World Politics

[buckwheat]

What makes the article i posted nonesence?

You say deciets 42 and 43 are idiotic. Franly i dont care if they are. Theres still deceits 1- 42? Or 44- 59. . The author of the article might be a liar too but that isnt really important because this is about Moore being a liar.

Hence you can dismiss as many as you want, if even one of those deciets is true id say he has disgraced himself.

And thank you for indulging me. Now i can look at a few deceits myself and post them here. Lets see if you can give a responce, or if you will just dismiss them as nonesence as well.

For example deceit 1.



This on its own is enough to disgrace the film. Look at the bit moore said again. " .All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'" He says that 1 of Bushes plans was to rigg the election by getting Fox news to call it for him This lie is immediately exposed with the fact that Fox News was not the first network to call the election for Bush. Hence the whole conspiracy falls on its head.



Conclusion - total lie.

Besides the idea is bizzare in the first place. Why would rival networks who spend their own money on independent polling and who have results in front of them call an election based on what Fox news said ???????

Deciet 3

Moore calls "Florida Secretary of State " Katherine Harris, the "vote count lady". You might notice something is up when he reduces an official position to "vote count lady" Quite a cheap jab actually.

Because in reality the "Florida Secretary of State" has absolutely no power in the counting of votes.
Another total lie. You going to dismiss that as nonesence?


These are just deceits 1 and 3.

You say anyone with an ounce of logic would agree with you. Id say anyone with an ounce of logic, will, when looking at what Moore says and does, and then presented with the fact, see that Moores film contains none stop lies and fabrications.

If you still think Moore is this great defender of the truth, i will be more than happy to go over lies 4 and 5 with you. If you want we can move away from election 2000 to other issues.

Or we can move to his other "films". Bowling for colombine was just as bad, (and i am someone very opposed to the NRA).

ah and what did you mean by please stop? Was it supposed to say "Please stop any attempt at discourse" ? Umm no thanks. Ball in your court. Do you still think its nonesence to say Moore was lying?

Yes, Moore was much more truthful than the film you pointed out.


The bigger picture is that the SCOTUS is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the law.

Stare into the sun for a while on this one.

Is there any way imaginable, that if all the facts of the election were the same, but Gore was ahead in the voting, the majority of the SCOTUS would have intervened and stopped the recount?

If you say yes, they would have stopped the recount with Gore ahead in the voting, it conclusively shows your intellectual dishonesty.

Bye.

 

[redtreviso]

Hitch... are you more a Lance fanboy than a George SFB Bush fanboy?

 

[rhubroma]

Actually, the original comment you referred to was in relation to Hitchens having an "atheist agenda."(look it up) Hitchens has an atheist agenda. Maybe you don't know who he is or have incredibly poor reading skills? That or you are a ****ing moron completely devoid of logical understanding. I am not sure which anymore, but I am sure that you began at that point to respond with your own agenda that failed time and again to actually address the points I was raising. Fine, you think the points I was raising are childish and stupid, then respond to the actual points. You choose to respond to points with tangental ramblings that ignore the substantive point. You must have had really stupid professors if they allowed you to proceed in your writings in that manner. See, I haven't responded to your ramblings because I recognize bullsh!t when I see it, and you sir produce more bandwidth of bullsh!t than anyone I have ever encountered.
Really? That is your assessment of what you have written here? I guess, like the rest of us, you don't even read the drivel you post.
The list of errors in those writings started from the beginning. You still assert that people were not slaughtered for religious purposes until 380. To do that, you narrowly construe "religious war" to a fight between monotheistic religions killing to further the cause of their religion. That is convenient to your point, but its ****ing stupid in relation to actual historical record.
You didn't even understand the concept of "ad hominem" until I posted the definition for you. Hell, you can't even spell it.
The point here is that I made a comment in regards to another poster's writings, and you jumped IN ON OUR DISCUSSION. I didn't engage you. You engaged me. So, if you believe jumping in on the discussion of two other people, and then steering it to your topic means I need to start to respond to the points you make, you must believe I think more of your writings than I do. I don't really care about the topics you present because you are a blowhard douchebag who needs to look up the word "brevity" (and hopefully get the spelling right too) and take it on as a core value.
Yes, yes there have. Many before 380... Hell, even the archaeological record has evidence.
I didn't engage in your points because they didn't relate to the discussion I was having with someone else, to wit you barged in and decided to try to steer me to a discussion I wasn't having, and wasn't interested in putting much effort into because I don't find you to be all that interesting as an academic because you write to prove to yourself how smart you are. I just don't find you all that insightful. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Another non sequitur, imagine that...
Noted...though I have to tell you that I wasn't asking you about that, nor do I really care all that much.

To compare Hitchens with a couple of thousand years of the religious establishment manipulating society and contolling the minds of men based upon the most unreasonable of beliefs (such as the resurrection of bodies), is really a nice historical mystification. To talk about an "atheist agenda" by men like Hitchens, when for countless generations books like the Bible and the Koran have been foisted upon young childern without any real intellectual faculty to make informed choices. Really? Or in light of religion's claims to have a legitimate say in temporal (and thus political) affairs and the violence and murderous acts which have historically been faught in the name of God and religion, and then, to support your argument, by talking about the teachings of one contemporary atheist? That's sheer stupidity. You know it well too. An "atheist's agenda" against the religous? Are people's religious beliefs so fragile these days that they could possibly be threatened by the positions of Hitchens? Hitchens has about as much sway over the masses as I do, so I see no harm in one, who is in any case exercising his democratic right to disseminate positions freely and without restrictions or censorship (you may not like them, though this is another story: however this is quite strange for someone of the legal profession to make attacks against the feedom of information, or to even be in the least bit upset over certain ideas and publications). You know when one is truly secure of one's beliefs, there is no need for paranoia. The Churches of this world in regards to holding sway over the masses, well, that's another story. Rest assured, your right to believe as you see fit is hardly under any threat. This is why your original statement was utterly nonsensical. And even if your faith were under threat, then please present us with an argument in its defense. You see, TFF, the fact that it isn't is demonstrated precisely because you don't have to, and good for you. The long struggle for atheists to be able to even state openly their position without literally risking their skins, by contrast, allows us to also see how ridiculous your paranoia was.

The other thing is that you don't control these debates. That why they call this a Forum. Your position required a response by me that led to the historical analysis; and which was quite simply beyond your intellectual capacity, as was prooven by your inability to furnish even the most basic evidence to counter my charges. That's because you have none. They don't exist. It is a fact that in the public sphere, historically speaking, the great monotheistic religious institutions I have mentioned have hanging over themselves among the worst crimes of humanity.

Your only defense, as I have said, was to try to deflect attention away from these facts, and history, by a rather non-bearing, off topic hypothetical position. Well that's not how a sound critical analysis is based. At the same time from your position - and this would appear to be the entirety of your argument - it would seem that the affirmation of one thing (that man would commit atrocities even in the absence of religion), could somehow automatically eliminate the confirmed reality of something else (namely that religion per se has publicly been at the center stage of numerous acts of violence, wars and injustice). Now you can debate my premise that there was a great turning point for religion at large after 380, but you cannot debate the vicissitudes of history, that is what has actually taken place. Everything else is BS.

Your mode of argumentation thus only demonstrates the weakness of your position. For we never can critique the past, and its consquenses for the present, based on a "what if" analysis of history, as your entire position has been founded on from the start. Of course if you didn't want to carry on with our debate by not wanting to address the history I brought into it, then why didn't you just decline to respond? Disengage? You didn't because you have a bone to pick, not me. You must win your case, even when you have no case, at all costs. Your very existence depends upon it, while all along it has been evident to us that as a lawyer you suffer from an acute form of pre-tial anxiety, a mental pathology from which you will probably never recover your entire life, TFF.

As for the rest, I don't care about the business of your personal attacks against me. They have been infantile from the start and only to direct attention away from the content of what I said. You're all talk, TFF, with no substance. And while you may have a clever side in trying to slice apart your opponent's viscerals with ideas and words, where we can also see a real mean and gratuitously nasty spirit to your character (which, by the way, is really rather unbecoming of one who calls themselves a Christian ), you are not smart. And this is the only reason why I have persisted in this debate to teach a blathering nasty and puerile hypocrite a little lesson. I only care about the truth. And once again the truth is always revolutionary. And the truth is that when religion and politics have mixed as they have now for the past 16 centuries or so, the result historically has been a public disaster.

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch... are you more a Lance fanboy than a George SFB Bush fanboy?

If there is a mod on this thread could they please look at this post.

This is the 4th time "redtreviso" has called me a "George Bush fanboy" and the 2nd time he has called me a "Lance fanboy". I have asked him to stop but as any bully, he just repeats the words.

I have not given any praise to George Bush on this thread and even if i had that would not make me a fanboy.

Moreover I am definately not a "Lance fanboy". If i was, i feel the clinic regulars would have called me out as such by now. The few occasions that i post on the issue it is on the side of the so called "haters".

This is the first time i am complaining about a post but this trolling is totaly mindless and repetative.

I feel the General Politics thread was started and has been so succesful because the discussions have, with the exception of "redtrevisio" contained more substance and and weight than simple "your a fanboy" comments.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes, Moore was much more truthful than the film you pointed out.


The bigger picture is that the SCOTUS is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the law.

Stare into the sun for a while on this one.

Is there any way imaginable, that if all the facts of the election were the same, but Gore was ahead in the voting, the majority of the SCOTUS would have intervened and stopped the recount?

If you say yes, they would have stopped the recount with Gore ahead in the voting, it conclusively shows your intellectual dishonesty.

Bye.

I dont care about Scotus. I dont care about Bush vs Gore. This has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE the point that Moore is a proven liar based on just the first 2 minutes of his flim.

Even if i thought moore had 100% the right views on every issue, that WOULD NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE justify what he did.

Lets go over deceits 1 and 3 again.

1 Moore says Fox news called the elections and everyone else followed

WRONG. Fox was one of the last networks to retract the Gore call. 4 hours after the first.

2 he calls Florida secretary of state the "vote count lady"

WRONG - Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners.

your responce

Yes, Moore was much more truthful than the film you pointed out.

what film

Frankly it seems clear to me that Moore could have taken this picture of Godzilla holding a plane, used his camera tricks to replace Godzilas face with that of **** Cheyney, and said

"look, **** cheyney guided the planes into the world trade centre"

And you would have believed every single word.

 

[Anonymous]

To compare Hitchens with a couple of thousand years of the religious establishment manipulating society and contolling the minds of men based upon the most unreasonable of beliefs (such as the resurrection of bodies), is really a nice historical mystification. To talk about an "atheist agenda" by men like Hitchens, when for countless generations books like the Bible and the Koran have been foisted upon young childern without any real intellectual faculty to make informed choices. Really? Or in light of religion's claims to have a legitimate say in temporal (and thus political) affairs and the violence and murderous acts which have historically been faught in the name of God and religion, and then, to support your argument, by talking about the teachings of one contemporary atheist? That's sheer stupidity. You know it well too. An "atheist's agenda" against the religous? Are people's religious beliefs so fragile these days that they could possibly be threatened by the positions of Hitchens? Hitchens has about as much sway over the masses as I do, so I see no harm in one, who is in any case exercising his democratic right to disseminate positions freely and without restrictions or censorship (you may not like them, though this is another story: however this is quite strange for someone of the legal profession to make attacks against the feedom of information, or to even be in the least bit upset over certain ideas and publications). You know when one is truly secure of one's beliefs, there is no need for paranoia. The Churches of this world in regards to holding sway over the masses, well, that's another story. Rest assured, your right to believe as you see fit is hardly under any threat. This is why your original statement was utterly nonsensical. And even if your faith were under threat, then please present us with an argument in its defense. You see, TFF, the fact that it isn't is demonstrated precisely because you don't have to, and good for you. The long struggle for atheists to be able to even state openly their position without literally risking their skins, by contrast, allows us to also see how ridiculous your paranoia was.

The other thing is that you don't control these debates. That why they call this a Forum. Your position required a response by me that led to the historical analysis; and which was quite simply beyond your intellectual capacity, as was prooven by your inability to furnish even the most basic evidence to counter my charges. That's because you have none. They don't exist. It is a fact that in the public sphere, historically speaking, the great monotheistic religious institutions I have mentioned have hanging over themselves among the worst crimes of humanity.

Your only defense, as I have said, was to try to deflect attention away from these facts, and history, by a rather non-bearing, off topic hypothetical position. Well that's not how a sound critical analysis is based. At the same time from your position - and this would appear to be the entirety of your argument - it would seem that the affirmation of one thing (that man would commit atrocities even in the absence of religion), could somehow automatically eliminate the confirmed reality of something else (namely that religion per se has publicly been at the center stage of numerous acts of violence, wars and injustice). Now you can debate my premise that there was a great turning point for religion at large after 380, but you cannot debate the vicissitudes of history, that is what has actually taken place. Everything else is BS.

Your mode of argumentation thus only demonstrates the weakness of your position. For we never can critique the past, and its consquenses for the present, based on a "what if" analysis of history, as your entire position has been founded on from the start. Of course if you didn't want to carry on with our debate by not wanting to address the history I brought into it, then why didn't you just decline to respond? Disengage? You didn't because you have a bone to pick, not me. You must win your case, even when you have no case, at all costs. Your very existence depends upon it, while all along it has been evident to us that as a lawyer you suffer from an acute form of pre-tial anxiety, a mental pathology from which you will probably never recover your entire life, TFF.

As for the rest, I don't care about the business of your personal attacks against me. They have been infantile from the start and only to direct attention away from the content of what I said. You're all talk, TFF, with no substance. And while you may have a clever side in trying to slice apart your opponent's viscerals with ideas and words, where we can also see a real mean and gratuitously nasty spirit to your character (which, by the way, is really rather unbecoming of one who calls themselves a Christian ), you are not smart. And this is the only reason why I have persisted in this debate to teach a blathering nasty and puerile hypocrite a little lesson. I only care about the truth. And once again the truth is always revolutionary. And the truth is that when religion and politics have mixed as they have now for the past 16 centuries or so, the result historically has been a public disaster.

You write a lot of words. Your first premise, that I compared Hitchens to "a couple of thousand years of the religious establishment manipulating society" is erroneous. You created that narrative. I am not required to debate you on a topic I didn't raise because the basis of your premise does not relate to the basis of my argument. You seem to believe that non sequitur argument is legitimate. Please never enter the field of law, because staying on point is of the utmost importance. You wander off into la la land because you have an agenda. You nor your points are worth any more effort on my part because, while you are impressed with yourself, I am not on that team. Sorry you couldn't cut it in the real world professor. Study hard!

 

[buckwheat]

I dont care about Scotus. I dont care about Bush vs Gore. This has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE the point that Moore is a proven liar based on just the first 2 minutes of his flim.

Even if i thought moore had 100% the right views on every issue, that WOULD NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE justify what he did.

Lets go over deceits 1 and 3 again.

1 Moore says Fox news called the elections and everyone else followed

WRONG. Fox was one of the last networks to retract the Gore call. 4 hours after the first.

2 he calls Florida secretary of state the "vote count lady"

WRONG - Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners.

your responce


what film

Frankly it seems clear to me that Moore could have taken this picture of Godzilla holding a plane, used his camera tricks to replace Godzilas face with that of **** Cheyney, and said

"look, **** cheyney guided the planes into the world trade centre"

And you would have believed every single word.

The film mentioned in the links.

These points you use to say Moore is a liar are quibbles.

History is much harder on the Bush regime than Moore's film interpretation is.

Check out the "vote count lady's" actual role in the festivities,(stealing the election) and you should be thankful that Moore used this shorthand to describe her criminality.

You won't ever answer my "irrelevant" question regarding the SCOTUS judicial coup, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T without undermining your silliness which undermines itself actually. Later.

 

[The Hitch]

You won't ever answer my "irrelevant" question regarding the SCOTUS judicial coup, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T without undermining your silliness which undermines itself actually. Later.

I didnt answer any questions about Scotus or any of that other stuff because i never said anything about it.


Your the one who came in and started talking about it. I didnt say a single thing about it.

I dont care about it. Its not something ive ever looked at. I was not following American Politics in 2000, and i have no intention to start reading papers about a court case that happened 10 years ago.


Taking into account that i have NO opinion on that issue, please clarify what you mean by

"You cant answer my question without undermining your silliness which undermines itself actually.

 

[The Hitch]

So" Buckwheat", considering you have just

1 started talking about Scotus and Bush vs Gore 2000
2 Been the only who has said anything about this
3 In the absence of any responce, projected a set of beliefs on me.
4 Told me that my opinion on the subject is wrong (though i havent said a thing about the subject)
5 Told me that I am unable to answer questions on this issue "without showing my sillyness".

You have in other words been talking to yourself about an issue the whole time, yet in frustration, created in your imagination a second character, projected that character onto me so that you can vent your fury.

Who is the silly one?

 

[buckwheat]

So" Buckwheat", considering you have just

1 started talking about Scotus and Bush vs Gore 2000
2 Been the only who has said anything about this
3 In the absence of any responce, projected a set of beliefs on me.
4 Told me that my opinion on the subject is wrong (though i havent said a thing about the subject)
5 Told me that I am unable to answer questions on this issue "without showing my sillyness".

You have in other words been talking to yourself about an issue the whole time, yet in frustration, created in your imagination a second character, projected that character onto me so that you can vent your fury.

Who is the silly one?

Whatever.

A straight news report of actual events would have been far more damaging than Michael Moore's movie which has some extremely minor factual errors.

You seem all too willing to use Republican nonsense ie. "Democrat Party" rather than Democratic Party, and then are eager to attack Moore's movie as lies when an entirely fact based report would be far more damaging to Bush or the targets of any Moore movie has been.

Keep serving up the red herring.

You don't have any meaningful points.

edit

I just read a little of your nonsense about the Ohio vote in 2004 and the election fraud there was worse than the judicial coup in 2000. Please, if you have no interest in American politics, other than your faulty observations, withhold comment.....

Later.

BTW, I won't respond to you in the future because it's clear you've created a narrative without knowing the facts....


Enjoy London. You're fortunate to be away from the Lunacy which is now the U.S.A....

 

[The Hitch]

.
an entirely fact based report would be far more damaging to Bush or the targets of any Moore movie has been.

You really do not get it do you.

I am not defending Bush. I do not care how damaging the film was. Maybe he did steal the election. I am making the point is that Moore is a liar. Even if he has the "right political beliefs" that doesnt stop him from being a liar.

Anyone with the arguments so 100% on their side as you claim Moore has, should be able to make those arguments in a fair and reasonable way and let the strenght of the argument do the talking.

Moore clearly does not do this. He lies multiple times in the first seconds of this movie, as he does in every minute of every movie he has made.

 

[The Hitch]

This is essentially what you have said:

A liar is only a liar when you dont agree with them politically. If you do agree with someone politically iti s not lying, because saying the truth would have been worse.

Ps, if saying the truth would have been worse on his opponents, why did he lie?

 

[buckwheat]

Good lord

You really do not get it do you.

I am not defending Bush. I do not care how damaging the film was. Maybe he did steal the election. I am making the point is that Moore is a liar. Even if he has the "right political beliefs" that doesnt stop him from being a liar.

Anyone with the arguments so 100% on their side as you claim Moore has, should be able to make those arguments in a fair and reasonable way and let the strenght of the argument do the talking.

Moore clearly does not do this. He lies multiple times in the first seconds of this movie, as he does in every minute of every movie he has made.

Jeez, you're sensitive..

I'm barely paying attention to you but IIRC, one of your objections (lies you cited) was that Moore called Katherine Harris the vote count lady.

It was far worse than that.

She was the Hein Verbruggen/Pat McQuaid of the vote count. She didn't count votes, she certified the results.

The 100% totally on point truth of what happened was far worse than Moore portrayed...

Moore is an easy target but what he said was by and large correct and not the outright lies employed by the right.

You are employing the "false equivalency" argument from your perch overseas.....

I'm sure I can't stop you from plowing ahead with your false argument tho....

I suppose you've never heard of propaganda and never seen its success. This is what's happened in American politics.

The people reporting the news are for the most part millionaires and NOT impartial.

 

[buckwheat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris#2000_US_presidential_election

2000 US presidential election
Main article: United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
As Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Harris was a central figure in the 2000 US presidential election in Florida. Harris certified that the Republican candidate, then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, had defeated the Democratic candidate, then-Vice President Al Gore, in the popular vote of Florida and thus certified the Republican slate of electors. The margin separating Bush from Gore was 537 votes. Harris ordered a halt after several recounts. Her ruling was upheld in the state circuit court, but was subsequently overturned on appeal by the Florida Supreme Court. That decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. In a per curiam decision, by a 7–2 vote, the Court in Bush v. Gore held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three of the concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The decision allowed Harris' previous certification of Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. elector abstaining).

Harris later wrote Center of the Storm, her own memoir of the 2000 election controversy.

Katherine Harris, the vote count lady, what a horrible lie!

 

[The Hitch]

Jeez, you're sensitive..

I'm barely paying attention to you but IIRC, one of your objections (lies you cited) was that Moore called Katherine Harris the vote count lady.

It was far worse than that.

She was the Hein Verbruggen/Pat McQuaid of the vote count. She didn't count votes, she certified the results.

The 100% totally on point truth of what happened was far worse than Moore portrayed...

Moore is an easy target but what he said was by and large correct and not the outright lies employed by the right.

You are employing the "false equivalency" argument from your perch overseas.....

I'm sure I can't stop you from plowing ahead with your false argument tho....

I suppose you've never heard of propaganda and never seen its success. This is what's happened in American politics.

The people reporting the news are for the most part millionaires and NOT impartial.

What false arguments. You keep imlying that i speak for the "right"


newsflash THE WORLD IS NOT split so nicely into left ( you and everyone you like) and right (everyone you dont like). Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a spokesman for the "right".

I have been as critical of the American right as anyone here. But fact is Moore is a liar and any fair minded viewer of any of his so called "films" saw that. You have yet to respond to deceit 1, as has Moore or anyone. Deceit 1 alone proves Moore is a liar whose films are not to be taken seriously.

 

[buckwheat]

I dont care about Scotus. I dont care about Bush vs Gore. This has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE the point that Moore is a proven liar based on just the first 2 minutes of his flim.

Even if i thought moore had 100% the right views on every issue, that WOULD NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE justify what he did.

Lets go over deceits 1 and 3 again.

1 Moore says Fox news called the elections and everyone else followed

WRONG. Fox was one of the last networks to retract the Gore call. 4 hours after the first.

2 he calls Florida secretary of state the "vote count lady"
WRONG - Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners.

your responce


what film

Frankly it seems clear to me that Moore could have taken this picture of Godzilla holding a plane, used his camera tricks to replace Godzilas face with that of **** Cheyney, and said

"look, **** cheyney guided the planes into the world trade centre"

And you would have believed every single word.

Oooh what a deceit.

Clue, it doesn't matter one bit....

Moore would have been more accurate calling her a criminal.

 

[buckwheat]

What false arguments. You keep imlying that i speak for the "right"


newsflash THE WORLD IS NOT split so nicely into left ( you and everyone you like) and right (everyone you dont like). Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a spokesman for the "right".

I have been as critical of the American right as anyone here. But fact is Moore is a liar and any fair minded viewer of any of his so called "films" saw that. You have yet to respond to deceit 1, as has Moore or anyone. Deceit 1 alone proves Moore is a liar whose films are not to be taken seriously.

Someone who says "Democrat" Party is critical of the right?

That's just currently become accepted by right wing nuts.

Why don't you get off Moore and focus on what happened?

I don't trust this deceit format and the first concerns FOX News.

Who cares except you? Very few serious people believe it's a News organization anyway.

This whole 1st deceit bs has very little to do with what really happened anyway. I have no clue why Moore made this film this way, but in the final analysis, what actually happened does in fact jibe with the overall thrust of the movie. The fact that Moore left himself open to criticism in no way changes the truth of his overall point.

You have very little of a point other than to lose the forest for a couple of blades of grass.

 

[rhubroma]

You write a lot of words. Your first premise, that I compared Hitchens to "a couple of thousand years of the religious establishment manipulating society" is erroneous. You created that narrative. I am not required to debate you on a topic I didn't raise because the basis of your premise does not relate to the basis of my argument. You seem to believe that non sequitur argument is legitimate. Please never enter the field of law, because staying on point is of the utmost importance. You wander off into la la land because you have an agenda. You nor your points are worth any more effort on my part because, while you are impressed with yourself, I am not on that team. Sorry you couldn't cut it in the real world professor. Study hard!

This is what we call mental poop in the form of verbal excrement.

Once again when, if, you have something to say, a point to make, please get back. I have lots of them, which is what we call having a humanistic background. That you're not interested in engaging anything which doesn't fit into your neat little narrative, however, is another thing.

I have never aspired to the legal profession. You have reinforced my imunitary defenses against the field.

You know nobody's on trial here, thus we aren't constrained to follow the logic of a legal proceeding and all the legal protocals, as if in court, which are always so inimical to natural thought anyway in terms of what is admissable and what is not. We are at liberty here to actually engage the issues as we choose, without restrictions, which is the point. I'd recommend reading Manzoni's The Betrothed. It's a real bore, though usefull in seeing in light of irony historically what a manipulative and self-serving breed lawyers have been. The great alchemists of logic and confounders of reality. Its not surprising that in Manzoni's XIX century work, the other anti-heros of society are the priests.

Lawyers and priests oh my! What a combination and so you're in good company.

The real world? For heaven's sake! How dare you feel so bad for me in this regard! This weekend I was in Umbria tasting the best fresh pressed olive oil that I have ever enjoyed in my life with my beautiful donna. I'm quite happy with my world thanks.

 

[The Hitch]

Someone who says "Democrat" Party is critical of the right?

That's just currently become accepted by right wing nuts.

Why don't you get off Moore and focus on what happened?

I don't trust this deceit format and the first concerns FOX News.

Who cares except you? Very few serious people believe it's a News organization anyway.

This whole 1st deceit bs has very little to do with what really happened anyway. I have no clue why Moore made this film this way, but in the final analysis, what actually happened does in fact jibe with the overall thrust of the movie. The fact that Moore left himself open to criticism in no way changes the truth of his overall point.

You have very little of a point other than to lose the forest for a couple of blades of grass.

So because i call the democrats the "democrat" party in a 2000 word post littereed with spelling mistakes that makes me right wing.

Thats the 3rd time youve tried to say that and its clearly clutching at straws.

Really desperately clutching at straws.


I dont care if Fox News was responsible for the plague the holocoust and the lisbon earthquake, a lie by any other name is still a lie. He lied about them, delibrately, created a conspiracy involving them calling the election early and he got CAUGHT. And that was only the first minute of the film. The rest of the film is littered with lie afer lie after lie.

Not to mention the bits where he splices footage from one interview and another and creates the illusion that it was the same sentence. Thats also very cheap.

If he so 100% corrrect and great, why did he lie and why did he result to such pathetic camera trickery????

 

[Anonymous]

This is what we call mental poop in the form of verbal excrement.

Once again when, if, you have something to say, a point to make, please get back. I have lots of them, which is what we call having a humanistic background. That you're not interested in engaging anything which doesn't fit into your neat little narrative, however, is another thing.

I have never aspired to the legal profession. You have reinforced my imunitary defenses against the field.

You know nobody's on trial here, thus we aren't constrained to follow the logic of a legal proceeding and all the legal protocals, as if in court, which are always so inimical to natural thought anyway in terms of what is admissable and what is not. We are at liberty here to actually engage the issues as we choose, without restrictions, which is the point. I'd recommend reading Manzoni's The Betrothed. It's a real bore, though usefull in seeing in light of irony historically what a manipulative and self-serving breed lawyers have been. The great alchemists of logic and confounders of reality. Its not surprising that in Manzoni's XIX century work, the other anti-heros of society are the priests.

Lawyers and priests oh my! What a combination and so you're in good company.

The real world? For heaven's sake! How dare you feel so bad for me in this regard! This weekend I was in Umbria tasting the best fresh pressed olive oil that I have ever enjoyed in my life with my beautiful donna. I'm quite happy with my world thanks.

This forum is also not a classroom where you get to determine the subject of discourse. We have a couple of douchebag academics in our class. They are constantly wondering off the topic in these tangental monologues that the professor usually shuts down by telling them to get back on point. I assure you, not only would you get eaten alive in law school, but I would certainly enjoy dismantling someone like you on the witness stand. It would be rather easy.

 

[rhubroma]

This forum is also not a classroom where you get to determine the subject of discourse. We have a couple of douchebag academics in our class. They are constantly wondering off the topic in these tangental monologues that the professor usually shuts down by telling them to get back on point. I assure you, not only would you get eaten alive in law school, but I would certainly enjoy dismantling someone like you on the witness stand. It would be rather easy.

Lawyers and priests, what excellent company! Just f-ing brilliant that!

PS: Forum=Democracy. Get it?

And if you didn't want to comment upon what I said about what you said, and so enter into a debate from which you were doomed from the outset, then you should have exercised your democratic right to desist and disengage. Too bad you need a court for your arguments to have any descent measure though. In the real world (other than me not living in the real world), unprotected by the legal institution and its logic, you will simply be eaten alive by someone of culture who is wiser than you (and I'm not referring to myself at all honestly). That's because you suffer from an acute form of intellectual hubris. And the gods always punish excessive pride.

 

[redtreviso]

Response to the Rand Paul curb stomper

"""On a personal note if you had kicked me you would have been faced with a far different reaction than the submissive and refrained demeanor of Ms. Valle. I would have done all I could do to beat your **s into the ground with everything I had in me. Guarantee it. I'm afraid I stand with Ms. Valle and wish I had been there to defend her - which is what I would have done and am doing now.

You don't put your hands on women - EVER!

May I suggest the following
1. Stop defending your behavior there isn't any defense
2. Apologize to Ms. Valle as well as all those countless thousands who have witnessed your video
3. Seek counseling and learn to discern between inappropriate and appropriate behavior in expressing your views
4. Volunteer to serve in a women's abuse shelter, rape crisis center or home for abused children. Then and only then will you understand why it is our society is so repulsed by your behavior and what it leads to.
5. Next time you give money to a cause, contribute to one of the above organizations that benefits those who are truly victimized and truly in danger of having their lives harmed or jeopardized by someone "crazy".
6. Reevaluate who it is you support for office - may I suggest you support someone such as myself who isn't willing to tell you what it is you want to hear to get your vote.""

http://liberalinkentucky.blogspot.com/2010/11/tim-profitt-lobbies-for-support-from.html

 

[buckwheat]

Immaterial lies.

So because i call the democrats the "democrat" party in a 2000 word post littereed with spelling mistakes that makes me right wing.:

Thats the 3rd time youve tried to say that and its clearly clutching at straws.

Really desperately clutching at straws.


I dont care if Fox News was responsible for the plague the holocoust and the lisbon earthquake, a lie by any other name is still a lie. He lied about them, delibrately, created a conspiracy involving them calling the election early and he got CAUGHT. And that was only the first minute of the film. The rest of the film is littered with lie afer lie after lie.

Not to mention the bits where he splices footage from one interview and another and creates the illusion that it was the same sentence. Thats also very cheap.

If he so 100% corrrect and great, why did he lie and why did he result to such pathetic camera trickery????

You probably think Clinton lying about oral sex with Lewinsky is important too!

The "Democrat" party was a new lingo just introduced recently. Maybe you're not aware of that.

The "lies" in Moore's movie as well as the film techniques are irrelevant.


I didn't say the film was great. It could have been better and MORE damning.

The "lies" were either immaterial to Republican fraud, or irrelevant.

You're still hung up on Moore calling calling Katherine Harris vote lady?

It doesn't matter in the least.

I'm going to discount everything you said because last week you said you had a strawberry lollipop, when in fact it was Lemon.



Later liar.....

 

[The Hitch]

The "lies" in Moore's movie as well as the film techniques are irrelevant.


I didn't say the film was great. It could have been better and MORE damning.

The "lies" were either immaterial to Republican fraud, or irrelevant.

You're still hung up on Moore calling calling Katherine Harris vote lady?


I'm going to discount everything you said because last week you said you had a strawberry lollipop, when in fact it was Lemon.

You keep telling me that i think this, or am upset about that, regarding the 2000 election. I was just giving using Moores presentation of the election as proof that he is a pathetic con artist. I have absolutely no personal stake in the matter.

Just to prove this to you, i will move on to a totaly DIFFERENT moore "film"


For example, Bowling for Colombine. Here i agree that the best way to stop massacres like Columbine is to fight the widespread use of guns. Im about as anti Nra as can get.

It seems to me that on this Moore holds pretty much the same position. But does his "film" about gun politics, give reasonable arguments for this postion?

Of course not

He goes and uses every cheap little trick he can think of.

He for example shows Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, and claims it was given at a rally which took place in Denver, immediately after the Columbine massacre as a deliberate provocation.

The speech ACTUALLY took place in CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA, a year later, at the annual NRA convention.

So, it DIDNT take place in Denver Colorado, it DIDNT take place immediately after the Colombine massacre and it DIDNT take place as a provocation.

Thats not lemon vs strawberry, its 100% deliberate distortion of the facts. One could make the argument that Moore is breaking some sort of lies per words record with 3 big ones in that short sentence.

But as one moves on with michael moore films we begin to see that its not even close to his own personal best

 

[The Hitch]

Oh and and this is what Charlton Heston looks like in a michle moore movie while getting through ONE SENTENCE.

Notice how he starts the sentence with a blue tie and a black background, and finishes it with a red tie and redish background. The picture of the billboard takes up the middle of the sentence to stop people from realising that the sentence is clearly spliced together from different speeches.