Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Farenheit 9/11

Results 1 to 73 of 73
  1. #1
    Legendash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    584
    Location
    Crypto 6max 100NL

    Default Farenheit 9/11

    I saw this movie a couple of days ago and wondered what all my esteemed american colleagues thought of it

    I couldn't believe some of the stuff that goes on, doesn't it piss you guys off? Tony Blair nearly had to resign just for supporting the Iraqi war yet Bush is running for president again, how is that possible?

    I know this might be a sensitive subject so don't flame me, i'm just curious.
    "[This theory] is only useful for helping to calculate your luck odds. If you have a good read that you have a numerical advantage against your opponent, that your hand is "luckier"..."

    Copyright, Youngdro 2007.
  2. #2
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    The other side:

    http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml
    http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html

    For what it's worth, I support the war 100% and am glad other countries are a little nervous now that we're no longer just flinging around cruise missiles when someone screws with us. I'm glad our elected officials are dictating policy and not Canada, the EU, UN, Russia nor China.

    Once the Republican convention starts and the election cycle hits 5th gear, we'll see a lot more of a two sided debate on what was done after 9/11 and why.
  3. #3
    I have seen all of Michael Moore's films and I think he is the biggest documentarian ever.

    He takes very good subjects and over-dramatizes them. Though everything he says is technically true, he exagerates everything to boost emotions.

    I am reluctant to comment on the content of the movie because I am afraid of stirring up emotion.

    I will mention I saw it in Missouri. He mentioned a part about how before John Ashcroft became Attorney General, he ran for Senate in Missouri. His oponenent died before the election. Missouri chose the dead guy. When Michael said this, the whole theatre laughed.
    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway.
    Whatever it is...
    I'm against it.
  4. #4
    Legendash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    584
    Location
    Crypto 6max 100NL
    Yeah people were laughing a lot in the cinema i was in as well. People in the UK are definitely more sympathetic to Moore's viewpoint than people in the US,almost everything Moore has ever written or recorded has been released through the UK because no one in the US will touch him.

    I read Fnords links, they were quite interesting and honest though i'm sure that if Iraq had no oil the US would just leave the arab world to its own devices.
    "[This theory] is only useful for helping to calculate your luck odds. If you have a good read that you have a numerical advantage against your opponent, that your hand is "luckier"..."

    Copyright, Youngdro 2007.
  5. #5
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendash
    I read Fnords links, they were quite interesting and honest though i'm sure that if Iraq had no oil the US would just leave the arab world to its own devices.
    Your point?
  6. #6
    Legendash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    584
    Location
    Crypto 6max 100NL
    My point is that in the first article he writes

    "Iraq's oil wealth could be used to offset much of the cost of rebuilding after the war, as well as making the nation economically viable and prosperous and helping to finance diversification of its economy."

    implying that the main aim was to rebuild iraq and the oil was a handy means to pay for it all, whereas i believe that the main aim was to get the oil and then rebuild iraq because they have to be seen to be making the effort after removing saddam, the rebuilding of Iraq will cost a fraction of the oil wealth there and a few american companies will make a huge profit, no doubt many of whom will be linked to the Bush administration.
  7. #7
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendash
    implying that the main aim was to rebuild iraq and the oil was a handy means to pay for it all, whereas i believe that the main aim was to get the oil and then rebuild iraq because they have to be seen to be making the effort after removing saddam, the rebuilding of Iraq will cost a fraction of the oil wealth there and a few american companies will make a huge profit, no doubt many of whom will be linked to the Bush administration.
    If there wasn't oil there Iraq (Iran, etc.) wouldn't have posed as much of a threat in the first place. If you're suggesting we went to war solely as a buisness oportunity, it's just plain sick, wrong and the numbers don't make any sense.
  8. #8
    Fnord,

    all that follows is IMHO and not intended as flaming. Feel free to delete if you disagree, but I cannot sit by and let this pass unchallenged. The article you refer to for "the other side" of the argument begins as follows:

    "Reasons for the war:

    Collective failure of the nations and people in a large area which is predominately Arab and/or Islamic.

    Economically the only contribution they make is by selling natural resources which are available to them solely through luck.

    They make no significant contribution to international science or engineering.

    They make little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music. The most famous Muslim writer of fiction in the world is under a fatwa death sentence now and lives in exile in Europe.

    Their only diplomatic relevance is due to their oil.

    They are not respected by the world, or by themselves."

    ... and you are honestly and sincerely, with no hint of irony, referring to this to support your viewpoint and validate the war?!? This is the most partisan, foundationless, subjective dross I've ever read. It's not the opinions I disagree with, as everyone is entitled to their own, but using them as a basis for a (highly controversial) WAR?!? The above jingoistic diatribe can be encapsulated as "they suck way more than we do, let's give em hell!" - I mean, really, "they are not respected by the world or themselves"...?!?!?!

    America's image in the world today DOES give cause for worry, but not in the way you think. Minor juntas are not quaking in their boots at what might happen if they rock the boat, and terrorists are most assuredly not rethinking their worldview. However, socially and politically aware individuals in developed countries are mortified that the US has unilaterally appointed itself the policeman of the world. Residents of the UK are disgusted at Blair for playing lapdog to Bush's junta ("our elected officials"?!?!? This is a joke, right? Why is it that everyone in America (in particular the mainstream media) has chosen to forget that the current "leader of the free world" WAS NOT democratically elected as such? Did I miss a meeting?!?).

    I'm also confused as to your "... when someone screws with us" line. When and how did Iraq "screw with you"? 9/11 had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Iraq, in spite of the continuing efforts by the Republicans et al to persuade us otherwise, even in the face of all that pesky lack of evidence.

    The 9/11 report, recently published and endorsed by a republican chair, is thoroughly and uncompromisingly damning of the whole debacle, and there are still educated individuals who are thinking, "yup, we certainly gave those Iraqis their just desserts, and oil was just a chance factor"?

    I'm no wacko conspiracy nut and I particularly dislike Michael Moore's approach to the political arena, but I have at least read all the sides of the argument and chosen not to trust the two governments who went to war without endorsement and based on a series of proven falsehoods. if Blair and Bush had said from the get-go, "Saddam's in the way and the toe-hold in that area would be useful...", I'd at least respect their candor, but as it is, all we've been fed is lie after lie after lie. At least in the UK, the predominant news channel with the largest audience share is not afraid to challenge the establishment, whereas the US's "Fox News" is essentially an adjunct of the Republican party - yet advertises itself as "fair and unbiased"!!! Why would a true democracy require a near monopoly on media-saturated propoganda, Fnord?!? America is feared by the rest of the world at the moment, in the same way that kids fear the lunatic six-foot-four playground bully who randomly beats them up every day and has nobody else to keep him in check.

    As for the "numbers not making any sense" vis-a-vis the war in Iraq as a business opportunity, check out how much Cheney's former company Haliburton makes off the rebuild effort - over $1 billion - which was agreed through PRIVATE tendership BEFORE the war (which, as has been irrefutably proven through discovered documentation, was in the planning WAY before 9/11, and largely about securing oil rather than removing Saddam, limiting terrorism, capturing WMDs, or any other of the repeatedly debunked reasons the US and UK governments have offered)

    Sorry for the rant, but it honestly blows my mind that are still people who think that Bush was doing a stand-up job in Iraq. If he's that worried about the threat of terrorism, why does he not stop using genocide as his chief political tool in South America? In the last fifty years, if one applies an OBJECTIVE DEFINITION (as opposed to the "when they do it, it's terrorism" definition applied by the Whitehouse), the US government has been responsible for more acts of terrorism than every other organisation in the world COMBINED.

    I've not seen Farenheit 9/11 yet, I'm not especially interested because (as mentioned above) I'm not a big fan of Moore's, but I was incensed to see this being offered as the "alternative" viewpoint. I've never flamed or posted off-topic before, so apologies if this is how it comes across as this isn't my intention.
    7ape

    “I'm only here for the nuts...”
  9. #9
    michael1123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,328
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    Hell of a post, 7ape, particulary the first part, which I agree with entirely. I'm really surprised that a news source would print something so culturally biased (bordering on racist) like that, and think they're actually providing sound reasoning.
  10. #10
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    The above jingoistic diatribe can be encapsulated as "they suck way more than we do, let's give em hell!" - I mean, really, "they are not respected by the world or themselves"...?!?!?!
    No, more like, there is a culture (not race) of disenfrachised, oppressed, depressed people with their anger redirected towards destroying our culture instead of towards the assholes that deserve it. Let's kick one of the oppressors out of power and start fixing it before downtown NY/WA/LA gets hit with something that dwarfs 9/11. If Iraq ends up in a simlar position that Japan is in a few years from now, is that a worthy cause? If the people of Iran, Seria, Saudia Arabia, etc. look at Iraq and see a free prospering people friendly with the US then rethink who is responsible for their suffering, have we won a war worth fighting?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    However, socially and politically aware individuals in developed countries are mortified that the US has unilaterally appointed itself the policeman of the world.
    Nope, we're defending our interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    I'm also confused as to your "... when someone screws with us" line. When and how did Iraq "screw with you"? 9/11 had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Iraq, in spite of the continuing efforts by the Republicans et al to persuade us otherwise, even in the face of all that pesky lack of evidence.
    I didn't say Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. I implied that they screwed with us. There is plenty of history to back that up. Sadam was an open supporter of the Jihad movement and anyone else that wanted to do harm to the US. At least other nations in this catagory have a significant military threat or do so behind closed doors.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    At least in the UK, the predominant news channel with the largest audience share is not afraid to challenge the establishment, whereas the US's "Fox News" is essentially an adjunct of the Republican party - yet advertises itself as "fair and unbiased"!!!
    Read "Bias". All media has a slant. Most claim otherwise. I don't see how Fox is any worse than CNN. I can provide links to outright bias by the BBC.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    As for the "numbers not making any sense" vis-a-vis the war in Iraq as a business opportunity, check out how much Cheney's former company Haliburton makes off the rebuild effort - over $1 billion - which was agreed through PRIVATE tendership BEFORE the war (which, as has been irrefutably proven through discovered documentation, was in the planning WAY before 9/11, and largely about securing oil rather than removing Saddam, limiting terrorism, capturing WMDs, or any other of the repeatedly debunked reasons the US and UK governments have offered)
    1) 1 billion at this scale isn't much.
    2) There is another side to that story too. I'm not even sure you have your numbers straight. I'd love to see a link.
    3) *If* Bush and his friends have their hand in the till, that's corruption and probably even criminal. However, does it invalidate what's being fought for?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    In the last fifty years, if one applies an OBJECTIVE DEFINITION (as opposed to the "when they do it, it's terrorism" definition applied by the Whitehouse), the US government has been responsible for more acts of terrorism than every other organisation in the world COMBINED.
    Agreed. Your terrorist is my freedom fighter. In this case, American values don't line up with the values of the Jihad.
  11. #11
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
  12. #12
    I don't care if you support the war or oppose it. That shirt is funny.
    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway.
    Whatever it is...
    I'm against it.
  13. #13
    Guest
    {This post has been removed}
  14. #14
    To give the Canadian slant on things....

    Moore's movie is a big hit here in Canada, and most Canadians are in disbelief that the upcoming election is actually looking like it might be CLOSE. Bush again?!? Really? Does he only come across as dumb as a doorknob north of the border?

    911 got a standing ovation in the theatre I saw it in. I've never seen that happen after a movie before. It was biased, but it got a point across.

    Granted, Canadian politics are more left-of-centre than the US in general.
  15. #15
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNoChance
    Moore's movie is a big hit here in Canada, and most Canadians are in disbelief that the upcoming election is actually looking like it might be CLOSE. Bush again?!? Really? Does he only come across as dumb as a doorknob north of the border?
    It's close because Kerry is a tool and makes Clinton look like an inspired leader. It's sad the opposition party couldn't put up a better candiate. There are a whole host of grievences with how Bush and crew have run the country that a better candiate could attack. If the democrats continue to lose power there could be a major realignment of the two parties in the comming years.
  16. #16
    Guest
    {This post has been removed}
  17. #17
    michael1123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,328
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    So Ripp, what do you think about all of this? :P

    Honestly though, I don't really know which way you lean.
  18. #18
    It's very hard for me to see any side. All everyone does is throw points and counterpoints around. All I know is that on September 11, 2001 many people died. And there is no reason I'll accept as to why. It's all BS to me. The U.S. and its enemies will always give their side as to who is to blame. Telling truth and lies in the same breath. So I've made it "my" side to trust nobody as far as I can throw them.

    All I know is that I'm going to get up, go to work, contribute all I can to helping people in need (my life if need be.), go home, kiss my wife (and soon my newborn child), Sleep, and hopefully wake up the next morning to do it again. Hopefully, somewhere in between that experience some personal happiness.

    Being a former Marine. I understand that if you smack me, I'm gonna smack you and your mother back. So I'm not against taking it to people that would kill me just as soon as I turned my back. I don't care what your reason is. Don't tread on me or I will crack open that can of whuup ass. And it's not less filling or great tasting.

    But I also believe in living and let live. And I know there are people in Iraq that could care less about me and my problems. They got a family to raise the same as me. And only want to go about providing for them. Cool, you stay and do your thing over there and I'll do the same here.

