your making the wrong choice.” Is a much greater insult to those who died for so you could use your voices.
So, in closing, and at the risk of sounding “Unpatriotic”, I suggest you honor those who gave there lives, not by being mindless sheep who simply agree to whatever your leaders say, but by honoring what they died for. The Right to speak.

BOFH666

06-05-2004, 11:40 AM

What say we skip the (edited in after original posting I can't help but notice) 'humourous' bigotry and get right to the point shall we?

Originally posted by Jimblast
The SAS albiet is a fine fighting force, it isn't the best by far, I can assure you.

LMFAO!!!! Sorry, but "you assure me" doesn't come close to eliminating the hundreds of testimonials I've seen from soldiers, experts and indeed the American special forces that state quite simply the SAS are THE elite special forces regiment in the world, followed closely by the Israeli special forces.

Originally posted by Jimblast

We are already working on the solution you mentioned. It's been thought of before. Yes these people need countries for training. They are funded by both governments and individuals who exist in countries as safe havens. You're right, France, Germany, and Russia did lie and steal in the 'Food for Oil Program'. Not sure how they would contribute to a world wide elite force with surgical strikes. Your sometimes hero Micheal Moron wouldn't allow for a strong enough intelligence community to support all that anyway. Rumsfeld has already set up a similar force with cart blanche power. Yes, we work very well with other countries intelligence (including your own) and it could be better. But with what we have right now, we have to act. Everything you mentioned is wonderful pie in the sky logic, that takes time. We don't have it pal. With what we have now...what would you do? If 9/11 happened tomorrow, would you wait that long to act? Do you have any idea how much stronger these terrorist organization would get? We start with the countries and governments, we are getting them to back down and cooperate through force, we isolate those who haven't fled, have the insurgents come to one place as well, and kill them. At the same time, they are already working toward a solution very similar to what you gave. Sorry, if we waited for you to solve things, the terrorists would have a nuke, and you would be 'blowed up'. You and your 'minions' and Mousekateers would be dead. Next. :rolleyes:

And it is at this point I give up because, as with EVERY other post in this thread you've ignored the questions, haven't provided anything but the same tired retoric and have resorted to the same pointless arm waving. You cling to the belief that the backing of countries is vital for terrorism yet ignore the examples put forward that this is not the case. You claim waiting increases terrorist strength but ignore the massive jump in recruitment caused in no small part in Iraq. You miss the point that America has, to be crude, pissed away it's moral authority with the rest of the world and is now hated like never before in the Arab world, a fact even President Bush has acknowledged as a problem with his latest push for a UN resolution and support in Iraq. You talk about issues that, from the evidence presented here at least, you've done no research on whatsoever and are simply repeating what you have heard from others rather than forming an informed view of events. You certainly seem to have no idea how a terrorist cell operates, they don't just hang around in camps, or gather in one spot for TerrorCon 2005 you know, most integrate over a period of YEARS with the society of the countries they are planning to attack, to the point they can just fade into the background and be part of the public once more.

In short, you are not debating, you are simply grandstanding and there is no point in attempting to talk rationally about any of this with you as there is no scope for anything that doesn't fit into your worldview. You respond to reasoned replies with insults and mockery and, again from what you have said here I can only conclude that is because you have nothing else to say and your insults are certainly not worth listening to. I will leave you with one thing to think about though: when does this war on terror end? With the death of everyone who MAY be a terrorist? It'll be a pretty bleak world in that case, and an empty one too, see the previous example of Timothy Mcveigh or does that hit a little too close to home to be comfortable?

Ignorance: no longer just a point of view, it's a whole way of life.

Roseblossom

06-05-2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by BOFH666
And it is at this point I give up because, as with EVERY other post in this thread you've ignored the questions, haven't provided anything but the same tired retoric and have resorted to the same pointless arm waving.

You respond to reasoned replies with insults and mockery and, again from what you have said here I can only conclude that is because you have nothing else to say and your insults are certainly not worth listening to.

Ignorance: no longer just a point of view, it's a whole way of life.

"Michael Moore is as evil as Osama and should be dealt with accordingly. Period." :wow:
And..."ANYWHERE in that region. Blow them up, ask questions later. They're a bunch of Cockaroaches! It's all very simple....level it and lime it."

I wouldn't have bothered to respond at all after those gems. :p

~Rose~

Jimblast

06-05-2004, 02:38 PM

Testimonials that you've read BOF? You write a book response each time to where it becomes boring trying to follow any logic. Grandstanding? Go back and read your books in here. Maybe it's the British arrogance coming out. There are a couple of things I agree with you upon, however the vast majority you write, I thank God that you aren't a world leader! Were you ever in the service? I'm just curious. I'm not merely 'following my leader' like blind sheep. I certainly didn't follow Clinton....but I respected the office and was behind him in Kosovo. There are things that this administration has done that I don't agree with. I think terrorists in our prison should be treated like the animals they are and the hell with the press (BBC especially....what a bunch of idiots! LOL!). As for that other response from that other person (not significant enough to remember his name), I believe following Michael Moore is comparable to being a blind sheep. Just an opinion. BOF, feel free to follow the likes of Michael Moorer. I'm sure he would have been against fighting Hitler, after all, at the time most of America was. And the U.N.? They'll solve all our problems. SAS being the elite special force in the world? I'm sure Michael Moore wrote that for you....LOL! Anyway, it's all a matter of opinion...America is glad to have Britain as an ally, but I strongly suspect Britain through the years wouldn't be Britain without America's help. We could've gone into Iraq alone.....could Britain have done anything like that without our help? Sorry, Great Britain ain't so great anymore. They need us, badly.

BigJim

06-05-2004, 06:53 PM

Whether the Regiment are the greatest unit in the world of special forces I don't know, but they're certainly superior to the Delta Force, Navy Seals and Green Berets in skills and training.
Example: the SAS hosted some Delta Force lads, including one legendary chap called Dan Dan the Chainsaw Man in an exercise. The Brits were to defend an area, the Delta guys had to infiltrate and secure it. The area was marked out by a chain-link fence. A few hours after the start the Brits turn around and see the septics beaming from inside the compound. How did they do it? They took bolt-cutters to the fence, sneaked outside the training area and came in the back way. To the yanks they "adapted, evolved and overcome", but for the purpose of the exercise that fence was supposed to represent a mountain range, impassable swamp or shopping mall or something. Would you be able to cut through the mountains with cutters in real life? They didn't get the point.
Equipment and facilities-wise, the US wins hands down. If the UK government equipped them similarly to the US government's, instead of starving them of equipment and premises, you'd have a thingy on your hands.

BOFH: 10,000 isn't so much a conservative estimate as a monumentally optimistic one. Even Ms. Albright admitted on national television in 95 that sanctions had directly caused the deaths of a million children, without counting adults or taking into account deliberate bombing of civillian areas with area effect weapons like Big Blue.

JB: What is Britain these days as a world power? Somewhere between a handy terrestrial aircraft carrier and a large US missile base. The British Army is reduced to 25 battalions when the US army gets indignant at dropping to that many divisions. Make no mistake, the main reason we're in Europe as a nation is to make sure it never works. You think Tony Blergh was trying to promote the European Constitution at that summit? Bullshit he was. He was getting the Greeks to sabotage the fucker. :dogpile: Britain never goes anywhere without it's strapping grandson. Similarly no American leader does shit without strings in operation from the COL.

Iraq:
*3-D World View mode engaged* Clusterfuck from start to finish. There wasn't and never was a world threat from Saddam, and he would rather have eaten pork at midday in Ramadan than pick a fight with the US military. There was also no connection whatsoever with the 9/11 attacks in Iraq, barring a few lunatics sympathising and wanting to volunteer. Saddam and his secret police were so closely monitored that they couldn't have put on pile cream without a satellite counting the wrinkles and reading the fine print instructions on the tube.

*my real opinion mode engaged* You have done well Lord Tyrannus. Everything is going as planned. Begun the smeg war has.

Michael Moore as evil as Osama? I guess it depends totally on what someone's priorities are and how they define patriotism. Some people use patriotism the same way a recovering drug addict or alcoholic might use religion: as a crutch to lean on, that their mind-set cannot bear to be shattered without losing it's way in the world entirely. That means swallowing every official line of the party of their choice and standing by their leader no matter how evil a corn-holing son of a bitch he may be. Patriotism IS a religion in some ways. It's used to grab people by the nuts and yank hard if they don't follow in the desired direction. Control by guilt or intimidation in a lot of cases. Some people consider it patriotic to want their country to affect the world around it in the best possible way and hate the thought of it propogating war crimes or organised crime. Would it have been unpatriotic to sell arms to the Contras and accept grade-A heroin as payment? George Bush Snr. did just that. Would it have been unpatriotic to object when your leader sanctions military operations that flagrantly breach the Geneva Convention? America and the UK did both, with British soldiers burrying Iraqi soldiers alive with bulldozers and the USAF deliberately targeting water purification plants that supplied the civillian population. Does it classify you as a traitor to print pictures of Iraqi children stillborn with stumps for limbs, no mouths and in some cases two heads, because of radiation exposure during bombing raids on civillian areas, with no military targets within 50 miles? Depends if you're a unilateralist I guess.
Personally I think Michael Moore raises some valid points, but I don't like his style. The Oscar speech was high crappy taste IMHO. He does perform a vital function in today's America, which is to provide another side to a very one-sided debate. Even if he talks total swill, it's pretty vital swill in the face of such strong opposition. He's certainly not a coward. He risks personal assault from patriots every time he steps outside his front door. He also cops more character assasinations and slander than even John Kerry. And if he didn't make money from his books etc, the right wing would call him a communist. But live the American dream of capitalism as a system where you get out in proportion to the amount of work you put in, and he's un-patriotic. Personally he lost a lot of my respect when he endorsed Kerry, who would be one seriously Machiavellian bastard if he got into the White House. Would I back Michael Moore? I'd drop short of that. I don't mind admitting though that Stupid White Men had me in hysterics. Dude, Where's My Country was too party-aligned for my taste.

