Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 28912
PAGE 6 of 14
Quote:Quote:
Oh, and between a woman and her doctor.
And he sees it as murder, I don't know if I disagree with Bush on this one. Like I said, I am a libertarian, I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETES SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her. Action, reaction. She must be ready to accept the consequences of her actions. She can have as much freedom as she likes, but when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned.
Ok slightly off topic here but I was kind of discussing this on the OB with someone the other day:
I just thought it was an interesting point that 'she must accept the consequences of her actions'. There's no law making the man hang around after he's had sex so should there be a law making women? (by the way that wasn't a criticism of you only saying 'she' because I know the original question was posed as 'between a woman and her doctor' I just thought it raised a point).
I think in these days it's not necessarily realistic to see sex as purely the means to an end of having children. And contraception is only effective 99% of the time. I'm not saying that sex isn't a serious decision with serious consequences and that abortion should be seen as the easy way out but just because there are consequences doesn't mean that parents should have to live with them when there is an alternative. In my opinion there is no 'unborn child' initially. I don't think many people would call the fertilised egg a baby and there is a period of time when the embryo is just a collection of cells. This to me suggests that instead of all abortion being murder that there is in fact a blurry line somewhere between the embryo being a cell and the baby actually being a baby.
Anyway. Sorry to hijack the thread - just wanted to air my views.
Back to the Michael Moore thing...
Quote:
Polarization, (its the "us or them" mentality) will cause this great nation to fall apart, and no doubt Moore realizes this.
I agree with Michael Moore on a lot of issues. However having looked around the net a bit at some of these links I realised that worryingly I probably don't question what I'm told as much as I should. Your point about the 'us or them' mentality is very important. I think very often people will pick a side and then defend it to the death. I know this is something I do (not actually to the death seeing as I'm still sitting here writing this but you get my drift) and am trying not to do so much. I thought there was an interesting scene in the West Wing once which I always try to remember:
Quote:
.
Toby is surprised when he actually persuades a Congressman to change his mind:
"I met an unusual man. . . . He didn't walk in with a political agenda. He didn't walk in with his mind made up. He genuinely wanted to do what he thought was best. He didn't mind saying the words 'I don't know.'"
Anyway, sorry again to hijack and sorry also if this is incoherent; it's twenty past one in the morning here and I'm still a bit hyped up from three hours of chemistry exams this afternoon.
Heb
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM: JCobb-Oh wow, so you're a libertarian! You like minimal government and personal responsibility? OK, let's see... how has dubya decreased government inteference in YOUR life???
JCobb For the record I do not like Dubya. I did not vote for him. That said, I don't think a propoganda film based on lies and misrepresentation is the "way" to go. Personally I won't be voting for either Bush or Kerry, this coming up election. Will probably do a write in, like I did last election.
SignyM FYI I didn't vote for either Gore OR Bush, so at least we have something in common! But how do you consider this movie propaganda??? Isn't it just saying what a lot of ex-appointees and current/former staffers are saying??? Isn't it taken from real film and credible information???
-------------------
SignyM Well, he's made warrantless searches MUCH easier.
JCobb Talking about the Patriot Act? Do you really want to shoulder Bush for the blame for that? I mean, its not like the Democrats had NOTHING to do with it, right?
SignyM Well he proposed it and rammed it through. I AM disapointed in the Democrats for not having more spine, but Bush is the evildoer.
--------------------------
SignyM He's made it extremely difficult for you to find out what your government has done/ is doing. Ashcroft instructed staff to stonewall FOIA requests, Cheney claims to have information that he didn't give to the 9/11 Commission, records of past Presidents who approved release have been sealed. Transparency!
JCobb Welcome to Washington. Thats what happens there, bud. Forget the president in power, or his political leanings, this is what happens there. It was built on a swamp, and not a whole lot has changed.
SignyM No, what Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney have done is truly unprecedented. For example, the administration have NEVER before openly defied (by memo) the FOIA or sealed presidential records.
---------------------
SignyM Oh, and between a woman and her doctor.
JCobb And he sees it as murder, I don't know if I disagree with Bush on this one. Like I said, I am a libertarian, I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETES SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her. Action, reaction. She must be ready to accept the consequences of her actions. She can have as much freedom as she likes, but when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned.
SignyM As was pointed out in a previous posting- and where's the DAD'S PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY in all this? It is zipped up in his pants as he walks away???
