This is topic Fahrenhype 9/11 in forum Your News! at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002099

Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on October 31, 2004, 20:43:
 
Yes, that's "Fahren - HYPE 9/11". This movie is a rebuttal to Michael Moore's movie, and it's available as a DVD rental in some stores. It includes Ron Silver, Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and many others.

In the beginning there is a clip of Michael Moore speaking:
quote:
There is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat,
yes we've been attacked by terrorists, but there is no terrorist threat....

If you really don't agree with his statement, you will probably find the movie to be very informative.

If you don't see the movie (and even if you do), you may want to read the article below:

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 by Dave Kopel
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

If you're willing to visit a library, try "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" by Richard Miniter.
(This book changed my opinion of Bill Clinton from "Very Strong Dislike" to "Worst President: Inaction Resulted in 9/11 Attacks.")
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on October 31, 2004, 21:16:
 
Or better yet read this balanced review by Jim Emerson at the Chicago Sun-Times. The fact that this movie features nut jobs like Ann Coulter and Zell Miller says a lot about this movie and its supporters.

Zell Miller- Senator from Georgia that said on MSNBC's Hardball that he would like to challenge host Chris Matthews to a duel.

Ann Coulter- conservative blond bimbo who got fired from the right-wing National Review for writing, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

And who the fsck is host of the movie Ron Silver ? He's the star of such great films as Timecop, Skeletons, Exposure, and The Wisher. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 31, 2004, 23:22:
 
Can't read PDFs on this machine, so I haven't had a chance to check out all 59 'deceits', but the author does mention one on the front page
quote:

The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number)

If this is indicitive of the other 58 'deceits', the page could be renamed 'a nit-pickers guide to Farenhiet 9/11'

[edit]
Oh, there's another 'deceit' they list on the front page, Moores denial of links between al Qaeda and Iraq.

This is not a deceit at all, there is no evidence of any cooperation between the two, even the Bush administration has admitted this.

[edit2]
Ok, I've had a look at the PDF, mostly nit-picks, as I suspected. A selected few (although I'm fairly sure 'selecting' constitutes 'deceit')

quote:

29. The new Afghani government has signed a protocol to build a pipeline, but it is an entirely different pipeline, in a location hundreds of miles distant from the Unocal proposal.

Oh, so the route has changed, that makes a world of difference (NOT!).

quote:

36- The FBI did not "know" about al Qaeda suspects who were attending flight training schools. The information was never passed above the level of one field office.

In what way does this qualify as 'deceit' by Moore?
The FBI knew.

quote:

Ashcroft did not cut overall counter-terrorism funding. He only proposed a one-year cut in a particular program that already had two years of unspent money.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same program the Republicans have included in the list of Kerry voting to cut funding to military and intelligence budgets.

So, according to the Bush administration, it's a cut.


quote:
In addition, Saddam ordered assassination attempts against former President Bush and against U.S. diplomats in the Philippines.
This doesn't seem to be rebutting anything Moore said, but they threw it in anyway.

quote:
45 - The only Iraqi casualties which Moore shows are civilians, although military casualties far outnumbered civilian.
The recent US study estimated 100,000 Iraqi dead, half of them women and children. So, unless the Iraqi military was largely staffed by women and children, it's impossible for military casualties to far outnumber civilian ones.

Point 47 - even the authors concede this is
quote:
Not a deceit
but they included it in their list of deceits anyway.
Oh, btw - since when is Australia a 'major country'?
We're nobodies, and proud of it.

quote:

51 - (partial) Moore claims that Bush proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 1/3; but a soldier's pay and benefits is over $27,000 per year, even at low enlisted grades.

Um, unless I'm missing something fairly fundamental, there's nothing here that discredits Moores statement.

point 59 - mere arm-waving, there's no claim of any 'deceit' by Moore that I can find.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on October 31, 2004, 23:48:
 
The one I liked is this one
quote:

Fahrenheit stitches together some scattered lines from the screenplay of 1984, written by Ralph Gilbert Bettison and William Templeton. Moore implies that the words are those of George Orwell, although the quotes do not come from George Orwell's novel 1984. The screenplay depicts a totalitarian state perpetually at war, and does accurately capture many of the points made in Orwell's book. As Moore quotes "Orwell" (actually, Bettison and Templeton): "The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous...A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance... The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact." The real purpose of war as "to keep the very structure of society intact." Fahrenheit applies "Orwell’s" words to the United States of today.

So, I would summarise that as "Moore used concepts from the work 1984, and made it sound like the words were direct quotes, when they weren't". All of those concepts are in the work, so what's the point of nitpicking over whether it's a direct quote or not? [Roll Eyes]

Then again, would you trust someone whose solution to gunmen holding up schools is to ensure teachers carry guns
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 01, 2004, 03:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
So, I would summarise that as "Moore used concepts from the work 1984, and made it sound like the words were direct quotes, when they weren't". All of those concepts are in the work, so what's the point of nitpicking over whether it's a direct quote or not? [Roll Eyes]

But if you follow this link from the farenhype site, you'll find that most of the quotes are actually from the book.

It seems the extent of Moores 'deception' is to present the quotes in a different order than they appeared in the book, and occasionally use the abbreviated film version of Orwells sometimes overly-wordy text.

I am shocked and disappointed that a filmmaker would trim a few words for brevity.

/me wanders off to burn an effigy of Mr Moore in protest.
 
Posted by ooby (Member # 2603) on November 01, 2004, 05:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:


And who the fsck is host of the movie Ron Silver ? He's the star of such great films as Timecop, Skeletons, Exposure, and The Wisher. [Roll Eyes]

He's the step brother of restaraunt mogul "Long" John Silver.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 01, 2004, 08:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
The recent US study estimated 100,000 Iraqi dead, half of them women and children. So, unless the Iraqi military was largely staffed by women and children, it's impossible for military casualties to far outnumber civilian ones.

Please quit making up numbers..... I'm going to assume that http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ is "Anti-War."

Their "Iraqi Body Count" is 14,219 minimum, 16,352 maximum.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 01, 2004, 08:22:
 
Er, I saw that 100000 figure on the front page of Yahoo! a couple days ago. They uses Biased sources like AP and Reuters though. [Razz]

Ann Coulter scares me.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on November 01, 2004, 08:39:
 
I've noticed some minor discrepancies in some of Michael Moore's work, but I'd never go as far as to say he's a quack, or full of crap, or all that other junk I've heard some right-wing nutjobs call him.

I believe his heart is in the right place, and he's just trying to cast a little light into the dark world that is George W Bush's pea-sized brain.

Even if you take all of those points at FACE VALUE. Consider them 100% true and pretend they weren't even in the movie in the first place, I betcha you'd still have one helluva lot of matter in the movie to deal with.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 01, 2004, 10:06:
 
I haven't seen the origional movie (yet) or the Fahren - HYPE 9/11 remake. I can't be bothered to read the biased/mindless link that ASM posted either.

The bottom line:


Moore may be deceitful in the movie, and I'm not saying he is or isn't because I have actually seen the movie. His deceit, at most, makes him guilty of getting the masses talking about the war, the US administration etc.

Bush on the otherhand is more than deceitful, he is a baldfaced liar and a fscking murderer. If you elect him again I have a feeling you will find out what terror really is...and it will pale in comparision to 9-11
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on November 01, 2004, 11:06:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Ann Coulter scares me.

The last time she was mentioned on fark, the general consensus there was that no woman born a woman has an Adam's apple like she has.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 01, 2004, 12:15:
 
Michael Moore is a polemicist, not a news reporter. He spins theories, stories and suppositions. It would be very surprising if his work did not contain inaccuracies, distortions, and misrepresentations. Only a fool would buy everything he says as gospel truth, but his films are still thought provoking, and ask questions that make the current administration feel most uncomfortable. So there is probably something there.

What I find incredible though, is that ASM who sucks up Fox News and other Neocon right wing propaganda like it was his mother's milk, is upset about exactly how truthful Michael Moore is.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 01, 2004, 12:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
The recent US study estimated 100,000 Iraqi dead, half of them women and children. So, unless the Iraqi military was largely staffed by women and children, it's impossible for military casualties to far outnumber civilian ones.

Please quit making up numbers.....
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1099028208196.html

I think the site's registration only these days, so here's the first few paragraphs
quote:

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of air strikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

The estimated death toll was extrapolated from a survey of nearly 1000 households in randomly selected locations throughout the country.

The study, published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, concludes that: "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

The research, led by Dr Les Roberts, was carried out by the Centre for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore and New York's Columbia University's School of Nursing.


 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 01, 2004, 13:00:
 
I heard/read about that report also. It makes you wonder about the real human cost over there.

1121 US dead 8150 causualties. Ratio approx 1:8


100,000 Iraqi dead would mean 800,000 Iraqi casualties

ASM goes on and on about Saddams genocide....well, it makes one wonder what we are looking at in Iraq now at the hands of Bush.

I'd like to see a break down on how much was spent in the middle east hunting bin Laden vs how much has been spent in Iraq 'making it free' [Roll Eyes] I'm pretty sure you'd see where Bush's priorities are based on the cash he has spent.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 01, 2004, 13:09:
 
TFD, stop posting those biased, leftie-pinko sources. Lancet my ass. Everyone knows that [Lancet is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, which we all know to be sympathetic to terrorism. After all, liberals cheered when the towers came down and don't foget they also suck the blood of small children...or was that Jews? Oops, sorry, my bad.
/me removes her tongue from her cheek

People, Lancet is a British medical journal on the par with The New England Journal of Medicine, its American sister. These journals are peer-reviewd, non-political, notoriously difficult to publish in, and very very widely circulated - what Nature and Science are to the natural sciences these journals are to medicine. Top of the line, authoritative, if you're a doctor and you get your stuff into something like Lancet, your career is going very well indeed. Think about that before you dismiss the Iraqi body count as crap.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 01, 2004, 13:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
TFD, stop posting those biased, leftie-pinko sources. Lancet my ass. Everyone knows that [Lancet is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, which we all know to be sympathetic to terrorism. After all, liberals cheered when the towers came down and don't foget they also suck the blood of small children...or was that Jews?

Nice try Xanthine, but if you're trying to trick me into adding a

Xanthine == ASM

entry in my diagram of 'The Collective', you'll have to be far more incoherent than that.

And don't forget the random bolding, paragraph numbers, and links to irrelevant articles.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on November 01, 2004, 13:56:
 
Don't go scaring me like that, TFD. Xanthine's a member of the collective, as you know, and I suddenly thought you were going to say ASM was as well! I don't want a neocon alternate personality [Wink]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 01, 2004, 14:05:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
Don't go scaring me like that, TFD. Xanthine's a member of the collective, as you know, and I suddenly thought you were going to say ASM was as well!

I couldn't bring myself to say such a thing, even in jest [Wink]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 01, 2004, 14:13:
 
TFD: points duly noted. I sHall Try harder next timE.

I was actually attempting to lampoon the entire right wing tinfoil hat crowd, not ASM, though he may fit in that category.
 
Posted by sosumi (Member # 1106) on November 01, 2004, 14:21:
 
download fahrenheit 9/11 here
(with Michael Moore's blessing)
there are several different file versions, 40 mbs and up.
download goes offline 11/2
 
Posted by rjung (Member # 3050) on November 01, 2004, 16:48:
 
I'm surprised nobody has posted this already...

Dave Kopel's "59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11" has been thoroughly spanked months ago as the embarassingly lame "rebuttal" that it is:

Anthony Wade spanks Dave Kopel
Anton Sirius spanks Dave Kopel some more

I'd recommend both for ASM65816 -- but then, someone who thinks the attacks of 9/11/2001 should be blamed on Bill Clinton (despite Clinton's extensive anti-terrorism efforts against Bin Laden) probably needs more convincing than I can provide...

--R.J.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on November 01, 2004, 17:13:
 
I'm really not interested in seeing something that will try to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11 because, frankly, I didn't think it was all that awesome of a movie. For the record, I am voting for Kerry and knew that before I saw the film. I came away from watching it with no actual new knowledge, save the fact that Michael Moore is an ass who loves the sound of his own voice. He presented opinions and supposition as his conclusions and was emotionally manipulative the entire time. And he presented innocuous facts as though they were proof of dealing with the devil. Example: Bush Sr. gets CIA reports. He admits in the film that that is the right of any ex-president. So why is it so bad that he exercises that right? He says that very few presidents exercise that right, but how many are still alive? Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, and I think Ford. One president out of four doesn't strike me as that big of a deal. /rant

Go out and vote tomorrow, everyone. We geeks have to save the world. :Superman: [thumbsup]

Edit: Welcome rjung, enjoy our posts. You know what? I actually bought a shirt from your web site a couple of years ago. My husband loves the Happy Fun Ball shirt. I might have to get him another one since it's gotten so faded. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 01, 2004, 23:07:
 
Part I - 100,000 Dead

Some of you will view this as a classic example of:
1. State Your Experiment
2. Reach Your Conclusion
3. Gather (*cough* Fabricate) Data

Since this came from a "Household Survey" there may be some bias:
quote:
A couple of survey results:
100% said Americans were responsible for (each) case of death.
0% said death occurred while attacking U.S. forces, or transporting heavy weapons (Insurgent Activities).

* Even though Saddam released (All) 100,000 criminals from the prisons, no deaths are attributed to murders, failed kidnappings, or armed robbery.

* "Insurgents" have threatened to kill anyone who cooperates with Americans. We have beheading videos and bombed police stations, but no statistics on those deaths.

* "Insurgents" have destroyed water mains and other infrastructure, and hijacked trucks carrying food and supplies to Iraqis, but they're not responsible for an increase in infant mortality.

* None of the Dead were "Insurgents"? *begin rant*
This proves the conspiracy! The Insurgents are actually a Republican Neo-con CIA army hand-picked by Bush! No wonder they were never killed! The U.S. military invasion was only a diversion so that over 1000 tons of high explosives could be seized for the Genocide of 25 million Iraqis! Once Bush pulls all U.S. troops out, no one will be able to prove that he controlled the "Insurgents" all along! *end rant*

(Sorry about accusing "you" of fabricating the 100,000 number.)

Some of you think that because the study blames the Americans for everything, it must be unbiased and true. The next part is for you.

Part II - A Bad Case of Acute Chronic Hypocrisy

I'm going to use your arguments.

1. Response to the above "study"
quote:
Originally posted by csk (Must Read Essay, Oct 11):
I'm sorry, that's speculation again. Evidence, please.

Double-Standard: A "household survey" and statistical manipulation? You treat this as if all 100,000 (estimated) deaths were recorded on camera and followed by an autopsy.

2. The case of: "The FBI did not "know" about al Qaeda suspects who were attending flight training schools. The information was never passed above the level of one field office."
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
The FBI knew.

So you imply the FBI could do something.....

quote:
Originally posted by csk (Must Read Essay, Oct 12):
Excellent! Let us rush to set up the Pre Crime Units, for the sake of our Glorious Future!

quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid (Pawns of Destruction, July 28):
I'm not here as a defender of Muslim values, I'm here as a defender of Western values.
Rule of Law.
Fair trial.
That kind of thing.
...
Oh, so if you know someone's guilty, you can just dispense with all that tiresome bureaucratic red-tape of trials, evidence, and lawyers. Just get straight on with the hangin'

Double-Standard: Your saying this time they really did know, just like Pre-Crime, but any other time it would just be speculation.
Double-Standard: Rule of law - so in this case, even though the FBI could not show captured plans indicating use of an aircraft for a terrorist attack, no specified target for the attack, no date for the attack, and legally they could not use certain circumstantial evidence from other agencies, you expect them to say "we know they're terrorists so let's get warrants and wiretaps without worrying about all that tiresome bureaucratic red-tape." What's illegal about flying aircraft? If a member of al-Qaida gets a driver's license, why wouldn't that suggest use of a car bomb?

Part III - Michael Moore and "No Terrorist Threat"

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Statement of Steven Emerson, July 9, 2003

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
What I find incredible though, is that ASM who sucks up Fox News and other Neocon right wing propaganda like it was his mother's milk, is upset about exactly how truthful Michael Moore is.

quote:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- George Santayana
I am a firm believer in this quote. Science is based on observations and events being repeated again and again. My "experience" is that if someone says "I'm going to kill you" again and again, you better take it seriously. An assassin may only be one person, but sometimes that's enough to start a world war (WWI). Having hundreds or thousands of assassins, as is the case of terrorism, is not a threat to be ignored. You may be able to duck a bullet once, maybe twice, maybe a hundred times, but odds are that one will eventually end your life. This is not about "sucking up Neocon right wing propaganda."

In the case of terrorism, you might say "make them like you." If you have a child, who is teased or ridiculed, do you tell them "do what it takes to make them like you"? Do you do this even if this means injury to your child for the amusement of others? If reasoning with terrorists was possible, why not sit down with them and sign a treaty? Of course, history indicates that they have no respect for law since they are only accountable to "God."

I find it difficult to believe that "you" think "criminal behavior" can be stopped without force, or that "evil" ceases to be a threat.

Part IV - Bill Clinton

quote:
Originally posted by ooby:
Clinton lead the country into an unprecedented era of peace. There were a few struggles here and there, but overall, we all enjoyed Pax Americana, even you.
...
Clinton authorized the use of cruise missiles against terror camps in Afghanistan.

A few struggles?

  * Feb 1993: World Trade Center Bombed - Clinton has the FBI investigate, and after a few years puts some terrorists in jail. As one of the terrorists lamented, "if I had a bigger bomb I would have killed thousands."
  * Oct 1993: Somalia, troops killed.
  * Nov 1995: Saudi Arabia, car bomb kills 5 Americans.
* In 1995, Bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship after he admitted his involvement in terrorist attacks in Riyadh and Dahran.
  * June 1996: Saudi Arabia, Air Force housing complex bombed.
  * ... 1996: Saddam attacks Kurds in Erbil. - Clinton has bombs dropped on Iraq ... hundreds of miles from Erbil, causing insignificant damage to Saddam's forces.
  * Nov 1997: Iraq Refuses to Allow UN Inspectors to Do Their Jobs, also Threatens to Shoot Down U-2 Spy Planes.
  * Feb 1998: Clinton threatens to bomb Iraq, but when the UN objects, he backs down.
  * May 1998: India Nuclear Test Detonations "Surprise" CIA. - CIA is "harshly criticized."
  * Aug 1998: Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bombed. - Two weeks later, Clinton bombs Afghanistan and Sudan, causing severe damage to aspirin factory and "an aging camel." (I wonder if it's time to improve CIA intelligence gathering? Probably not.)
* In 1998, bin Laden was a co-signatory with Ayman Zawahiri (formerly of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) to a fatwa, or religious/legal edict, put out in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring, "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it..."
  * Oct 2000: USS Cole Attacked.

Clinton's biggest mistake was essentially relying almost entirely on defensive methods, as opposed to stopping the problem at the source. I find Clinton's use of cruise missiles in Afghanistan to be suspicious......

quote:
On Aug. 20, 1998, three days after half-confessing to lying about Monica Lewinsky and the day she testified before a federal grand jury, former President Clinton declared bin Laden the world's most dangerous terrorist and retaliated against him for blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa months earlier.
...
Approximately 60 Tomahawks were launched against six camps near Khost, Afghanistan.

Why would Clinton launch missiles at six different camps?

If he actually had information on where bin Laden was located, wouldn't he strike that one target (camp)?

Who told them that bin Laden had only been missed by "an hour"?

(In all likelihood, Clinton didn't know a damn thing about where bin Laden was, except that he was in Afghanistan.)

Obviously the attack did no harm to bin Laden, and I'm inclined to believe Bill was just covering his _ss:
1. By claiming bin Laden had "almost" been killed.
2. To keep Monica from being front page news.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on November 01, 2004, 23:14:
 
I was going to post a cogent, intelligent rebuttal, but decided there was no point.

Blow it out your arse, ASM.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 01, 2004, 23:39:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Part I - 100,000 Dead

Quick summary: 2 American University health deparmnents conducted a detailed study, it's methodology was peer reviewed and accepted for publication by a prestigious scientific journal.

But ASM knows better because .... well He Just Does !

quote:
Part II - A Bad Case of Acute Chronic Hypocrisy
Summary: ASMs totally unfounded speculation outranks a detailed statistical survey.
No explanation is needed, It Just Does !

quote:
2. The case of: "The FBI did not "know" about al Qaeda suspects who were attending flight training schools. The information was never passed above the level of one field office."
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
The FBI knew.

So you imply the FBI could do something.....
I imply nothing.
I state the article you linked to was wrong to list this as a 'deceit'.
Moore was correct.
The FBI did know.
There was no 'deceit' on Moores part.


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by csk (Must Read Essay, Oct 12):
Excellent! Let us rush to set up the Pre Crime Units, for the sake of our Glorious Future!

quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid (Pawns of Destruction, July 28):
I'm not here as a defender of Muslim values, I'm here as a defender of Western values.
Rule of Law.
Fair trial.
That kind of thing.
...
Oh, so if you know someone's guilty, you can just dispense with all that tiresome bureaucratic red-tape of trials, evidence, and lawyers. Just get straight on with the hangin'

(snip - ASMs rant deleted)

Summary: .....
Um ....
Ok, I give up, I haven't the faintest clue what point ASM was making here.


I could go on and on, but what's the point?
There comes a time when you just have to face facts and accept that some people are beyond redemption (there's my Calvanist background again).

As a wise man once said:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig"
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 02, 2004, 00:32:
 
OMFG!!! THat ASM post has got to be the most fscked up thing I have ever read.

His post style is confusing enough, but now he is putting random quotes from threads-gone-by-all over the place, and he has yet to make a single valid point
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 02, 2004, 03:00:
 
You might get the impression from ASM that everyone sympathetic to Bush is.. um well.. let's say that his porch light seems to have been flickering for some time. Well here is a well argued calm coherent piece from the conservative perspective, though they do come down in favour of Kerry at the end. Naturally I do not agree with many of the judgements here, but it is refreshing to read something from the other side that is not hysterical, and paints a picture of a world I can actually recognise around me.
 
Posted by ooby (Member # 2603) on November 02, 2004, 06:40:
 
ASM, it's good that you brought up the bullies analogy. This alternate point of view may allow you to understand the approach that many of those who oppose the war on terrorism take.

Suppose you have a high school. Now suppose the social groups in the school have established a class system resulting in tiers or castes. On top you may have the jocks and on bottom you may have those who do not fit into higher castes. There may be more levels, but they are not needed for this illistration. This class system may not have been intentionally formed for the purpose of suppression, but the inherent properties of such a class system results in suppression of the lower class. Suppose everyday, the upper class oppresses the lower classes in some way. The lowest class is left with basically three options:
1) attempt to climb to a higher social class by assimilation.
2) attemp to climb to a higher social class by eliminating the higher class.
3) remain in the lower class.

Suppose members of the lowest class choose to execute the second option by violent means. They arm themselves to the teeth and try to kill as many people in the higher class as possible. Needless to say, and more often than not, such actions are far from justified.

The view that many take are that in a class system, the higher members have a responsibility to prevent such a scenario. There are two approaches to doing this. One is to find the lower class members who are likely to make violent their actions and use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening. The other approach is to eliminate the oppression of the lower class, and possibly eliminate the class system as a whole. This would significantly reduce the cause of said violent action.

With respect to the references you made to struggles during the Clinton years, they pale in comparison to the overthrow and attempt at simultaneous nation building of two moderate sized countries. The clostest military operation in size was in Kosovo, which had more multinational support and was smaller in scope and scale that either the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
Posted by denny599 (Member # 4068) on June 09, 2005, 18:39:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Er, I saw that 100000 figure on the front page of Yahoo! a couple days ago. They uses Biased sources like AP and Reuters though. [Razz]

Ann Coulter scares me.

they were useing rueters it was a servuy team from john hopkins university. here is article about that number. http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
note however that number is estimated and is esitmated like this We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period. which if your familar with this sort of estimate reporting means john hopkins unvisity is 95% sure war deaths are between 8,000 and 194,000. however http://www.iraqbodycount.net is supported with info from these sources
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

as you may notice reuter and AP support the 22,000 to 25,000 figure.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on June 09, 2005, 18:46:
 
No! If you're going to necropost, choose any thread but this one, please... [shake head]
 
Posted by Evendir (Member # 3839) on June 09, 2005, 21:56:
 
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
 
Posted by Alephcat (Member # 2617) on June 10, 2005, 06:54:
 
holy socks!
 
Posted by garlicguy (Member # 3166) on June 10, 2005, 17:28:
 
"Hypethetically", this thread looks ripe for a pun-fest.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on June 10, 2005, 19:17:
 
Michael Moore IS George Bush.

I can't believe you guys haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.
 
Posted by californiarockr (Member # 1986) on June 10, 2005, 22:50:
 
I feel the documentary "Team America: Worl Police" is the most fair, balanced assesment of our country to date.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on June 11, 2005, 09:32:
 
my favorite line from "Team America: World Police"
quote:
Lisa (agent): "You had me at d%cks f*ck a**holes...."
(reference to Jerry Maguire movie)

... and the truth about Kim Jong Il. [Eek!]
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on June 11, 2005, 14:18:
 
Dirka dirka Mohammed jihad
 
Posted by flyneye (Member # 4074) on June 12, 2005, 04:01:
 
Dems,Repubs,left,right.As a Libertarian I see both as brothers from the same family.Same base values,same deceit.
Media:well,like they say,"don't believe what you read,half of what you personally see and NOTHING from the film industry!" (ok,it's what I not they say)
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on June 12, 2005, 08:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by flyneye:
Dems,Repubs,left,right.

... is that a code to an unnamed video game?:|
 
Posted by supergoo (Member # 2280) on July 13, 2005, 14:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by flyneye:
Dems,Repubs,left,right.

... is that a code to an unnamed video game?:|
I think it's the "Become President" cheat code for GTA: Capitol Hill.


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on July 13, 2005, 17:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by supergoo:
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by flyneye:
Dems,Repubs,left,right.

... is that a code to an unnamed video game?:|
I think it's the "Become President" cheat code for GTA: Capitol Hill.


[Roll Eyes]

I have a hard time believing there's no bribery involved.
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on July 13, 2005, 19:29:
 
quote:
Deceit 3


How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.



A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."



Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.

Gee, that's not deceitful.

quote:
Deceit 5


The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. He claims that protestors "pelted Bush's limo with eggs." Actually, it was just one egg, according to the BBC. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. " According to CNN, Richard Nixon faced comparable protests in 1969 and 1973. According to USA Today, the anti-Bush organizers claimed that they expected 20,000 protesters to show up, whereas the anti-Nixon protest in 1973 drew 60,000 people. (USA Today, Jan. 20, 2001).

There were wayyy more protestors for Nixon's inaugeration, yet Bush is somehow bad enough to have set precedents with the protests against him.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on July 13, 2005, 20:00:
 
Enough already! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on July 13, 2005, 21:41:
 
Let it die. Just let it die.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0