The Election in November: I'm putting my cards on 2 things: Kerry winning, and Kerry shafting both America and the world up the arse over the following 4 years. Kerry won't offer anything different in content to Bush, any more than Michael Howard will to Tony Blair, even if the flavourings are a tadge different.

So where do I stand in the overal scheme of things? Usually at the end of the bar.

Peace brothers and sisters and may the Force be with you.

BigJim

06-05-2004, 07:10 PM

It doesn't surprise me at all. Walt Disney in his time was so far up Joe McCarthy's arse that he could've brushed his teeth from the inside.

The1Bill

06-06-2004, 04:03 AM

As a conservative libertarian (little l, by the way) I am apalled at the response that Michael Moore gets.

Well, it isn't so much my political perspective as is it my intellectual perspective. Personally, I prefer for my sources to be grounded in truth, and the reporting of such sources to be held to a high standard of chronology. Face it, hindsight is 20:20.

A prime example is in "Bowling for Columbine." Many of the parts of that movie were moved chronologically to prefer Moore's perspective. The fact that this is then billed as a nonfiction documentary says volumes about the person responsible for making the piece.

Now, back to Iraq. Do I agree with the war? No, I don't. However, with the evidence as it was presented to the President, I would have made the same choice. Pity, though, that the evidence was flawed. I guess that is what we get for having our best source of Middle Eastern intelligence be a maniacal ego-driven sociopath who only wanted power for himself. <shrug>

At least we removed a mean-spirited dictator with a nasty disposition. Seems that was reason enough for Kosovo, right? I didn't hear many complaints from the left when we were bombing the hell out of those civillians.

I did, however, like the comment that Saddam wanted, in no way, a battle with the US Military. We told him, time and time again, that if he did not open up and provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs, that we would be coming in. He ignored those warnings. Maybe he figured that no US president would have the audacity to invade a country because of a lack of evidence. I guess 8 years of Clinton had conditioned him to believe that no US president would protect his nation. I think that a lack of evidence of the destruction of those weapons was perfect reason to go in. We even gave him a countdown before going in. It was a clear ultimatum. Step down, or we are coming in. Again, he sits on his throne. And sits on his throne he does, until the danger approaches. Then what? He crawls into a hole.

The Iraqis want us out? Fine. We should leave. It's not worth wasting another human life in that sand-trap. Especially when the policy is slanted towards innocent civilians as far as it is. I think that if we are in a country, our soldiers must come first. It's what I think of as the "us or them" theory. In other words, better them then us. The leadership, however, would rather have the Kommunist News Netwerk show footage of dead American soldiers then dead Iraqi civilians. Rather then using a smart bomb to neutralize a threat, we have been sending in soldiers. All in the name of the prevention of collateral damage.

I will not say, however, that Michael Moore should be deported, or that his loser-college-dropout ass should be censored. Rather, I am saying that Americans should take some pride in themselves and this great nation, and drown out the voices that say that we are the root of all evil in the world.

And thus ends my rant, my time on the soapbox, and my 15 minutes of TMF fame. I don't expect a conservative message to be popular on a forum devoted to expanded or alternate sexuality, but I feel it my my right and duty to throw in my $0.02, even if no more then 2 of us would pay that much for it.

-=B-=

BOFH666

06-06-2004, 07:30 AM

august spies

06-06-2004, 01:19 PM

please lets not try and tell jim about democracty, his idea of democracy is to blindy goosetep behind your government. to him the nazis and august pinochet are the greatest democrats of all time. Jim is to far gone to deal with, hes out their in fascist land.

He supports torture which is the direct opposite of freedom to anyone with a brain. He makes no apologies for supporting the likes of osama bin laden and their destablization of afghanistan, than of course dumping billions of dollars into a horrible war after the russians invaded, basically creating al queada. than after he got done support the destruction of afghanistan, and god knows how many wars, torture, and fascism he was supporting elsewhere (latin america). He wants us to still goosetep to people like bush, well sorry, war, torture, and fascism are something to be disdained, not embraced. ill stand for freedom and reject them.

god bless god for finally killing reagan

BigJim

06-06-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by The1Bill
I did, however, like the comment that Saddam wanted, in no way, a battle with the US Military. We told him, time and time again, that if he did not open up and provide evidence of the destruction of WMDs, that we would be coming in. He ignored those warnings.

Two secs, I'm just searching for a passage I wrote about Saddam and disarming... bloody thing's here somewhere... bugger, bloody, arse... fucking thing... AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! Here we go.......

Sod it, I can't find it to copy and paste. :cry1: However T1B, it isn't a million miles from the truth to estimate that Iraq's remaining weapons wouldn't have been enough to win a battle against a gang of cheerleader suffering from PMS. There are tidbits of relevant info in these, but they take some looking for owing to the length of the posts...
1 (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28158)
2 (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28644)
3 (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34077)
4 (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40020)

Hans Blix and his team took Iraq apart like a can of peas and by 1998 there wasn't a single thing left that was capable of attacking the west from Iraq itself. Saddam deduced (correctly) that an invasion was gonna happen no matter what, and I guess he got slightly pissy about it. I imagine most people would get pissy if they knew that a war was gonna happen no matter what, that would be as equal as a marine commando picking a fight with a 5 year old schoolgirl.

Don't get me wrong, I laughed my nipples off at the sight of that scarecrow look-a-like getting his gob checked by a US Army medic. Whatever happens to Saddam, I won't cry for the git. I'm just pointing out what I believe is the totally flawed reasoning behind the pro-war lobby.

BigJim

06-06-2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by The1Bill
And thus ends my rant, my time on the soapbox, and my 15 minutes of TMF fame. I don't expect a conservative message to be popular on a forum devoted to expanded or alternate sexuality, but I feel it my my right and duty to throw in my $0.02, even if no more then 2 of us would pay that much for it.

-=B-=

I'll echo my compatriot over there, in saying that your post was a pleasure to read and reply to. It was put forward honestly and with decorum.

Michael Moore has been blasted, slated, slandered, threatened and condemned to a variety of methods of death and torture for the truly horrendous crime of having an opinion that differs from that of the condemner. Quite frankly I find that highly "un-American". Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives and parts of their bodies so people like Michael Moore could have the freedom to put checks on the government, or just express what they honestly believe, even if they are naive or incorrect. Bitching at high volume about those freedoms because they allow an opinion that contradicts your own to flourish is right out of the autobiographies of history's greatest supressors. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabwe, Pinnochet... The list goes on. All of those would have acted towards a citizen acting like Moore in exactly the same way that JB obviously wants to. From someone who carries such immense pride in his nationality, I find it upsetting that his attitude contradicts the basic tenets of personal freedom.

maniactickler

06-07-2004, 06:34 PM

If you liberals want to piss and moan about the war, at least save it till after its over. why affect moral for our troops who are dying to save your miserable butts. i know its second nature for you liberals to whine like babies over everything, but cant you contain your hatred for awhile?

BOFH666

06-07-2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by maniactickler
If you liberals want to piss and moan about the war, at least save it till after its over. why affect moral for our troops who are dying to save your miserable butts. i know its second nature for you liberals to whine like babies over everything, but cant you contain your hatred for awhile?

Ummm, I think moral might have taken a bit of a bigger nose dive from being told it was gonna be a cake walk and then being greated with RPG's instead of roses. Or having tours extended because there aren't enough troops to go round. Or finding out you can't actually leave the army at the end of your tour. Or the reasons you were told you were going to war turned out to be total garbage. Or that the government you fight for is smuggling coffins back home in secret to avoid bad publicity rather than giving them the final respects those who've died deserve. Or having no exit stratergy. Or being told they are not at liberty to criticise what they see as a flaw in the political planning by the defence secretary.

And if all dissent is silenced until after it's all over... when will that be? This is a war on a concept, not a country, and just look how long the "war on drugs" has been going on for. If people aren't free to comment and express their opinions then there is no longer any point in fighting.

Oh yes, and just for the record, it's not just "liberals" (god, the one word that acts as a crutch for so many arguments when individuals can't think of anything better to use) that are openly criticising the rush to war.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/10/withdrawal/index.html

On the right, William E. Odom, a three-star lieutenant general, former director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration and director of national security studies at the conservative Hudson Institute, has also been arguing that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. Last week, he told the Wall Street Journal, "We have failed. The issue is how high a price we're going to pay ... Less, by getting out sooner? Or more, by getting out later?"

On Wednesday, he elaborated on Nightline, saying, "[T]o say you can't fail at that now, is to fail to realize that you've already failed. Now, when I say get out, I don't mean just pull out and walk out today. I would go through the procedures of going to the United Nations and encouraging a United Nations resolution to approve some U.N. force there. And I would be quite prepared to participate in that for a while, if we could get allies and others to come in. But then I would make it clear that I am slowly moving that responsibility to this force and withdrawing the U.S. over six months or so."

That's one example, there are many more if you care to look.

Yet again, you totally ignore the rational arguments and questions put forward in repsonse to your original post and settle for arm waving instead. And in this case it has to be said, a very poor example of such, you didn't even throw in a "you're either with us or against us, YeHAW!". I mean, it's just not up to the standard of ranting we expect you know?

august spies

06-08-2004, 09:59 AM

liberals! liberalss! liiiberalsssss!!!!!!!!

ah parreted strawman criticism, whats more fun.

BigJim

06-08-2004, 11:56 AM

Bugger, they beat me to it. I didn't even get to call anyone a psychopath. :(

maniactickler

06-08-2004, 04:48 PM

who cares about what a FORMER general has to say. its just an opinion. they are out of the loop when it comes to current military operations anyway. hes probably a liberal anyway. and i dont believe a word i hear on the mainstream LIBERAL media about how the wars going. half the things they report are mistruths and distortions anyway. thats why i take all these novel like info posts with a grain of salt. all they are is the party of negativity and pessimism. im sick of their everythings so bad attitude in this country. your not hearing all the good things going on in iraq, just the negative things. the liberals know any good news is bad for them. they thrive on negativity and misery. how anyone with half a brain can vote for a liberal boggles my mind! but hey, its a free country, (no thanks to liberals) so you just have to deal with it.

BOFH666

06-08-2004, 05:02 PM

You really have no interest in debate do you? Tell you what I'll help you spot the really important bit you missed. Ready?

former director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration and director of national security studies at the conservative Hudson Institute

Oh my, how liberal, yes sir, that sounds like a left wing commie rat bastard to me. And I'd suggest that a former general might just POSSIBLY know more than you do about the situation. More than me too, but as I said that's FAR from the only Republican criticising the rush to war, but as you don't like reading long posts I'll let you go find that out for yourself. The article I provided in the last post is a starting point though.

So basically what you're saying is that all these are creations of a liberal media:

it was gonna be a cake walk and then being greated with RPG's instead of roses.

having tours extended because there aren't enough troops to go round.

you can't actually leave the army at the end of your tour.

reasons you were told you were going to war turned out to be total garbage.

the government you fight for is smuggling coffins back home in secret to avoid bad publicity rather than giving them the final respects those who've died deserve.

Or having no exit stratergy.

Or being told they are not at liberty to criticise what they see as a flaw in the political planning by the defence secretary.

Riiiight. Actually I've got a challenge for you, you keep blathering on about a "liberal" media, prove it. Seriously, give us SOME proof that isn't the party line that such a thing exists, you know something that's backed up by FACT not dramatic gestures and finger pointing.

Jimblast

06-08-2004, 06:36 PM

BOF, certainly we can agree to disagree as with most in here I'm willing to respect an opinion. This is the second time I've read August boy relish in the death of Ronald Reagan. It's classless the way some people treat a fallen President. That comment was uncalled for and shows how warped this individual is. Now, in discussing Facism and Goose Stepping as you put it August boy:

Let's see August....torturing, hmmmmmm..... you're right, Saddam didn't torture anyone, why he LOVED everyone! Those torture chambers and prisons were just part of our imagination. Gassing the Kurds was necessary I'm sure in your mind August. You're on the wrong side of history pal....I'm guessing Adolf Hitler was a victim in your world also, huh? Interesting! LOL!

By the way August, the liberal biased media put out a story this morning in most major papers. Not one that I saw had it on the front page, but why don't I quote the story for you, now read and learn....reading's a GOOD thing!:

9 IRAQI MILITIAS AGREE TO DISBAND IN PEACE

"Nine Iraqi militias, representing more than 100,000 fighters (Um August, that ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PAL!), have agreed to lay down their arms as part of a rewards and retraining program announced Monday. *There's a paragraph about Al-Sadr's crew (that HUGE number of 5000 insurgents) not included...I'm sure he's another of your 'victims' since he hides in a Mosque and stashes his arms there. Maybe he's your hero, August? I mean, he IS a coward!

Nevertheless, disbanding the other major militias would be a huge step forward in bringing order to Iraq's chaotic security situation and could help reinforce Iraq's political unity under the transitional government set to take control June 30th...."

August, we apologize that what we are doing there is working. We know that you would hate to see America succeed in trying to stabilize that situaion, but unfortunately, what's worked in the past looks like it's going to work now. Even if we don't succeed, we gave the Iraqi people something that obviously you could never understand, it's their independence. What they do with it is up to them. I've fought in the military and what those boys are doing over there is more than admirable. It's what we did for Western Europe, we are helping them get their freedom. Am I upset that oil might be involved? Hmmmmm....let me think about that while I'm paying $2/gallon at the gas pump. Okay, I've thought about it....OF COURSE I'm not upset! You admission that basically Al Kaeda is our fault, try telling that to anyone of the true victims in all this as they were jumping off the roof of the World Trade Towers during 9/11. I'm sure you would have jumped with a smile on your face knowing that Osama was right all along in your mind.

August, this is an argument you're losing. It's one Hitler, Saddam, and Osama either have or will lose. I'm sorry it upsets you. Take solace in the fact that there are countries where you can live that repress people. Maybe you ought to try China? I hear the weather's wonderful this time of year, and N. Korean summers are supposed to be lovely! I'm sure with your philosophy, they would welcome you! I'll be happy to purchase your one way ticket to either country, since the U.S. is such a horrible place as far as you're concerned. LOL! :devil:

maniactickler

06-08-2004, 10:27 PM

BOFH, if you even need proof that the media is liberal, then your already too far gone to be reasoned with. not worth wasting my time.

august spies

06-09-2004, 01:16 AM

liberals liberalss libbbberalllllllllls. its that damn jew run liberal media hebrew box office fag loving bunch of commie islamic religious fundamentalists, get offf my property

Jimblast

06-09-2004, 01:26 AM

The media is predominantly liberal? NO WAY! LOL! Fox News is GOD! LOL!

august spies

06-09-2004, 01:39 AM

a breif note on termanology,

the media may be liberal in the fact that gay bashing and racism are things frowned upon, except for maybe jims fox news.

however political the media couldnt be greater cheerleaders for the government, which makes them very very very right wing. there is a difference

BOFH666

06-09-2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by maniactickler
BOFH, if you even need proof that the media is liberal, then your already too far gone to be reasoned with. not worth wasting my time.

Okay, why do I need proof that the media is liberal? Uh, because I'm not a US citizen and every time I DO catch a news report from there it strikes me as right of centre? How's that for a kick-off?

It was a simple enough request, this is an opinion I've heard a lot from you in these sorts of posts so surely you have something to back up that opinion? All I'm asking is that you share it.

And yes I do need proof, just as I'd need proof of ANY concept before I blindly agree with it. I'm not saying that there is no case, all I'm asking is that this widly held, and oft repeated, belief is backed up with something more than "because I say so".

Also, I've asked this question before and got pointed to Rush as a "fair and balanced" source. I did exactly what I said I'd do, went and listened to some of his shows, read transcripts where I couldn't find the show itself and the results were... well, let's say not exactly balanced shall we? I'm quite willing to be convinced, just make the case a convincing one.

maniactickler

06-09-2004, 07:04 AM

even i laid down a page full of proof it still wouldnt matter anyway. you liberals have your mind made up. youd just twist the facts with liberal distortions from the lamestream media. and thank god for fox news. at least theres one channel you can go to for the truth. cnn, cnbc and the 3 nightly news channels are all extremely liberal. i think theres a slow trend coming. ratings for the liberal news channels are dwindling. people are finally waking up and realizing the truth. the first step in defeating liberalism could be in place!

Bulldogge

06-09-2004, 09:28 AM

Webster's dictionary defines the word liberal as follows:

"one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways."

Doesn't sound so bad to me. Sounds like every innovative mind throughout history.

BOFH666

06-09-2004, 01:04 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3791275.stm

Fahrenheit 9/11, the controversial film by Michael Moore, has been given a standing ovation by at the headquarters of the Academy Awards.

The anti-Iraq war film was shown at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

The 600-strong audience cheered and clapped throughout the film and got to their feet as Moore took to the stage.

Fahrenheit 9/11, which won the top prize at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, will open in US cinemas on 25 June.

Political bias

Moore, whose film criticises President Bush's response to the 11 September attacks and alleges links between the Bush family and Osama bin Laden's, told the audience it was time for change.

He said: "There has been a shift in this country. ... The average American is finally beginning to figure it out. We were duped [into invading Iraq]."

"I hope this country will be back in our hands in a short period of time," he added.

BigJim

06-09-2004, 01:45 PM

BOFH, dude, you remember the religious thread? The bit where someone said that a Christian reacting to someone questioning the truth of the faith by sticking their fingers in their ears and humming the "Jesus is the way" song whilst doing the happy dance made all christians look like brain-dead, programmed, cerebrally passed-away knob-jockeys? Well don't try and change MT, because people like him win people like you a tremendous amount of support.

Imagine a room full of agnostics and there's a Christian and an atheist on the stage. The atheist provides as much evidence as they can about why they believe the Bible is fake, the Gospels are shit and Christ didn't exist. The Christian sticks their fingers in their ears and warbles "Jeebus is the way!". Who do you think an undecided audience is gonna go for? Don't be pissed at maniactickler, because people like him are his philosophy's greatest weakness. I mean, Jesus, at least JimBlast uses capital letters, full stops and punctuation and tries to put his argument (some of them anyway) into a logical structure. Pray with all your might for people like maniactickler to represent their politics publicly and zillions of neutrals will come over to you.

BigJim

06-09-2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Webster's dictionary defines the word liberal as follows:

"one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways."

Doesn't sound so bad to me. Sounds like every innovative mind throughout history.

The bad thing about "liberal" is that to the ring winged of Americana it's become a watchword for communist. Dangerous that, being so utterly brain-dead as to believe that there are only two categories. You either support the invasion of any country that doesn't pose a threat to you, but you feel like invading anyway, or you're a communist!!! (That's just an example of one circumstance. I'm not implying that everyone in favour of the war falls totally into this category. After all, that's make me exactly what I'm describing.)

Sorry, but if you lose the right to have liberal or otherwise feelings against the will of the loudest, then where you're living is fascist! If the right wing of America truly believes in personal freedom then they'll more than tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them and stop philosophically persecuting them with empty accusations of communism.

BOFH666

06-09-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by BigJim
BOFH, dude, you remember the religious thread? The bit where someone said that a Christian reacting to someone questioning the truth of the faith by sticking their fingers in their ears and humming the "Jesus is the way" song whilst doing the happy dance made all christians look like brain-dead, programmed, cerebrally passed-away knob-jockeys? Well don't try and change MT, because people like him win people like you a tremendous amount of support.

Imagine a room full of agnostics and there's a Christian and an atheist on the stage. The atheist provides as much evidence as they can about why they believe the Bible is fake, the Gospels are shit and Christ didn't exist. The Christian sticks their fingers in their ears and warbles "Jeebus is the way!". Who do you think an undecided audience is gonna go for? Don't be pissed at maniactickler, because people like him are his philosophy's greatest weakness. I mean, Jesus, at least JimBlast uses capital letters, full stops and punctuation and tries to put his argument (some of them anyway) into a logical structure. Pray with all your might for people like maniactickler to represent their politics publicly and zillions of neutrals will come over to you.

Hush you, you're taking all the fun out of it!

BigJim

06-09-2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by BOFH666
Hush you, you're taking all the fun out of it!

What are coppers for? :D

maniactickler

06-09-2004, 05:43 PM

BigJim

06-09-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by maniactickler
the last thing about a liberal is the word innovative. a better word would dependant.

Then perhaps "liberal" is not the correct word to describe the sort of person you think BOFH is? Pretty much the standard response, especially with America, but also with the UK to a lesser degree, is to kaboom, splat, ganyarg and bokko anyone who gets in their way. (Yes peeps, I get my love of onomatopeia from Batman!) So to oppose that in the current climate seems to be exactly "innovative" to me.

Just my thoughts of course.

Jimblast

06-09-2004, 06:35 PM

BOF.....Tom Brokhaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather of the 3 major networks are admitted liberals. The ownership of those same 3 networks are liberal. There was a poll that came out about a month ago and 68 percent of American News Jounalists considered themselves Liberal. Keep in mind, a lot of liberals in the media consider themselves very moderate, but by just about anyone's account, those people would be considered liberal. Additionally, The New York and L.A. Times are considered extremely liberal. Most major newspapers in the U.S. are liberal. You might be comparing American Liberalism to British Liberalism. I would have to say the BBC is extremely left wing. CNN is considered very liberal as is MSNBC. Except for Fox News (which I agree with their motto as being 'Fair and Balanced') is considered moderate. Hannity and Colms present both sides and Bill O'Reilly has no political affiliation as I would consider him moderate. He's conservative except he is for abortion and legalization of Marajuana (I actually agree with him on those views). So as Conservative as I have been labeled, most conservatives would likely consider me Moderate or even Liberal with those views. Who knows....but believe me, the press and all of our higher learning institutions are excessively liberal (especailly professors). Even childrens school books in public schools have a liberal slant as they have rewritten history. Thomas Jefferson for all his greatness is listed in 4th grade history books as a slave owner. Sorry, I just don't think Thomas Jefferson's greatest accomplishment was being a slave owner. Anyway, whether or not you care about U.S. politics, rest assured that the liberals control every medium and educational outlet (well the vast majority) but until the brain washing is completed, they don't control the majority in America. However, they eventually will control it, hence the demise of this great country.

BOFH666

06-09-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by maniactickler
the first step in defeating liberalism could be in place!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means:

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

Of course, in truth, both US political parties, and in fact virtually ALL political parties around the globe are neither one thing nor the other. They mix and match philosophies according to political needs and the needs of the country. Those that do not are considered on the far-left or far-right of the spectrum and are, by and large, ignored by the "mainstream" party for either side. In recent years there has been a shift further to the right in the Republican party, yet even with that shift there are still a large number of 'liberal' policies in use by the current administration (Medicare being the most obvious one). This is also true of the vast majority of citizens in all democratic countries.

BOFH666

06-09-2004, 06:49 PM

A recent survey (http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/) has been used by certain parties to support the idea of the 'liberal' media, but after checking the figures something doesn't add up:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=85317

The study has naturally not received much attention, save for its ideological findings. Among these are nearly sixty percent of journalists surveyed think the media has been far too easy on President Bush and just over a third of journalists identify themselves as "liberal." These two figures have driven the conservatives who control the cable TV and radio debates to distraction. This is surprising. True, thirty-four percent calling themselves "liberal" is a bit more than the national average, but if I'm not mistaken, these same right-wingers have been crowing endlessly that the entire media was controlled by liberals. If the number is only a third — with fifty-four percent calling themselves moderates, then just what's the problem? True, the number of liberals is rising — it was only twenty-two percent nine years ago — and the trend among local journalists is moving the same way — twenty-three percent say they are liberals, up from fourteen percent in 1995 — but this is largely a product of the ability of the far right to move the discourse into its home territory. A decade ago, someone who held the views espoused by George W. Bush would be considered a far right-extremist. Someone who held views to his left — say Senator McCain or perhaps George H.W. Bush — was considered a liberal. Today, top Republican leaders want to kick McCain out of the party and Bush himself refers to his father as "weak" and mocks his desire in 1991 to seek a UN mandate and genuine coalition before going to war. If more journalists are calling themselves "liberal" and fewer "conservative," well that's because the word conservative has been hijacked by radical reactionaries and neocons who are closer in temperament to revolutionaries than to historic conservatives like Edmund Burke or Alexander Hamilton.

Writing in US News, the conservative columnist John Leo mocks the journalists in the survey because while "some 82 percent of the journalists were able to list a news organization that was "especially conservative" (most named Fox News), an amazing 62 percent could not name any news organization that struck them as "especially liberal." Good grief. Even 60 percent of the Homer Simpson family could probably figure out that the New York Times or National Public Radio qualify as liberal. Leave aside the fact that Homer apart, the Simpsons are pretty damned smart (though it's hard to tell yet about Maggie) Leo picked a bad week to make his point. The New York Times is in uproar over the role played by its correspondent Judith Miller and others in passing along false information — much of it supplied by the neocons and their dangerous plaything, Ahmad Chalabi — to fool the country into going to war in Iraq. If that's "liberal," then the word has lost all meaning. Meanwhile, over at NPR, its own ombudsman has endorsed the findings of a study by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting that demonstrates conservative, rather than liberal guests dominate the proceedings. The current issue of The New Yorker has a fine piece by Ken Auletta about the right-wing hijacking of that old conservative bugaboo — PBS. (Trading Bill Moyers for Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot hardly seems like a winner for the liberal team, much less for American journalism.)

Finally, while journalists are a bit more liberal than the rest of this country on social issues, they are generally more conservative on economic issues, as befits their elite status. You can say the same about just about any group of well-educated urban professionals. So what? Is the news liberal? Combine the sensitivities of those in the executive suites who actually determine what is covered — with the constant pressure of the White House and its many right-wing allies in the foundation world, and journalists' alleged liberalism hardly counts for much when the media rubber hits the road. The fact that Mr. Bush was able to push his phony agenda for war through the New York Times, NPR and the rest — with a considerable assist from the far-right dominated cable talk world — to say nothing of talk radio — implies conservatives are either paranoid or dishonest when they complain about the evils of so-called "liberal media." Either way, it's time they hung it up.

In fact, even some die-hard convservatives have admited that the 'liberal' media is nothing but a convenient excuse.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2

But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across--or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this. Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election--and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

Bond is hardly alone. That the media were biased against the Reagan Administration is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer. Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")

Of course the oft-repeated message is that certain organisations are massivley biased towards the "liberal" view but again the evidence just does not support this view:

Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a "conservative media." The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a "liberal media." It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for The Nation and an independent weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of my friends. And guess what? It's filled with right-wingers.

Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor. Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson. During the 1990s, The New Yorker--the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism--chose as its Washington correspondents the belligerent right-winger Michael Kelly and the soft, DLC