And doesn't it strike you as just a bit... odd... that Bush gets all tweaked about something that may (or may not) be a human life but then throws real living human beings to the executioner or to war? As ar as I can tell, Bush doesn't have ANY problem with disposing of human lives- he just wants the decision in HIS hands. But since he doesn't have the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I won't grant him the authority.
------------------------------
SignyM He (and his brother and the Supremes) have invalidated voter registrations of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens.
JCobb The convicts, the dead 'folks, and perhaps one or two of those legally able to vote. If you think that Bush is the only one abusing or misusing that right you are sadly mistaken.
SignyM Your ignorance is showing. out of an approximately 700-person sample of the 60,000 registrations on the Florida "scrub list" only 5% (yes, FIVE PERCENT) could be validated as being ex-felons not allowed to vote. Even the contractor who generated that list warned Katherine Harris that her instructions created far too broad a list, and says that it was intended to have more names on it than actually bel
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@ Heb
Oh, makes perfect sense to me. And I agree with much of what you are saying.
As far as sex is concerned, I do agree. Many people view it as recreation, and I have no problem with that. However, they are always taking the chance, the one in one thousand, that the woman will end up getting pregnant, and I think that they should be willing to accept that.
As far as rape is concerned, I think thats a much more gray area. I wouldn't say one way or the other, but I would hope that a woman would have the bravery and courage to give birth, and if nothing else put the baby up for adoption to the thousands of couples that can not have children. Now, such courage and bravery is rare, not because women are cowards, but because, as I understand it from talking and listening to victims of rape, it can be one of the most horrible things I can ever imagine. It would just be so difficult, (and maybe courage and bravery aren't the right words to describe the women that decide not to get an abortion) to go through the entire pregnancy being reminded of the ordeal.
Anyways, good post, bud, I hope my raving "right wing" speak doesn't scare you off.
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you people not even CARE about the truth? (Being broad and sweeping here.) ... He (Moore) lies constantly ... this is just a travesty. Bah, I suppose you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink. ... you're heart must really lie with the terrorists
she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her ... when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned.
JCobb
You are so incensed over Moore's lies, so hate-filled toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I could substitute 'Bush' into many statements and they would be perfectly true. Why no outrage over Bush's lies, or those of anyone in his administration?
BTW, for someone who declaims about personal responsibility, you sure take an authoritarian approach to abortion. Are you a wannabe dictator over what people believe?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Below
Quote:
But how do you consider this movie propaganda??? Isn't it just saying what a lot of ex-appointees and current/former staffers are saying??? Isn't it taken from real film and credible information???
I can't say, I haven't seen it. I have read reviews from people I trust claiming it as such, and from Moore's past work I will easily assume it to be so. If George George Stephanopoulos can safely categorize it, IIRC, as propoganda, then I think I will consider it such until I decide to view it. But if you are wondering how 'something real' can be turned into propoganda, its not that hard. For example, if I was of the mind, I could take the September 11th attacks, make a movie showing them, take soundbytes and what have you, show pictures of Clinton on vacation, switch over to some terrorist training camps, show muslims with guns, cut to some people being beheaded by more muslims, cut to our troops victoriously taking Iraq with a terribly small number of casualties, show that those that compare it to Iraq just need to look at the number of casualties, (switch between the two numbers with a shot of the American flag in the background) go to a shot of Kennedy and Johnson talking about the Vietnam war and how it will be over soon, how well we are progressing, to a shot of the young men being blown to smithereens, the years ticking by with the number of troops only increasing, to a shot of Nixon removing troops and then the troops cheering, cut to a shot of the Iran hostages and Jimmy Carter fumbling his way through, etc...
Something can be completely accurately filmed, but not completely accurately shown. I can show excerpts of a film that can be misleading.
All completely factual, and most of it terribly misleading. Hell, I might pull a Moore and just grab excerpts of speeches and then play them to make the people sound as bad as possible.
Quote:
Well he proposed it and rammed it through. I AM disapointed in the Democrats for not having more spine, but Bush is the evildoer.
Erm, Bush is the evildoer for supporting the Patriot Act?
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/u/us/usa_patriot_a
ct.html
Firstly, I don't think the act makes anyone an 'evildoer' even if I strongly disagree with portions of it. Especially when it had nearly unanimous support at the time of passing. And it STILL holds strong support. Doesn't make it right, I will never equate the number of people supporting something with whether or not it is right, "May have been the losing side, still not convinced its the wrong one," never-the-less I don't totally disagree with the Patriot Act. Much of it deals with the funding and allocation of funding, and I do agree with that. One of the prime concerns I think the government should be concerned with is my physical safety.
And he rammed it through? I think it passed through with very little dissent from either side. If you want to blame Bush for it, you are fooling yourself.
Quote:
No, what Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney have done is truly unprecedented. For example, the administration have NEVER before openly defied (by memo) the FOIA or sealed presidential records.
And not to defend Bush on this one, I believe in freedom of information, but there are certain extenuating circumstances that I understand might impact national security. Maybe presidents haven't don't it by memo, but if you think its never happened before I do think you are fooling yourself.
Quote:
As was pointed out in a previous posting- and where's the DAD'S PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY in all this? It is zipped up in his pants as he walks away???
And doesn't it strike you as just a bit... odd... that Bush gets all tweaked about something that may (or may not) be a human life but then throws real living human beings to the executioner or to war? As ar as I can tell, Bush doesn't have ANY problem with disposing of human lives- he just wants the decision in HIS hands. But since he doesn't have the PERSONANOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not that you hold different standards, it's that you want to impose yours on others.
In Japan, abortion is OK, but birth control is not. Why? Well, if one is conceived only to be aborted, it must be b/c one earned some really bad karma in a previous life. But birth control stops the whole reincarnation cycle, which is a TRULY bad thing.
If my beliefs don't happen to coincide with yours (and it comes down to religion), why should the gummint be a tool for you to impose yours on me?
Current law derives from British common law, which said that until quickening (when the embryo makes itself known to third parties) pregnancy was a woman's private matter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not that you hold different standards, it's that you want to impose yours on others.
In Japan, abortion is OK, but birth control is not. Why? Well, if one is conceived only to be aborted, it must be b/c one earned some really bad karma in a previous life. But birth control stops the whole reincarnation cycle, which is a TRULY bad thing.
If my beliefs don't happen to coincide with yours (and it comes down to religion), why should the gummint be a tool for you to impose yours on me?
Current law derives from British common law, which said that until quickening (when the embryo makes itself known to third parties) pregnancy was a woman's private matter.
So...
Because I said..
"And he sees it as murder, I don't know if I disagree with Bush on this one. Like I said, I am a libertarian, I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETES SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her. Action, reaction. She must be ready to accept the consequences of her actions. She can have as much freedom as she likes, but when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned."
Means that I want to force my will on others? Because I have a contrary opinion?
Wow.
Explain that one to me, again?
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the government should pass laws regarding murder and theft? Isn't that them just passing their own morality down onto you? What if one doesn't find murder or theft to be wrong?
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Something can be completely accurately filmed, but not completely accurately shown. I can show excerpts of a film that can be misleading. All completely factual, and most of it terribly misleading. Hell, I might pull a Moore and just grab excerpts of speeches and then play them to make the people sound as bad as possible.
In other words, one can lie by fact selection as well as by fabrication. So, since the media's coverage of Bush didn't show ANYTHING negative (at least for the first three years) did they lie too?
Quote:
And not to defend Bush on this one, I believe in freedom of information, but there are certain extenuating circumstances that I understand might impact national security.
Oh yeah, like who formulated energy policy with Cheney.
Quote:
Maybe presidents haven't don't it by memo, but if you think its never happened before I do think you are fooling yourself.
The FOIA was passed in 1975 to attempt to reduce the abuses that happened before. Of course, Presidents have wiggled around it since then. But they have never been so overt as to memo it to all their staff.
Quote:
And I don't think Bush is callous in regards to human life.
Then you have never read a reporter's account of Bush mocking a prisoner's plea for clemency (reduce sentence to life in prison) or simply refusing to review ANY of the requests for clemency, even in the face of fabricated and perjured testimony.
http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/discuss/msgReader$553
Quote:
While a serious problem, no doubt, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it, nor do your numbers seem to pan out. Nor does it seem to be some massive conspiracy to me. I don't see 60,000 removed from the list, I see 19,398, I don't see that only 5% could be validated I see that 14,600 could be validated as felons, (at least by name, birthdate, and race and gender)
The we have a case of dueling statistics. In this list of 57,000, there were many who were convicted of crimes some time in the FUTURE. Katherine Harris' response to the problem? BLANK screwy conviction dates! 4900 blank conviction dates were counted. DBT was also instructed not to verify the rolls against financial records or address histories, or by phoning police. At least 8000 false identifications are estimated, and 2800 were erroneously removed because their states allowed ex-felons to vote. (This was approved by Jeb Bush). "The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it."
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&r
ow=1
Well, I've have to get to the rest later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fact: In the first little while the "baby" is just a pack of cells.
Is this a human life?
Strictly speaking I'd say no, but, at the same time I'd say that it has a high probability to *become* a human life. *When* it does become a human life is *highly* debatable.
So, then what do we call abortion?
Clearly removing the fetus from the womb is an abortion and the right or wrong of the matter is again *highly* debatable.
But, where is the line drawn?
Is the 72 hr pill an abortion, or, is that only reserved from the operation that removes a fetus and not a pack of cells?
Fact: May people consider abortion murder.
I don't know if I'd agree with this. First we must state when this pack of cells becomes a fetus then we can debate murder or not.
There is absolutely no way that anyone can say *when* a fetus is a person, period. It's all just opinion.
So, how can we be comfortable keeping abortion legal?
For you religious people out there, judging and punishment is Gods work not yours. This woman that has an abortion will have to live with that fact for the rest of her life (I don't think that'll be very easy for most) and then after that she'll (assuming God exists) will have to deal with it again at that moment.
So, all you bible people can rest assured that these people will get what's coming to them, right? Let's let God do the judging. Remember "judge not lest ye be judged". I think that's the right quote. Just let them burn
Basically, we can't really outlaw abortion. To do so is to tramp on the rights of the individual that think it's a right to do so. Since we live in a world of separation of church and state the views of the religious right don't really carry weight as there are those secular people that still want it.
Also, if you outlaw abortion then those operations *will* just go into the back alleys. And that's just the place you don't want them.
For the record, I'm personally against abortion. It may have to do with the fact that I was adopted, but, I also think that I shouldn't intrude on the rights of others. After all, they're the ones that'll have to live with themselves afterwards, eh.
I also know that this is a huge partisan issue and will never come to a resolution. Since there are always going to be people for and against, I believe that it never should be made illegal as that'll cause more problems than it'll solve (see above).
Anyway, I've brought up some more issues, so, if people really want to debate this further I'd suggest creating another thread for it (this is *way* to OT) and post the link to it here so people don't continue it here. That is all.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I've have to get to the rest later.
Quote:
In other words, one can lie by fact selection as well as by fabrication. So, since the media's coverage of Bush didn't show ANYTHING negative (at least for the first three years) did they lie too?
Just what media did you listen too? I heard plenty of negative things.
Maybe you just weren't listening?
Quote:
The FOIA was passed in 1975 to attempt to reduce the abuses that happened before. Of course, Presidents have wiggled around it since then. But they have never been so overt as to memo it to all their staff.
So because he was honest about his lying he's somehow worse?
Like I said, how does this change anything I have posted?
Quote:
Then you have never read a reporter's account of Bush mocking a prisoner's plea for clemency (reduce sentence to life in prison) or simply refusing to review ANY of the requests for clemency, even in the face of fabricated and perjured testimony.
...
I hardly think a convicted criminal being sentenced to death being "mocked" is equatable to human life. As soon as you kill another, or commit some other heinous crime, are convicted by a jury of your peers, probably isn't a person who practiced being humane. This doesn't rub me the wrong way at all. Now, that said, I don't agree with Bush's decision, nessecarily, but I don't trust the source for being an unbiased one.
I have very little tolerance for murderers, rapists, and the like. My compassion only goes so far, and that is probably my greatest flaw.
And yet that doesn't even BEGIN to compare with Troops in Iraq. I am sure even you can recognize that.
Quote:
The we have a case of dueling statistics. In this list of 57,000, there were many who were convicted of crimes some time in the FUTURE. Katherine Harris' response to the problem? BLANK screwy conviction dates! 4900 blank conviction dates were counted. DBT was also instructed not to verify the rolls against financial records or address histories, or by phoning police. At least 8000 false identifications are estimated, and 2800 were erroneously removed because their states allowed ex-felons to vote. (This was approved by Jeb Bush). "The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it."
I think I am going to stick with mine, thank you. Also, you seem to forget that this wasn't some directive, this was an option for the counties to decide on.
"With that in mind, officials in 20 counties rejected the list. Others felt pressure to use it because of Miami's dubious legacy."
They didn't have to use the list, obviously.
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME