Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I'm just saying that the way you said it, it almost made it sound like anyone who does that is a nutjob. But you have to admit, that even though you may not like what she's doing, it takes courage to go through with a hunger strike.

_________________

Would anyone starve themselves to support the war? I think not. I think it's great that someone is willing to risk their health for what they believe in. It's easy to sit at a keyboard and hand opinions down from on high, but what she has done is incredibly brave.

EDIT: BTW, what she believes in isn't based in hatred. It's based in anger, because her son was killed. That is totally understandable. What is this war based on? False intelligence, that's what.

Welcome to the site, Mr. (or Mrs.) I Take God's Name in Vain.

I officially grant you "Makes statements with no intention of backing them up" status, which has been granted to many others in the R&P forum. I trust you'll feel at home.

I invite you to also state your beliefs about Michael Moore, and then move on to subjects such as atheism and illegal immigration. I look forward to what other statements you can regurgitate from moveon.org.

/rant

_________________

Um....it's a Beach Boys song.



From this album. It's quite good. actually, along with Sgt. Pepper's it's always voted the number one or number two album of all time. Give it a spin.



Is this the typical welcome around here? Not responding to, and instead dismissing, my opinion simply because I disagree with you? I shall enjoy talking to you he of the black-and-white politics.

BTW I do not read moveon.org.

Ya know, Lahi, it's starting to get a bit tiresome to see you lashing out at anyone who brings up points that go against your own opinions--whether they support them with links and references and sources or not. I don't think the main points of godonlyknows' need references, because they can be easily discussed (intelligently and civilly, I might add) without them.

Anyways, toastpaint someone, because I already stated my lack of respect for Michael Moore.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

what does Toastpaint mean?

You'll find that answer and more in this thread. Welcome to the forums.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

"Toastpaint" is a forum term that basically means, "We're way off topic. Let's get back to the main topic of discussion."

_________________

ah, thank you.

Not sure if you've accurately portrayed me here, PMG, but okay.

I just take exception to people running in here, making contested statements and then not doing anything to back them up whatsoever.

_________________

The only contested statement I made was "Ghandi certainly would have been against the war". Non-violent pacifists tend to be, so I feel that statement was qualified.

I consider each of those statements to be far from pinnacles of truth.

_________________

Opinions, my dear friend. Opinions.



I'm sorry, I didn't even realise that people believed the intelligence to be true.

Fine.



I suppose we could quibble over exactly what you meant by your original statement... I assumed you are of the belief that Bush and Co. made up the intelligence (making it false) in order to invade Iraq. If that's not the case, I withdraw my protest.

_________________

I don't think they made it up deliberately, but HOT DANG, they were wrong. Kind of embarrassing, really. Mobile Weapons Facilites? hehe.

-- Power Center, Michigan, at unveiling of Dude, Where's My Country? (2003)






Moore on September 12 2001.

_________________

I like to bring that up whenever someone says 9/11 happened purely because Bush was elected president.

Nutjobs like Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's president don't care who's in the white house. America = America. To those joiks, Michael Moore= Joe Lieberman = Bill Clinton = George W Bush = Hillary Clinton = .... you get the picture.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

big deal. you could turn the stupid stuff Bush says into a book.

Oh that's right, it's been done.

bless.

What's two cents after inflation? Maybe a dollar or something.

I went into Fahrenheit 9/11 expecting to agree. I don't like the war, and I don't like Bush. I had seen Bowling for Columbine and agreed with it (even though the ending grated on me for being really contrived and sappy) until I read some things showing how he manipulated clips. Then I looked over it again and saw what they were talking about, but since I thought he came to almost the right conclusion (IMO) in the end I could let it slide. How misleading can you be when you start off with facts, and how could I not like watching him build a pyramid of facts to a conclusion I agree with? Fahrenheit 9/11 showed me how. It blew me away how obviously he was manipulating things and placing clips and scenes strategically so that while he wasn't technically lying, people couldn't help but get the wrong idea.

And when you call him out on it, you get defenses like this one here:



But there's saying something outright and saying something with the vocabulary of filmmaking. There's a whole language of editing and building a scene that can be compared to body language. You can be saying "Hey, I like you," but if you're flipping them off and making a mean face at the same time they obviously get the real idea. He edits the clips together in a way that anyone who isn't a total news junkie will get the wrong idea... the wrong idea he WANTS them to get, an idea that is NOT backed up by the facts. This was true of the two Charlton Heston speeches he edited together in B4C and the Florida Victory thing in F911, among other things.

Dude is just way out there. I didn't even know he did Canadian Bacon. That movie was hilarious. Too bad he seems to have gone batcrap crazier exponentially over time.



While true, this is a thread about Michael Moore. Bringing up Bush here qualifies as a.. *rifles through a logic textbook* ...an indirect ad hominem specifically "tu quoque" logical fallacy (trying to dismiss the faults of one person by bringing up those of an opposing person), not to mention triggering what is known in latin as quadra tosti picti (painted, toasted, square [of bread], may be incorrectly declined).

I don't want to have to open the logic textbook again!

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

My point is that if you are going to nitpick everything somebody you disagree with says, then in fairness you should apply those rules to someone you do agree with. If you do realise that a certain president has spouted more trash than a certain filmmaker, yet you still respect him, then it is time for a new approach.

bless.

Godonlyknows, did you miss the entire point of Inverse Tiger's response to you? Dragging Bush into the discussion has absolutely no bearing on the discussion concerning Michael Moore. He even pointed out to you why your post is considered logical fallacy.

AND, furthermore, if you had paid attention to his post, you might have noted that he does not in fact agree with Bush.

_________________

I missed the point of nothing. I know what he said. I know what I said, and I believe my statement is a valid one.

Who is "he"?

The "he" is Inverse Tiger. If you don't know who "he" is, how can you know what "he" said?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

This is ridiculously off-topic, but this sort of stuff is the exact reason I post here once every never. Too many people revert back to infanthood when someone else doesn't see things from exactly their point of view.

On the subject of Michael Moore, I don't really know much about him, but after all I've heard about his lying I just can't take his side.


Maybe I should read the paper more so I can come back here and actually back my statements up.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Or, better yet, just watch Canadian Bacon and forget he thinks he knows something about politics. That's one FUNE movie.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I wasn't sure if he was talking about Lahi or IT. I thought it might have been Lahi because not once in my post did I mention anything about IT's views on Bush, so I thought it was unusual to randomly add his views.

Plus, what's all this I keep reading about Canadian Bacon? That's a pretty poor movie.

Though I do remember one funny bit in the war room when they are looking for people to wage war against. Once choice was terrorists, but they turned it down.

oh, and the newspaper headline that says "Canada May Have Bomb" or something like it.

Hi Guys, Obviously I am new, and I know this isnt an introduction thread but this thread moved me so I felt a need to post here, I just wanted to point out a few things.

As for joe lieberman, it's extremely unfair to not give the registered democrats no choice for an anti-war candidate, as far as fairness goes, it's fine that there are pro-war politicians in the democratic party, but (I'm not going to back this up so call me wrong on this if I am) I believe most registered democrat voters are anti-war. His posistions on the war are generally conservative, unfortuneatly conservatism isn't as out of place in the democratic party as it should be (and this, among other reasons, is why I will always vote for a third-party candidate). But if the democratic party body as a whole takes a stance against the war, any pro-war candidates should either not run or run from a different party, thats not censorship, thats just making so that the party you are running for is actually saying something. Imagine if someone ran in the socialist party on the platform of expanding NAFTA and WTO, that would really tick socialists like me off.

Also, someone said in here that no opinion is 100% correct, I just want to make sure everyone realizes that is a paradox, right?

As for F911, I believed the stuff he was saying when I watched the movie, but why shouldnt I? I am not going to check every word he says as he is saying it. Afterwards, I realized a lot of the stuff was indeed fabricated, but when I finished watching that film I was thinking "Wow.. if a quarter of that movie is true, than this clearly is the worst president/administration ever". I have yet to see any source give a rebuttal for three quarters of the film, 55 points, even 100 points is far less than those discussed in the film, it was 3 hours long, wasn't it? However, if he just made a normal length movie, only discussing the non-fabricated truths, the critics would have actually gotten in to rebutalling the parts in the film that were actually true, maybe it was strategic of him to purposely put in a ton of fabrications, to defend the truth. I think this is obviously a horrible method, but who knows what he was thinking, that film really only needed to be half an hour to prove its point.

Hmm, oh yeah, when you attack someone for not backing themselves up, make sure you are hypocrite-proof. I am a Trotskyist, most of you are probably unconscious of all the blind stabs taken at the radical-left, and for that matter radical-right. It just seems like it is common sense to view and sort of radical reasoning as completely wrong, and it doesn't need backing up.

I hope people think this post was intelligent enough.

Uh, no. You cannot defend "truth" with fabrications. Fabrications are lies, and if anything, such fabrications make suspect any "truth" he might have needed to defend. Journalistic integrity demands that he report only what is true, if he intends people to believe any of it.

Let me put it to you like this: if Michael Moore were offering testimony in a court of law, not only would his testimony be thrown out, but he would be cited for contempt and perjury.

In other words, the introduction of fabrications basically destroys any credibility he might have had otherwise. This does not mean that everything he presented it false, but it is very irresponsible of him.

And considering that much of what he did present has been refuted as fabrication, it then places the burden of proof back onto Moore and other Bush detractors to defend what little of Moore's presentation, if any, is true.

_________________

I'm-a go a little further than Dids did.

If adding tons of fabrications was strategic, then Moore ranks right up there with Dubya in terms of being a strategic mastermind (lol, strategery...).
By putting them in, all he could hope to accomplish is to give up any chance of being taken seriously.

If he wanted to protect the truth, he should have only presented the truth. If people attacked it, so be it. Those people could be easily rebutted with facts.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I wasn't saying that was an honest method, but, now that I think of it, Moore would have to be awful stupid if he thought that would be an effective method. I think this film was released right when bush's approval rating was starting to go to it's lowest, so I think it was obvious to see that any movie critisizing bush would be a box-office hit. I'm not saying that Micheal Moore is just another moviemaker only in it for the money, I am saying that he knew it was going to be successfull pretty much no matter what, so he got caried away with himself. I think he couldv'e made a much more solid movie if he focused on just one bad thing in the administration and elaborating on how bad that was, for example, the justification on the war in Iraq, instead of proving a ton of points and taking a bunch of shortcuts.