    Why is it we don't see 9/11 footage as much as we see everything bad the U.S. is doing over in Iraq? Has everyone already forgotten? Is it yesterday's news? The way things are I'd say yes. Patriotism was trendy then, just as anit-war protesting is now. That's the only real thing that bothers me. Right after the attacks, the word was out to increase all protective services budgets, "Protect the public!". Now towns are looking for ways to decrease manpower while keeping the cash alotted for it. What's the point of having all this equipment without the people to use it?

    The world is going to hell in a handbasket. I for one, am trying not to go for the ride. I'll get there on my own, thank you very much.

    Big Lick
  19. #19
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripptyde
    I am summoning every last ounce of self restraint here not to unload...please God give me strength
    This could be interesting...
  20. #20
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA
    Wow, this is an interesting thread. I'll need to look at it again after I see the movie. I think it is the first documentary to do over $100 million.
  21. #21
    I'm with Ripptyde. I like these forums and have no desire to be ejected from them, but if I post on this topic again I'm gonna end up screaming at someone, so I'm done on the subject.

    Oh go on then, one more post...

    No, more like, there is a culture (not race) of disenfrachised, oppressed, depressed people with their anger redirected towards destroying our culture instead of towards the assholes that deserve it.
    I'm confused Fnord, are you referring to the Iraqis or the Americans? There are MILLIONS of Americans who feel this way about the Bush junta, but have had their anger "redirected" towards other nations that pose NO threat to the US instead of the "assholes that deserve it" i.e. the inept government that allowed the WTC atrocity to happen through neglect of the evidence it would/could happen, then immediately set about USING IT as an excuse for an entirely unrelated conflict as soon as the dust had settled.

    <<As a brief digression, the one satirical point that stuck with me when the war kicked-off was "hmmm... they want to fight a war in order to remove an unelected hawkish dictator of questionable sanity and intellect who has access to WMDs and chemical weapons, as well as to liberate a people who are entirely secluded from the rest of the world and are fed a constant stream of lies and propoganda by the government controlled media... who are they invading Iraq or the US???">>

    Also, what's your source for this culture's feelings? Hopefully it's some mainstream US media source, because they are notorious the world over for how outward-looking they are, really getting under the skin of those outside the US to find the alternate viewpoint, especially in Muslim countries...

    This entire point appears to be saying you are "helping out" oppressed muslims with this war. What, by bombing the sh!t out of what little is left of their country after the last time you bombed it? Saddam needed to be deposed, for the good of the Iraqi people as much as anyone, but that was NOT the purpose of this war. if it was, why didn't Bush and Blair say as much right from the start, instead of forcing lie after lie upon us? Why haven't they set about deposing numerous other "dangerous" dictators (who don't have quite so much oil under their asses)? If terrorism is such an issue, why won't the US government hear a word said against Israel, a nation which has essentially been driving a Sherman tank with a disabled sticker in the window for the last few decades? Also, if Bush's action in Iraq was designed to help the poor, oppressed Iraqi people and their "misdirected anger", why the hell did he describe it as a "crusade"?!? You think that shows sensitivity towards a culture, or a complete ignorance of it?!?

    It's close because Kerry is a tool and makes Clinton look like an inspired leader
    Just to prove I'm not flaming for the sake of it, or completely obdurate (theres nothing that pisses me off more in the ongoing debate on the war than EITHER side's inability to concede a point or acknowledge a proven fact), this point I agree with - the lack of a worthy opponent to Bush being a key factor in how close the election will be. It all boils down to the same old chestnut, "who are you gonna vote for? The puppet on the left, or the puppet on the right?"

    7ape wrote:

    However, socially and politically aware individuals in developed countries are mortified that the US has unilaterally appointed itself the policeman of the world.

    Fnord wrote:
    Nope, we're defending our interests
    This is your counterargument? Did you read what I said? You've had it explained to you - by someone who you may viehemently disagree with, but who has at least proven himself to be articulate and socially aware - that your country is feared for reasons x, y, and z, and your counterargument is "nope, we're defending our interests"?!? In what way is this supposed to give me peace of mind? "Oh well, Fnord says they're defending their interests, guess I've been worrying over nothing..." This is another facet of the debate that bothers me, the split second that "why do people hate america?" became the question on everyones lips (about 48 hours after 9/11, IIRC), there was a FLOOD of American pundits and journalists ready to offer an explanantion; "they're jealous of our freedom", "they're jealous of our wealth", "they're jealous of our power", etc - not ONE of them bothered to ask anyone outside of the US why. Tell me, if someone acted like an asshole at the poker table, directing all of their vitriol solely at you, which would be the most intelligent approach- to unilaterally and without consultation decide for yourself why they were behaving this way, based solely on yuor own opinion, and react accordingly - or to ASK them?!? Heaven forbid that we should enter into a dialogue with these people though, that could only possibly lead to trouble, right...? (cf the progress made in Northern Ireland since the UK government began peace talks with the (US government and commerce funded) IRA).

    Ultimately, though, the "cause" being fought for in Iraq that Fnord keeps referring to is not democracy, not freedom, not liberation, not "defending our interests" (interesting choice of words to describe a wholesale invasion without endorsement), but MONEY. The "numbers", as you call them, most assuredly DO add up, the only thing lacking is the transparency in the republican/capitalist ruling cartel to see this. The US government, now, for the last few decades, and presumably for evermore, is neither democrat nor republican, it is capitalist, and it's needs are met (and perpetuated) through securing big business backing and maximising "numbers". NOBODY so greatly concerned with perpetuating it's own power (read "wealth") chooses to go to a war that costs billions without adequate cover. Bear in mind that it's the American PEOPLE that paid for the war, NOT the government.

    Read "Bias". All media has a slant. Most claim otherwise. I don't see how Fox is any worse than CNN. I can provide links to outright bias by the BBC.
    Again, I agree with the comments about ALL media having a bias, including the BBC (see? aren't I agreeable? Isn't this the most agreeable argument you've ever read?! Bloody Brits, they can't even ARGUE like they've got balls...;o).

    However, there is a HUGE difference between subjective opinion (which all media sources will inevitably include) and rabid, unflinching endorsement of the political party with which your boss is aligned (Fox = Murdoch = capitalism above all else = Republican). CNN is blatantly biased, but you can't see how it's better than FOX?!?! Watch five minutes of either and you'll see what I mean. CNN are dogmatic and partisan, which is bad enough for a news channel, but still pales into insignificance when compared to Fox reporting whatever supports the Republican viewpoint and censors everything else, sets up "open debates" between "radically opposing" viewpoints (i.e. a republican and a slightly left-leaning republican), shouts down political pundits who have been asked to comment on leading stories, literally YELLING at them to "shut up" when they offer their opinions (or worse, evidence supporting their opinions and refuting those of O'Reilly and co) - this is NOTHING LIKE the BBC, CNN or pretty much any other news source, yet alone a news source with the largest audience share in its country of operation. In fact, the only comparible channel I can think of (in terms of unashamed bias, censorship, vitriol and audience share) is Al Jazeera.

    I didn't say Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. I implied that they screwed with us. There is plenty of history to back that up.
    Apologies, I jumped to a conclusion based on the nature of the thread. Such is the problem with BBS debates, one is forced to determine the meaning of any ambiguous posts and invariably applies the most common rationale. Again, I agree with Fnord - yup, true enough, Iraq has been a thorn in the US's side for a long time. Worrying thing is, so have many other nations. Wonder who's next on the list, and what justifications will be made? I notice you haven't referred to my comments about the repeated lies you have been told by your government, not just the usual broken campaign promises that we've come to expect from our leaders, but outright, through-the-teeth deceit, designed and built SOLELY to mislead the masses into backing a war... this doesn't worry you?!?

    Apologies again, have to cut this short as lunch break has ended (I've really been typing for an hour?!?), but look forward to reading replies (especially Ripptyde's - don't fight it, let it out, LET IT OUT!!)
    7ape

    “I'm only here for the nuts...”
  22. #22
    Guest
    {This post has been removed}
  23. #23
    Anybody surprised that Fnord and Ripptyde appear to be on different sides of this issue?
    "Limit poker is a science, but no-limit is an art..."
  24. #24
    Guest
    {This post has been removed}
  25. #25
    Well..we're all waiting with baited breath
    "Limit poker is a science, but no-limit is an art..."
  26. #26
    Guest
    {This post has been removed}
  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripptyde
    actually I am scared to comment on Michael Moore and this movie. I'll be typing all night if I start
    Judging by the above quote, I think Rippy is on Fnord's side, because it seems like Rippy has a lot say about Michael Moore himself. I have noticed that most of the people talking about Moore himself are his detractors, while his proponents focus the conversation on the movie instead of the person. If Rippy was in agreement with Moore, he would have said "I am scared to comment on Bush and this movie."
  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripptyde
    Kerry's got my vote. I am a registered Republican but I have serious doubts about the future of our planet if GW is elected for a second term. The rest of the world seems to LOATHE him and quick frankly he scares the crap out of me. I think John Kerry can help to pacify the growing hatred towards America.
    I think we have an idea where rippy is on the subject.
    Holy crap I cant play against Yoda!!
  29. #29
    When I settle an arguement between my nieces and nephew, or between some of my employees, I take at it the same way. I listen to one side of the story, then I listen to the other side of the story. Then I get to the "Truth" by making up a story that is in the middle of what I have heard.

    That is basically what I did with the "War on Terrorism" I mean, "Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    I don't want to make this too long. And I won't quote anyone because I don't want to make this post against any opinion,. Just expressing my own.

    9/11 happened and the US was bent on revenge. We went after the culprit, Osama. He was unattainable, so we changed our goal. The United States needed closure to the 9/11 thing. So the Gov't stepped in and told us who to direct our anger toward. We started and won the war and feel better about ourselves.

    It's like when my older brother made fun of me, or punched me. I couldn't fight him because he was bigger than me. So I picked a fight with my little sister and I felt better about myself when I won.

    Bush had some reason to go after Iraq. He found his chance and took advantage of it. Richard Clark said that after 9/11, bush asked him to find a way to bring Iraq into this. Bush wanted Iraq, and America wanted closure. It worked out for everyone... except Iraq.

    The second point is this. When we fought in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, most other wars we fought in, we were told, "The US is good, they are bad." However, during the last Iraqi war, we were told, "They are good and we are good. We're just helping." But it's so tough to have a war that way.

    When we are in the mindset of Those Commie Bastards deserve to die it is easy to swallow when some innocent people die. And that is exactly what we were told, during most of the other wars. But in this war, we are helping. It is more difficult or impossible to understand killing innocent people. That's what they are. That's what we've been told and that's what they actually are. They are not the problem. Saddam and his supporters are.

    These are the biggest 2 reasons I am against the war. I watched Farenheit 9/11 and agreed with a lot of thigs I saw. Disagreed with some of them an chalked everything up to Moore's over-dramatizing. We have a DJ in Kansas City who was giving away tickets to the movie. He gave away 1 at a time and said, "I want you to go alone and learn about this." What BS. Getting 1 ticket to see Farenheit 9/11 is like being strapped into the machine in A Clockwork Orange. It's propaganda. The only thing that keeps it from being labeled as such is it was not made by the gov't. Farenheit 9/11 is as unbias as Michael Jackson is black.
    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway.
    Whatever it is...
    I'm against it.
  30. #30
    HAHA! Well, I guess I was 100% wrong (again), and I owe Ripp an apology. Sorry, Ripp.

    Oh well, it seemed like a good guess at the time. Maybe I will end up being partially right.. i.e. Rippy hates Moore AND Bush. Time will tell.

    Yeah, anyways, I guess I'll add my 2 cents. I think everyone who has dropped by my site pretty much knows where I stand. It seems the thread has evolved into a debate on the Iraq War rather than the merits of F/911, so I'll go with that.

    As far as the Iraq War acting as a deterrent, that might be true if another country's military power or even a rogue nation's nuclear missle was the greatest threat to US security. However, I believe the greatest threat to the US is international terrorism, and I believe taking over Iraq will do very little to hinder terrorism, and in fact will probably help terrorism in both the long and short term. It was kind of like taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest, if you know what I mean.

    As far as the payments from Saddam to terrorists, had Bush used that as justification for the invasion I would have strongly considered supporting the war, but only if we had given Saddam an ultimatum to stop the payments immediately and he refused to comply. Instead, we gave him the ridiculous ultimatum to turn over his weapons of mass destruction, and invaded him based on his failure to comply with that. Therefore I cannot support the war and I reject any argument that says the war was justified because of those payments.
  31. #31
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    I'm with Ripptyde. I like these forums and have no desire to be ejected from them, but if I post on this topic again I'm gonna end up screaming at someone, so I'm done on the subject.
    Overall the debate is remarkably civil.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    I'm confused Fnord, are you referring to the Iraqis or the Americans?
    Now you're being silly. Very few Americans are destitute. Americans aren't being thrown feet first into wood chippers for dissenting with the majority party. Americans have elections without a member of the People's Committe for Throwing Your Ass in the Wood Chipper looking over their shoulder to make sure they write the right name on that slip of paper. Comparing Bush with Sadam/Hitler/whatever is extreme.

    Yeah, last election was screwed up. Gore had the popular vote. The electoral vote rested on Florida which was a statistical dead-heat (although later analysis supports that Bush likely won.) In the end the Supremes had to settle the mess to avoid a governmental crisis. Neither guy really had much of a mandate comming out of that mess, get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    Why haven't they set about deposing numerous other "dangerous" dictators (who don't have quite so much oil under their asses)?
    Iran - Civil unrest and a rebuilt Iraq puts pressure on the Mulahs.
    Libya - Saw what happened in Iraq and have been co-operating
    Seria - Some of both the above.
    China - Have nukes
    Cuba - Non-threat. Castro's health will inevitably fail making the situation very interesting.
    N Korea - Have artilery pointed at S Korean cities and maybe a nuke or two too.
    Africa - Little money, care more about beating on each other. Then there is the AIDs mess that no amount of money can solve (without a cure.)
    S America - Have no interest in destroying their primary export market.

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    If terrorism is such an issue, why won't the US government hear a word said against Israel, a nation which has essentially been driving a Sherman tank with a disabled sticker in the window for the last few decades?
    Ohhh... new can of worms. In brief, Isreal is an ally and the Palistinians are seriously messed up. We could talk about Arifat's Swiss Bank accounts, or the targeting of civilians via suicied bombers or the broken promices or their commitment to flat out racist genocide....

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    Ultimately, though, the "cause" being fought for in Iraq that Fnord keeps referring to is not democracy, not freedom, not liberation, not "defending our interests" (interesting choice of words to describe a wholesale invasion without endorsement), but MONEY. The "numbers", as you call them, most assuredly DO add up, the only thing lacking is the transparency in the republican/capitalist ruling cartel to see this. The US government, now, for the last few decades, and presumably for evermore, is neither democrat nor republican, it is capitalist, and it's needs are met (and perpetuated) through securing big business backing and maximising "numbers". NOBODY so greatly concerned with perpetuating it's own power (read "wealth") chooses to go to a war that costs billions without adequate cover. Bear in mind that it's the American PEOPLE that paid for the war, NOT the government.
    Ahhh.... now we're getting to the core of the far left platform...
  32. #32
    I'm not all that political, so I've been mostly lurking this topic. My Navy time convinced me that the public usually doesn't know enough of the real facts to really weigh the issues. We hear what someboy else wants us to hear, and the real facts are either hidden or twisted. I believe nothing I read in the media or hear from a politician.

    Moore's film is just more spin on an issue that is spun to death.

    Why hasn't anyone made the point that Saddam was ignoring international requirements for providing the information required to know if he was conforming to the weapons constraints or not?

    To me, that alone is enough to send troops. The onus was on him to prove that he wasn't manufacturing WMDs, not on US to prove he was. He chose to slowplay and he got his ass kicked. Too bad so many of his people had to suffer.
    "Limit poker is a science, but no-limit is an art..."
  33. #33
    Ohhh... new can of worms. In brief, Isreal is an ally and the Palistinians are seriously messed up.
    That's a pretty one-sided look at the whole Isreal-U.S. thing.

    I was waiting for Isreal to get mentioned. If you're looking for a BIG part of the answer to the "Why do they hate us?" question, it's here IMO. I'm not going to elaborate, because I don't know the facts well enough. Hopefully somebody who does carries on this part of the debate.
  34. #34
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNoChance
    That's a pretty one-sided look at the whole Isreal-U.S. thing.
    In the interest of fair disclosure, my father-in-law is a German Jew who's family moved here after fleeing to France durring WWII.
  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric
    Wow, this is an interesting thread. I'll need to look at it again after I see the movie. I think it is the first documentary to do over $100 million.
    doc·u·men·ta·ry
    adj.

    2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

    So, there's still no documentary over $100M.
  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    <<As a brief digression, the one satirical point that stuck with me when the war kicked-off was "hmmm... they want to fight a war in order to remove an unelected hawkish dictator of questionable sanity and intellect who has access to WMDs and chemical weapons, as well as to liberate a people who are entirely secluded from the rest of the world and are fed a constant stream of lies and propoganda by the government controlled media... who are they invading Iraq or the US???">>
    That's cute. Except Bush was elected, get over it already, it's been four years.
  37. #37
    Im not sure if i want to jump in or not..
    Some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants won't help.
    -- Calvin and Hobbes
  38. #38
    Don't be like every other person who watches this movie and walk away from it believing that everything in the movie is factual.. That would be a sad sad mistake!

    PocketFives - allLiving
    Pokerstars - [595-ESCAPE]
  39. #39
    I think the doc•u•men•ta•ry you probably didn't watch might be the noun version rather than the adjective but I know they aren't that big on those kind of distinctions down in Texas - who the hell wants to read through two dictionary entries?

    Yeah, just get over it, no big deal if the election was corrupted by the family and party members of one of the candidates. It is nothing really important just the presidency of the United States. No big deal that the environmental legislation has been gutted, the deficit is the largest it has ever been-nothing to worry about. I think every President has had a group of ex-statesmen speak out against him, 30 or so of the major scientists sign a document against his policies, blow off speaking to the NAACP for the first time in decades, take the climate after 9/11 and not build a united coalition against terrorism but rather alienate the rest of the world against the US. Yeah, you two are right though it is really sad that people just go and believe everything in the documentary type flick. Too bad it isn't as unbiased as say FOX news right.
  40. #40
    Just to let you know robe, he hasnt spoken to the NAACP in a couple years, not decades.
    Holy crap I cant play against Yoda!!
  41. #41
    Comparing Bush with Sadam/Hitler/whatever is extreme.

    I'm not so sure. Hitler gave some of the best peace speeches ever in the 30s. Instead of anti-semitism it just may be fundamentalist christian "values"
  42. #42
    He is the first acting President(since FDR?) not to speak during his presidency - he spoke when he was campaigning the first time
  43. #43
    I too assumed Ripptyde was on Fnord's side. Will be interesting to hear his post, either way (sorry to hear about your PC eating the last post, Ripp, hate it when that happens...)

    I also agree with Humph's opinion of Farenheit 9/11, it's the exact reason I'm not interested in watching it (i.e. the same reason I don't treat Fox as a news source).

    Fnord wrote:
    Now you're being silly
    I don't think so. Firstly, I was making a valid point through satire, something I am prone to doing and I apologise to those who think this detracts from the political debate - yes, I am well aware that American elections are not carried out at gunpoint, however this is not the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Sticking to the facts, however, I have to admit I almost fell off my chair when Fnord said "Very few Americans are destitute". OMG, how can you be so shockingly unaware of the state of your own country?

    In brief, Isreal is an ally and the Palistinians are seriously messed up
    ...again, the most shockingly partisan and uncomprehensive response possible (regardless of personal family lineage), but agreed it's a whole different topic for debate (hopefully not here).

    It's here that I really have to question what your sources are, Ripptyde? Among my friends and colleagues I am generally treated as the mediator in most discussions of this (or any) type, as I have a tendency to examine ALL available evidence regardless of bias and apply a utilitarian approach to that which can be proven and supported - I have every bit as much contempt for those who slavishly buy every Moore book going and declare that "the President is an idiot!" (he is, but that's besides the point) as I do for those who swallow the company line and believe everything the government tells thim without question, decrying any counterargument as "unpatriotic". I'm not saying this is you, Fnord, but whilst a lot of your counterarguments are sound and based on supportable opinions, a few seem dangerously ill-informed, or failing that, remarkably insular.

    Ahhh.... now we're getting to the core of the far left platform...
    LOL! What, you have to be a loony-lefty, bleeding-heart liberal to discern that the US government is almost entirely a commercial power-base, rather than a political one? They're a multinational business with an army, that's all they are!

    God, me and my Chomsky books eh, what a fool I am to swallow the incredibly articulate and wholly substantiated insights of one of the most highly regarded intellectuals of our time, and one of the few commentators who actively encourages those who read his work to go out and study for themselves and prove him wrong if at all possible (something the ruling elite wouldn't dream of doing)... how typically "far left" of me!!

    Comparing Bush with Sadam/Hitler/whatever is extreme
    before anyone argues this point further, bear in mind that this is exactly what the US govt did with Saddam in the first Iraq invasion - "he's a Hitler" was the message force-fed to the American people. Now, I'm not saying Saddam was a stand-up guy who preached love and tolerance, but what kind of democracy (which by definition involves the free flow of information and the formation of opinion based on provable fact rather than unprovable subjective opinion) justifies a war with this kind of close-minded (complete lack of) debate?
    "We have decreed that he is the same as Hitler. You all know Hitler needed to go, therefore so does Saddam."
    It's no more or less valid for me to say that Rumsfeld is the same as Goebbels, it's every bit as (a) subjective, (b) interperetive and (c) invalid as a basis for argument.

    pjs24 wrote:
    That's cute. Except Bush was elected, get over it already, it's been four years.
    robe43 wrote:
    Yeah, just get over it... etc
    ...took the words right out of my mouth, robe! I'll listen to people's opinions (that's all they are, either way) on whether the election was truly won or lost by Bush, but the argument that it happened 4 years ago and we should just "get over it" is facile and spurious. Let's try telling the Catholics and Protestants that the whole "Christ" thing happened 2000 years ago, just get over it! It reminds me of when people complained to Hicks that he did material about the Kennedy Assassination:
    "Aw, c'mon Bill... it's only the taking over of a democracy by a totalitarian government... let it go!"

    (btw, the above is further SATIRE and not intended to be taken as my serious dissection of the current American government, based as it was on yet another unopposed coup... ooops, there I go again!)
    7ape

    “I'm only here for the nuts...”
  44. #44
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    Sticking to the facts, however, I have to admit I almost fell off my chair when Fnord said "Very few Americans are destitute". OMG, how can you be so shockingly unaware of the state of your own country?
    Quote some numbers. Poverty rates and the quality of life of even our poorest citizens is much higher than most other countries. Pre-war Iraq to name one. To suggest otherwise is disinformation. We could spin off a debate on the homeless here I guess...

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    Ahhh.... now we're getting to the core of the far left platform...
    LOL! What, you have to be a loony-lefty, bleeding-heart liberal to discern that the US government is almost entirely a commercial power-base, rather than a political one? They're a multinational business with an army, that's all they are!

    God, me and my Chomsky books eh, what a fool I am to swallow the incredibly articulate and wholly substantiated insights of one of the most highly regarded intellectuals of our time, and one of the few commentators who actively encourages those who read his work to go out and study for themselves and prove him wrong if at all possible (something the ruling elite wouldn't dream of doing)... how typically "far left" of me!!
    I didn't say loony. Just a comment on how we started with a rational debate about the justification for war in Iraq and have since drifted to anti-coporatism, now socialism/communism and I think at some point evironmentalism got mixed it, oh and the NAACP. We seem to have difficulty staying on subject here, but I'll try to keep up.

    Perhaps it's not the war you're against so much as those currently in power? How is Kerry (and his Heinz fortune) any less corporate than Bush?
  45. #45
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by robe43
    No big deal that the environmental legislation has been gutted
    I'll cut in here. We can debate ethics, govenerment, etc. Hard science is less fuzzy.

    You might find this interesting and unexpected.

    http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
    http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm
    http://www.junkscience.com/mar02/wsj-recycling.htm
    http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

    Anything by Patrick Moore since leaving Greenpeace (founding member)
    http://ngin.tripod.com/131202d.htm

    recommended reading:
    The Sckeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg
    Lots of hard science in this one (including page after page of references to other studies and hard data.) It was a revolution in questioning assertions about pending environmental distaster. It further goes on about how to improve the debate so we can make rational decisions towards the welfare of mankind.

    Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths by Ronald Bailey
    Discusses many of the same topics, but in essay format. Easier read if you don't have a strong science background, but still contains a wealth of references to back up its assertions.
  46. #46
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by robe43
    He is the first acting President(since FDR?) not to speak during his presidency - he spoke when he was campaigning the first time
    Cosby sure had a mouthful to say though...

    http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm
  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by robe43
    I think the doc•u•men•ta•ry you probably didn't watch might be the noun version rather than the adjective but I know they aren't that big on those kind of distinctions down in Texas - who the hell wants to read through two dictionary entries?

    Yeah, just get over it, no big deal if the election was corrupted by the family and party members of one of the candidates. It is nothing really important just the presidency of the United States. No big deal that the environmental legislation has been gutted, the deficit is the largest it has ever been-nothing to worry about. I think every President has had a group of ex-statesmen speak out against him, 30 or so of the major scientists sign a document against his policies, blow off speaking to the NAACP for the first time in decades, take the climate after 9/11 and not build a united coalition against terrorism but rather alienate the rest of the world against the US. Yeah, you two are right though it is really sad that people just go and believe everything in the documentary type flick. Too bad it isn't as unbiased as say FOX news right.
    Here's a kleenex, jeez. If you're that unhappy, move to Canada.
  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by robe43
    I think the doc•u•men•ta•ry you probably didn't watch might be the noun version rather than the adjective but I know they aren't that big on those kind of distinctions down in Texas - who the hell wants to read through two dictionary entries?
    Ziiiinnnnggg!!! You sure got me... Here you go:

    A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
  49. #49
    Sorry guys, in a hurry, but just to respond quickly to a couple of points...

    Fnord - the debate actually started about Moore's movie, it was not unreasonable that it should then branch out to the war itself. Equally, any discussion on the war in Iraq is incomplete if it ignores Bush's tenure as a whole. The anti-corporatism was in response to your assertions as to the "cause" behind the war, and was intended to support my point from the previous post. Environmentalism and the NAACP were brought in by other posters, I'm loathe to decry them as irrelevant when we are way off-topic to begin with. As for socialism/communism - these are political ideals. We're having a political discussion. I am at a loss as to how I am supposed to assert my political beliefs (which, as a compassionate human being, are resoundingly socialist) without "bringing socialism into it".

    I am against both the war and those currently in power as two seperate and distinct issues. However, they are very closely related issues, so it's easy to stray from one to the other - how can one decry the war without criticising Bush? How can one critique Bush's presidency, but ignore the war? Equally, I see Kerry as part of the problem rather than part of the solution - if you read my previous post on the nature of the electoral process (due to, yes, the corporate oligopoly of the US government), you'll see that quite clearly. I never said he was "any less corporate than Bush", my argument was that ALL US politics is carried-out in this way - by referring to Kerry's "Heinz fortune", you are actually supporting my argument, not refuting it!

    As for the science posts, I look forward to having the opportunity to read them. I'll do so with an open mind, but I'm preparing myself for the worst. The sites you linked to as the "alternate view" on US action in Iraq were ill-informed, insularly subjective and borderline racist. Combine this with the fact that the reason there is no "global accord" on Eco-issues is not that there is an evenly distributed dissention among the scientific community on the scale of the problem and the best methods of handling it, but that US government-backed scientists repeatedly gainsay the opinions of their European and Asian counterparts, and I don't hold out much hope.

    Poverty rates and the quality of life of your poorest citizens are certainly better than a lot of countries. But in the developed (as opposed to underdeveloped or developing) world, the US is distinct for the sheer scale of poverty, one of the highest rates in the industrialized world - 13% below the poverty line, roughly 35 million people. One fifth of American children are below the poverty line. Yes, this line is way higher than the average starving African kid will ever hope to see, but this isn't comparing apples to apples - against other first world countries, the US is significantly "poor", in spite of it's giddying GDP.

    That said, the comparison I was making between Iraqis and Americans was owing to your comment:

    No, more like, there is a culture (not race) of disenfrachised, oppressed, depressed people with their anger redirected towards destroying our culture instead of towards the assholes that deserve it.
    ... I have no idea why you started arguing that Americans aren't destitute, and you completely missed the point of the comparison, namely the misdirection of justifiable anger from the actual target to a convenient scapegoat - In the US, anger is misdirected from the govt to whatever war they're fighting at present, in Iraq it's misdirected from Saddam to the US.
    7ape

    “I'm only here for the nuts...”
  50. #50
    Xianti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,246
    Location
    facebook.com/mediacookery
    Quote Originally Posted by pjs24
    If you're that unhappy, move to Canada. Just quit fu*king crying.
    Quote Originally Posted by pjs24
    Here you go assclown...
    Enough with the personal attacks and name-calling, pjs. Let's keep this discussion civil, please.
  51. #51
    Could end up being foot-in-your-ass clown if you keep with the name calling.

    I think 9/11 passes that definition. I think it is factual - the arrangement of those facts, which facts are put in or left out, you may be able to argue that the film is biased, but again, there is a lot of American media that is biased but it seems to be alright as long as it is biased toward the right.

    It is OK to ride Clinton's ass four eight years but say something bad about emperor Bush and that's out of line

    I think the only good thing Bush has done in office is screw up so bad as to actually motivate a bunch of pot smoking, squirrel kissing, tree hugging, Volvo driving left wingers (not the hockey kind)
  52. #52
    Agreed, xianti. My biggest worry when this all kicked-off (see above posts) was that I would be barred for flaming. As Fnord has commented above, so far the debate has been perfectly civil, there's no need for ad hominem namecalling, which ultimately achieves nothing.

    I think the only good thing Bush has done in office is screw up so bad as to actually motivate a bunch of pot smoking, squirrel kissing, tree hugging, Volvo driving left wingers (not the hockey kind)
    LoL! Never looked at it that way, robe, good point! For the record, I don't drive a Volvo and my relationship with that squirrel was blown WAY out of proportion on "The O'Reilly Factor"...
    7ape

    “I'm only here for the nuts...”
  53. #53
    Xianti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,246
    Location
    facebook.com/mediacookery
    Quote Originally Posted by 7ape
    My biggest worry when this all kicked-off (see above posts) was that I would be barred for flaming.
    We have nothing against lively, heated debates.

    Just don't get down to pjs's level. Personal attacks and demeaning comments are not necessary to make your point here.
  54. #54
    i was going to stay out of this one, but decided to chime in. to let you know where i come from i, am a strong believer in REGULATED gun ownership, am pro-choice, not real fond of big business, strongly environmental, like social programs but think they need to be better monitored, and support the death penalty. i'm republicrat, or democan.

    all of the above, i will not debate.

    some things to think about regarding this discussion:

    - i don't really like george w., but in light of the 9/11 tragedy, would i rather have had al gore in office and dealing with the aftermath? for me, no.

    - should we be in iraq? i don't know the answer to this question, but one thing keeps coming back to me: in 1939, hitler invaded Czechoslovakia on a pretense (ala iraq invading kuwait). Chamberlain (prime minister of england) and French Premier Édouard Daladier flew to munich to discuss the situation with hitler, and to appease hitler, said he could "keep" Czechoslovakia. they weren't ready to go to war with germany, and hoped if they let him keep this little piece of eastern europe, that would be the end of it. then came WWII...

    saddam stuck me the same way. economic sanctions were a joke, and had no effect other than to further hurt the iraqi people. after the gulf war, the UN made a terrible mistake in not removing saddam from power (duh!).

    so much of the middle east is unstable, that it wouldn't take much for a massive war to be started.

    when you also factor in the number of his own people that he was killing, and the state support of terrorists, it is very clear to me that saddam had to be removed. what bothers me the most is this should have been a UN lead operation, not US/UK lead. just like with Czechoslovakia, it seems most other countries would have rather ignored the situation, and hoped it went away.

    history has proved repeatedly that with the hitlers, saddams, et al, they don't just go away.
    i hate what i have become to escape what i hated being...
  55. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by robe43
    I think the only good thing Bush has done in office is screw up so bad as to actually motivate a bunch of pot smoking, squirrel kissing, tree hugging, Volvo driving left wingers (not the hockey kind)
    I listen to rock / alternative music. We have a local DJ here who is very out-spoken and liberal. He hates Bush and makes his views known as often as possible. I think it makes for entertaining radio.

    One of his arguements is this. When Regan and Bush were in office we were blessed with great music. We had punk, Jane's Addiction, The Cure, Morrisey, etc. etc All the way to the end when the world was given the gift of grunge!

    The Clinton went into office and the Alternative world had to suffer through a re-birth of pop (Brittany, the return of the boy bands, Spice Girls)

    Now that we have Bush in the office we get a lot of great music again. Audioslave, Jane's Addiction, The Cure, Morrisey etc. etc.

    Republicans cause so much hate that the music world lashes out and gets very creative. Music lovers benefit from this.

    Hogwash? Probably, but interesting.

    Sidenote: Has anyone else heard about these Republican Punk Rockers? It's funny. They had an interview with a guy who had a big blue mohawk, and 20 peircings who was spouting that the repulican party has his full support. The phrase 'walking contradiction' came to mind.
    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway.
    Whatever it is...
    I'm against it.
  56. #56
    What about Pearl Jam Soundgarden Alice in Chains Red Hot Chili Peppers best Blood Sugar Sex Magic, Mudhoney, The Replacements and Soul Asylum toured. Lolla Palooza, Ice T speed metal days - Ministry Mudhoney all those were during the Clinton years. I thought the music was great then.
  57. #57
    Oh yeah and didn't Nirvana kick off the Clinton Administration????
  58. #58
    ....
  59. #59
    michael1123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,328
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    If ever a banning was warrented ...
  60. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by pjs24
    ROTFLMAO!!! Is that a threat? I'm terrified. LOL!!!!
    This guy has had 5 posts to date, and not one of them is constructive, or about poker in the slightest way. It seems to be insult after insult. Not the best foot to put forward.
    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway.
    Whatever it is...
    I'm against it.
  61. #61
    Xianti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,246
    Location
    facebook.com/mediacookery
    Well, pjs24 apologized to me privately via PM. His public follow-up to the private apology is "ROTFLMAO!!! Is that a threat? I'm terrified. LOL!!!!" This tells me the apology likely was not sincere.


    I agree that none of his posts have added anything of value to our forums. If he keeps this up, he's gone.
  62. #62
    Yeah, but this is entirely an off topic issue. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was a regular posting under another name. I've seen it done. Could care less either way. By the way it's not me!! Just food for thought.

    I for one feel politics and poker should not mix. Can't we all just get along?

    Big Lick
  63. #63
    Legendash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    584
    Location
    Crypto 6max 100NL
    Wow, great thread guys, i've been away for a couple of days and all this articulate sensible stuff has been posted, there's hope for america yet!

    So anyway, the other day i got dealt a 5 and a 3...
    "[This theory] is only useful for helping to calculate your luck odds. If you have a good read that you have a numerical advantage against your opponent, that your hand is "luckier"..."

    Copyright, Youngdro 2007.
  64. #64
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by fishstick
    i was going to stay out of this one, but decided to chime in. to let you know where i come from i, am a strong believer in REGULATED gun ownership, am pro-choice, not real fond of big business, strongly environmental, like social programs but think they need to be better monitored, and support the death penalty. i'm republicrat, or democan.
    Most people fall in somewhere around here. Over the past decade the Republicans have done a good job reaching out to the moderates and keeping the far right quiet. If the Democrats lose the Presidential election and continue to lose ground in the House, Senate and states; it will be very interesting to see how they respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishstick
    what bothers me the most is this should have been a UN lead operation, not US/UK lead. just like with Czechoslovakia, it seems most other countries would have rather ignored the situation, and hoped it went away.
    The problem was many of those making the decisions were getting rich off of Iraqi Oil.

    repost:
    http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html
  65. #65
    Hey Fnord, I've heard that much of the data available about the Oil for Food scandal came from Ahmed Chalabi, a man I consider to be an unreliable source. But I never really confirmed to what extent this was true. Do you know anything about that?

    I read your other link about the reasons for the Iraq War. I disagree totally with the premise that invading Iraq will lead to reform in the Arab world and thus prevent terrorism, but it was an interesting essay.
  66. #66
    Fnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,388
    Location
    Silicon Valley
  67. #67
    I read your other link about the reasons for the Iraq War. I disagree totally with the premise that invading Iraq will lead to reform in the Arab world and thus prevent terrorism, but it was an interesting essay.

    I too believe reform is impossible. That's like saying racism will end in the United States. Religious extremists are beyond the ability to see past their nose. And like P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." So I doubt the groups will ever run out of fresh fodder for their bombs.

    Here's one thing I really do believe in my heart of hearts. We live in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the free world. We have all sorts of resources available to us. So I am to believe all these other alternative powers and fuels are really that much inferior? Like I said. In my heart of hearts, I know the United States Government could make the majority of our problems go away by realizing these new ways to harness other forms of energy. But big business will not allow that. And makes sure there are elected officials to see to it that it stays that way.

    Capitalism is good, but sometimes too much of a good thing is bad.

    Big Lick
  68. #68
    Hey Fnord, none of those articles address the issue of Chalabi providing the information. I understand that Oil for Food has been widely reported on by a variety of sources. What I'm trying to find out about is the possibility that much of the information being referenced in these reports came from Ahmed Chalabi. I don't really have time to read every article ever written about Oil for Food and do an analysis of all the evidence referenced and where it came from. Oh well, if I ever do get a chance to do that or I find somebody else that did, I'll let you know what I come up with.
  69. #69
    If you thought 9/11 was bad this should set you off:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html
  70. #70
    Spammy12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    24
    Location
    Wilbraham Massachusetts
    That was my favorite movie ever, though I think bush is the lesser of 2 evils.



    VOTE NADER!
    If you don't know who the sucker is in your first 30 minutes at the table, you're the sucker.
  71. #71
    At least in the US you have two diff parties, in the UK we seem to be stuck with Conservative Party 1 (Labour) / Labour Party2 (Conservative) and the "Liberal Democrats" who actually make a lot of sense the name puts me off though.

    The two leading parties seem to have exactly the same polocies to try to capture the same voters, year on year people are realising its not worth voting. I think we are down to 30% turn out.

    If I was in the US I'd join Fish as a Repubocrat middle right.

    Tony Blair over 7 years ago "Tough on Crime, tough on the causes of crime"

    Today in the news a convicted rapist has just won £7 Million on the national lottery, from a ticket he bought while on a W/E out ???

    and here was me thinking we locked rapists up to protect the public
    Poker is all about the long long long long long long long term . . .
    Barney's back . . . back again . . .
  72. #72
    Legendash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    584
    Location
    Crypto 6max 100NL
    Our parties may be similar but in the US it seems to be Capitalism 1 or Capitalism 2, and they don't even have a third to sweep up all the lefty student votes.

    How did US politics become so tied to money?, over here there are pretty strict limits on how much companies can donate to parties and i believe there may be a spending limit on election campaigns, though i'm not sure about that.

    Also over here if tony blair's cousin was in charge of counting the votes in some major constiuency i think he would resign due to a conflict of interests which obviously hasn't happened in Florida.
  73. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendash
    How did US politics become so tied to money?, over here there are pretty strict limits on how much companies can donate to parties and i believe there may be a spending limit on election campaigns, though i'm not sure about that.
    I think there is a legal amount in the US that you can't exceed but thats not to say that Illegal amounts are not contributed (No one cares that much), they are however audited to ensure they have spent all of there contributions on the campaign.

    What I've read anyway.

    and if you remember corrected Tony Blair received a large donation from the F1 Dude and then cancelled the future bann on ciggarette ads on the vehicles that was approaching.
    Poker is all about the long long long long long long long term . . .
    Barney's back . . . back again . . .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •