Dick Cheney Will Kill You All!

[GoreFollower]

It just occurred to me. We all know that vice-president Dick Cheney has a heart that is rebooted every five minutes because the fat bastard keeps getting heart attacks. What if the computer technology in his heart is also attached to his brain, and the machine goes haywire and turns Mr. Cheney into a cyborg/borg/terminator killing machine! Or, What if he has a heart attack and his pacemaker doesn't work. Realizing he is about to die, what if he decides to take us all with him and pushes the red button that blows up the earth? I was just wondering. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

[Dr3vil]

Don't worry, I don't think his pacemaker has an H.E.M. mode (obscure South Park reference).

[Razorback]

The vice-president doesn't get access to "the button".

RB

[GoreFollower]

Yeah, but he could force himself to the button. Realizing he is about to die, he may acquire super-human strength and smash anything that gets in his way. (But he is not THE HULK, mind you.)

"Not here, not here, but right here!"-Chris Farley

[THX1138]

Did anyone notice the names of the three most powerful men in America. Bush, Dick, and Colon. What the hell where we thinking.

[karmattack]

Damn, THX1138 is on fire today.

[Razorback]

I heard that joke 12,000 times on Comedy Central last week. Usually 1138 is right on the money but man... that was weak.

I am going back to watching Episode 2 so I can forget that.

RB

[psychofiend]

What do you get when you have a President named Bush and a Vice president named Dick?
A whole lot of [censored] around.

I love Bush, but what a great joke.

[GoreFollower]

Oh yeah, Well you know why Osama Bin Laden can't have sex with a woman? Because each time he separates a woman's legs, all he sees is BUSH!

"Not here, not here, but right here!"-Chris Farley

[psychofiend]

I think Dick Cheney's heart should be sponsored by Timex, takes it's licking and keeps on ticking.

[DangerSeeker]

Wait, wiat, wait...

Cheney is the VICE President?!?

[psychofiend]

Jesus, that brings an amazing point. What the [censored] is wrong with people today?? Nobody even know who the hell the vice [censored] president is. Yes, i [censored] hate President Bush and Vice President Ummm... Cheney you dumbasses!! Now come on we are at a time of war and we need to know about this kind of stuff. I bet the towel heads who call us the big satan know who the vice president is. How many [censored] ignorant assholes do we have here. Everyone wants to protest killing the Iraqi people. You know if i ever wanted to protest I would start my own protest against all the anti-war people that's right just be like "We've taken enough of the dictator's [censored]." I bet i could find a few followers and... ooh hot hippy chick, [censored] war!! [censored] war!!!

[GoreFollower]

Dude! Lay of the starbursts! Do us all a favor!

[DangerSeeker]

Well, when I marched on Washington, there were quite a few cuties around. I also walked past a few homeless people who are guaranteed less aid because of what we're spending on the war. They didn't complain about what Saddam had been putting them through. Some of them were veterans, by the way.

[psychofiend]

Yeah... /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

[armyantmatt]

For great information and insights into U.S. monkey-business check out:

www.michaelmoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com)

www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest)

www.thismodernworld.com (http://www.thismodernworld.com)

www.theonion.com (http://www.theonion.com)

[FanGirl]

Yes, the Onion is an excellent source of news.

[jjcourtright]

There are few things that cause more pleasure to me than people mistaking THE ONION for real news. Hilarious.

[Zens_7s]

When I was in Madison, WI a few weeks ago, I had a good Onion laugh. Of course, in Madison you can get The Onion news-print edition pretty much anywhere the Madison Capital Times and USA Today is.

Apparently I was not standing next to some locals, because one lady picks up a copy, reads a bit of the front page and says, "They have some very sarcastic newspapers in this town. I wonder how they are allowed to do that legally. You would think since it is the capital they would report the news a little better." Then her friend says, "Yeah - you know this town is filled with a bunch of crazy liberal commies. They get away with everything".

When I stopped laughing I thought, who says "commie" anymore?

[FanGirl]

Did you guys heard that a while back a Japanese newspaper picked up an Onion story and ran it as real news? It was awesome. I beleive the story was about how the capital building was going to move to another town if they did pay to have the dome redone.

The Japanese paper's retort was that our satire articles should be better marked as such.

[Razorback]

Yeah, that was pretty funny. The article was a great lesson in culture.

RB

[Dr3vil]

It's funny, despite what senile conservatives say, it's actually the more moderate liberals opposing Bush. Crazy liberal commies like me love him, he's driving American capitalism into a facist feudalism that will collapse on itself /forums/images/icons/grin.gif. This is no more obvious than in the Halliburton feuled corporate imperialism that will more than likely lead us to a war with Saudi Arabia and/or Iran for their imaginary weapons. I give Bush credit though, he can't pronounce 4 sylable words, but he's smart enough to know war can take the focus away from any economy.

Oh, and Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php)'s awesome, he directed Bowling for Columbine and the video for Rage Against the Machine's "Sleep Now in the Fire," which featured him and the band being arrested for playing on the steps of Wall Street.

[Razorback]

I love reading crazy [censored] like what you just posted. I am going to copy that and post it on every site I frequent, I am not kidding. You deserve a stuffed animal for:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
he's driving American capitalism into a facist feudalism that will collapse on itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Insanity... I need to send this to my economics prof. She will get a good laugh. Seriously, this is pure crazy genius! I laughed my ass off reading that.

Also:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Halliburton feuled corporate imperialism that will more than likely lead us to a war with Saudi Arabia and/or Iran for their imaginary weapons

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just more of your humor --I hope it is intentionally funny because you should be working on the Daily Show- as it is obvious to even the most militant anti-Bush'ite that he will never go to war with Saudi Arabia and IF HE DID it would be justified since they financed the attacks of September 11th.

And finally... I agree completely with you about Michael Moore; he is an awesome [censored] lying sack of [censored] who is worshipped by people who can't see past their ism's.

You rock dude... keep 'em coming!

RB

[Zens_7s]

I am realizing that DrEvil surmised I am a liberal from my post about the Onion ladies. Funny, I get that ALL the time. When I worked the last election, we ended up being uneven in numbers between democrats and republicans at the table. Eventually it was discovered that all the other people (mostly in their 60's and 70's) assumed I must be a democrat because I was in my twenties, female, and not exactly what you would describe as a typical republican in appearance, opinion, or manner. Maybe it was those leather pants I showed up in /forums/images/icons/wink.gif True story, anyway...

It saddens me that a person cannot have a sense of humor, swear like a sailor, read the "wrong" kind of books, listen to the "wrong" kind of music, and still be assumed a republican. [Note I did not say conservative]. I respect my democratic friends, and often agree with them. More often I do not; hence why I chose a different party. I also do not play blind and ignore that my chosen party has problems like the others. Believe me, I investigated both, coming from a family with a Italian/Catholic/Democratic father, and a Swiss/Protestant/Republican mother.

Working from the inside of the local republican party, where there are less in-your-face young thinkers, I find myself invited to get more involved than I was in the democratic camps. My opinion is listened to, and occasionally has changed a few minds for the better.

Generally I have avoided political discussions on this board, because I treat it as movie and music fun. However, I thought it best to clear up the previous assumption about which way I am leaning.

[Razorback]

Wow... I was a volunteer for my (then) local Democratic Party chapter in 1992 until 1994 and I turned against the party due to that work. The people I worked with and for were the most rigid, angry, self-righteous, pompous, liars, and all around scumbags that I have ever found myself around.

I came in one day and was put on phone duties (to call up New Jersey Democratic Party supporters) for the Clinton/Gore campaign. During a quick meeting before the shift started I asked "What should we say that our message is... if asked?" To which our campaign leader said "Preach the message! Republicans are evil! Republicans are evil! They are [censored] evil!"

This is the mindset... I stuck around long enough to confirm the idiocy within the Democratic Party. On more than a dozen occasions I was made to feel like an outcast (and an evil spy) when I asked questions about methods handed down to us by different factions of the party. I made the mistake of asking why our party didn't seem to have any focus other than beating the "evil Republicans" and after that I was ignored by the other volunteers.

When I changed my volunteer duties a block away to the Republican Party HQ I found that those people were open to discussion, friendly, more about ideology and less about beating the Democrats into submission. There was an actual focus/message/scope and I remember thinking that the Republicans would eventually run the whole show because they were more open to change (at least as I saw it).

Even today, after the Democrats have had their tails handed to them again and again they continue the angry, rigid, pompous ("we are better than them") attitude. The party of the message has become the party that wants to win more than anything else.

Now I am not saying that the everyday Democrat who works hard and wants the best for his family thinks this way, just those who work behind the scenes. The DNC is an ineffective institution as it stands. I used to believe in the ideology of the Democratic Party but lately I do not share the vision (probably because it does not exist).

I throw a majority of my support to the Republican party not because I share their ideology (some of it, but not even most of it) but because that party actually has one. There is a passion within the RNC that is long lost on the DNC.

RB

[marksiwel]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Bush, Dick, and Colon. What the hell where we thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Dick and Bush Funny

BUT! HIS NAME IS COLIN!!!

COLIN! Like the dude who played Bullseye in Daredevil! Colin!

The Media said it wrong a LONG time ago and wont admit to there mistake.

COLIN! Not Colon or Kidney or Spleen!?!

Listen to the Way Colin Powell says his name, he says Colin!

[code6enterprises]

Like it matters.

[Zens_7s]

Very interesting post RB. It sounds like we had a VERY similar situation from Camp D, and I enjoyed reading your reply.

[armyantmatt]

I have a question fot RB and Zen.

One of my biggest problems with the GOP is that they have made their party nearly inseperable from the religious right. The old GOP used to be different from the DFL primarily by being fiscally conservative, which made them a more viable option in my eyes.

My question is: How have you reconciled this new trait of your chosen party, has it caused friction, or is it a non-issue for you? Do you feel it may be costing your party votes?

I guess that's more than one question. Meh.

[Razorback]

Well, I am not a member of the GOP. I was just relating experiences within both parties. Now, my biggest problem with the GOP has always been the abortion/death penalty issue. While I will never be a supporter of all-out abortions I do believe that they should be allowed to be performed within the first trimester (and up until the point of a viable life). Many Republicans I know feel the same way but are pressured by their party to follow the line of "pro-life." Also, if you are "pro-life" then you should be against the death penalty. I think that, as a modern culture, Americans should be moving away from government sanctioned and deliberate murder of a non-combatant. These are major points that bother me about the GOP.

The biggest is the one you brought up. I disagree strongly that the right-wing is inseperable from the religious right. Maybe in the eyes of the mass media (the "northerners" on the east and west coasts) this is true but the Republican Party is now full of liberal and moderate individuals of different races and religions. However, the fact that the Christian Coalition has such a prominent role in the party does get under my skin. Those people are more annoying than the nutbags I worked with in the Democratic Party.

So how do I reconcile my choice of the GOP (or my greater support for it)? They are a party with an actual ideology, also they are working very hard to gain new support from people that have otherwise (loyally) voted for Democrats (specifically, African-Americans and Spanish-Americans).

The Democrats seem lost and it has been happening for a while now (when I was working with them it had been going on for a long time and it has only gotten worse). The party is hanging by a noose, slowly dying and only being saved by showbiz people who regurgitate the myth that the Democrats are the party of the people while the GOP is the party for rich, white, business men.

The biggest contributors to the Democratic Party are lawyers... the richest, whitest, and most business-like men in the country (I should know, I worked for some of them). The party is more corrupt than a secret GOP Klan meeting.

RB

[karmattack]

I think the hardest part about being a liberal is the fact that the Democratic party doesn't stand for much besides being non-Republican. I know that's already been said, but I'm repeating for emphasis. I don't know if I'll ever sway to the darksi....I mean, to the Republican party because of my moral standards and how they conflict with what appears to be consensus with the GOP. Until now, I've been floating....not doing anything, not even voting. I don't consider myself affiliated. Gephardt is looking promising though! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Razorback]

From my point of view, the Democratic Party is the dark side. They are Vader... once good but now more mechanical than human. I remember standing on a soapbox blasting the GOP when I was younger and now I feel the same way about the other side. Life is funny.

RB

[DangerSeeker]

Nice Vader analogy!

I keep seeing reports about how the Democratic party is continually losing support, and I can't deny that. More and more, it's hard to find anyone who proudly declares themselves a Democrat. Typically, hey are either Republican or distinctly unaffiliated, like myself.

Those who say they are Democrats tend to so it in the way somebody might say they're Catholic, even though they haven't been to church in a few years, and disagree with official stances of the Vatican, but it's how they were raised.

Personally, I just argue my beliefs to get them out there, or, like I did last night, pretend to be on the other side of the issue to shut somebody up.

[armyantmatt]

Thanks for the reply RB, it's always nice to hear other people's opinions expressed rationally and expletive free. The funny thing is, some of the other boards I frequent that are much more political in nature, seem to be unable to have this kind of intelligent discourse. For some reason the board that has poop in the name is the most mature . . . who'd a thought?

[Zens_7s]

&gt;&gt;My question is: How have you reconciled this new trait of your chosen party, has it caused friction, or is it a non-issue for you? Do you feel it may be costing your party votes?&gt;&gt;

It is a non-issue for me. Many people believe an entire party is defined by the president's beliefs. Bush is very vocal about his religion, and he has attracted many people who are equally vocal. The majority of the party is not represented by the religion-right zealots. Just like a business, you get a few obnoxious people that work with you, and you do your best to either ignore them.

Do I feel it is costing my party votes? Yes, I do think that the impression that the party is only wealthy, white, Bible-thumping, war mongering, anti-environmental, anti-free-speech, anti-homeless people, anti-cat, pro-dog, anti-Grateful Dead, pro. American Idol, housedress wearing woman, and business suit wearing men IS costing us votes. It is unfortunate that citizens will take whatever image is fed to them.

Much like RB stated more eloquently above, I differ in opinion on many issues with the GOP. What I remind my friends is you have little control in either party about the old guard in the administration. But eventually all terms must end, and the lowly little representatives you tacked up posters with on Saturday nights will be there to take their place. There are politicians who believe what I believe, and they are moving up the political ladder to take over for the old men. Maybe their influence will not be felt for another few years, but at least they have an ideology to stand behind. Lest I repeat myself, my ranting about local problems have not fallen on deaf ears in Camp R. Over in Camp D., where I went first, all anybody wanted to do was take the opposite opinion of the other candidate in Camp R.

[Zens_7s]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Those who say they are Democrats tend to so it in the way somebody might say they're Catholic, even though they haven't been to church in a few years, and disagree with official stances of the Vatican, but it's how they were raised.


[/ QUOTE ] Excellent point Danger! So many people SAY they support the liberals, but they are not doing anything. Many just assume their party is always going to stand for the things they believe in, but are not checking, or often voting. I hate to do it, because I think the guy is a very intelligent and talented man, but look at Ben Affleck. He was out giving his undying support to the Democratic Party vocally, and he got busted by the Smoking Gun for not having voted for eight years. He is no different than my liberal friends, and I felt embarrassed for him. The Democrats need to get their people rallied back around something besides disliking the other kids because eventually all the good people will fade away.

[jjcourtright]

Since Zens is from Chicago, I thought I would throw this out. A couple of years ago a cousin of mine ran for some office in Chicago. On the ballot it said "Stephanie Sailor Vs. The Machine". Do you remember that?

[Zens_7s]

That was your cousin? She is a libertarian, right? I remember a little bit about it, but I am in a different district than she ran in (I think). I worked with a guy who ran with the libertarians, so I will have to bring it up. I bet he could talk for hours about that one /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[jjcourtright]

Libertarian? Sho nuff. That was big family news. Big enough that she was running, bigger still that she wasn't running Democrat, and even bigger that she was running by that name. Funnily enough, my Uncle Jim, who you seem to know oh so much about, was doing advertising for the Libertarian party. Something about guns and busses...I don't really remember.

[Zens_7s]

I love your Uncle Jim. Guns and busses! How can you deny the incredible fun of Uncle Jim. Granted, I like your Uncle Tupelo better, and your Uncle John's band is still the best, but Jim is good clean American-libertarian fun.

Is she ever going to run again?

[jjcourtright]

I don't know. I have so many Uncles, and by extension, so many cousins. Kind of hard to keep track of them all. We all have to do things like run for office to get noticed by the rest of the family. I had a pretty good run in high school, got suspended three times and then expelled. All in one month. I sure made those other cousins jealous with all the attention that I had.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I hate to do it, because I think the guy is a very intelligent and talented man, but look at Ben Affleck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that one needs to vote to be allowed a voice in politics.

RB

[Zens_7s]

Did I say he was not allowed a voice? Where did I say that? I read/listened to many of his comments, and the guy is a talented, informed, and passionate speaker. That being the case, he especially should be voting. It takes away from his message when the public listens to him rally to the cause and then finds out he does the opposite. Ben may not motivate me to go to the polls, but I bet he does quite a few people and that is awesome. I would hate to see that kind of passion overshadowed.

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...so then RB said:
And finally... I agree completely with you about Michael Moore; he is an awesome [censored] lying sack of [censored] who is worshipped by people who can't see past their ism's.

[/ QUOTE ]

...so then I said:

LOL! You don't know how happy I am to hear that. See you (this goes for the rest of humanity) dismiss the people who you simply believe are wrong, a man trumpeting that 2+2=5 doesn't give you pause. However, the people who successfully make you question the beliefs which construct your security win your disdain. Put simply, the fact that he angers you shows that you recognize his legitimacy to some extent, though you partially refuse to acknowledge it. Cool down and listen to people if you ever want to claim open minded-ness.

And I hate the democratic party, they have no backbone, and they so fear being disowned by the new conservative majority that they're mostly pushing ultra-conservatives. Take Lieberman, who, to paraphrase John Stewart is the candidate "for those who like bush, but don't think he's jewish enough." To top it off, the only real democratic hopeful is Howard Dean. I don't know whether I'm voting for him, his tractor, or his neck, but he's all I got if I want less dead Islamic children.

What am I? I hate party identification, it's just a way of getting people to vote without getting them to think. We are the sheep, they are the sheep herders, as is the enevitability of representative democracy, if people voted for issues instead of people, views wouldn't be nearly as singular, but most people want the added comfort of agreement from a room full of people. While I abhor it, I am in no position to object as I get comfort from pseudo-rebellion from the same room full of people (plus pure democracy in almost inconcievable on a large scale).

If I had to categoriorize myself (as I must on penalty of being categoriorized by someone else), I'm Socialist. Why Socialism? Philosophical reasons, many of which were hit on by Albert F-king Einstein. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm)

I hate having political discussions with republicans, mainly because the discussions rarely involve politics. I have lots of young republican friends (actually, the vast majority of them are), so it comes as no surprise, but they tend to have more wit than they have points, RB's post is more proof of this than I could ever provide. Symbolism, justification, absolutes are all that matter, and the funny part is they can top eachother like poker cards. Sanctity of life? "Nah, I got retribution, I'm taking the pot and your country is toast... just a buncha sandniggers anyway..."

As for my earlier statement, it was mostly a slight exaggeration, I know Iraq had weapons, but there never was any Al-Queda link, at least until they had to dump the weapons before we arrived. Call me crazy, but that's what Colin Powell said, and I'm foolish enough to believe him. Another reason we need Bush out of office, I can't blame Powell for leaving, I wouldn't enjoy being made a puppet of a brash coward either, but I'd say we're even more screwed with him out.

Also, I think there's a strong case to bomb the country that trained Osami Bin Laden and the taliban, then schooled those pilots to take off but not land, and that is harboring many Al Queda members as we speak, the United States of America. If we're not bombing ourselves, who were clearly in part responsible for 9/11, should we be continuing our military campaign on Saudi Arabia?

I know logic won't quench the young republican hard on for smiting in all it's religious connotation, but can we at least wait until Iraq is stable enough that our troops aren't being killed on a daily basis? No, of course not, stability is only achieved by a dictator bought with our money, it's the best way the U.S. has of giving stability to other countries, but not an option in this case because it's so high-profile. So we'll roll on and kill more people, (retribution beats the sanctity of life, right?) while Iraq is in chaos and maybe once we've raped another area of it's natural resources the bodies of U.S. peacekeepers pile high enough then bringing peace to the newly re-impoverished areas will become a priority. Good enough, it serves the end, but there are less bloody ways of doing it.

Moreover, the size of a country's middle class has shown strong correllation to it's stability, and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a rate not seen in decades, so whether it takes another depression or not, we'll eventually have to further build on to the set of liberal economic policies that have led us out of every major economic crisis and seldom been reneged.

I don't oppose Republican philosophy for what it stands for (though it stands for bigotry in a way I personally oppose), but right wing economics, historically speaking, have simply shown no promise. Maybe in war time economies, but only because of the superior efficiency of two working spouses, which republicans are generally against. Trickle down econimics is good if you're the one doing the pissing, just as "it's good to be king" in a despotism, but ultimately it's never good for stability.

Damn, I wrote too much again, consider it all mental vomit.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
See you (this goes for the rest of humanity) dismiss the people who you simply believe are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with people like you is that you make blanket statements about things (you do it in nearly every post) and truly believe that your "brilliant" deduction is right on the money (despite the dozens of flaws in each and every thought).

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
a man trumpeting that 2+2=5 doesn't give you pause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A man who writes books and makes "documentaries" where he reveals how 2+2=5 and how whitey made you think it was 4 until genius boy directed you otherwise...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However, the people who successfully make you question the beliefs which construct your security win your disdain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moore is a fake. Someone who makes me question my beliefs is someone I would probably listen to more so that I can learn how I may have been wrong in the past and where I may have been wrong (as usual, you assume you know anything about me).

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Put simply, the fact that he angers you shows that you recognize his legitimacy to some extent

[/ QUOTE ]

Assumption #12,433. No, it does not. He doesn't anger me, the stupidity surrounding this leader of the moron puppets is what angers me. How so many people can join his cult of the misinformed amazes me. As a European who has family all over the world I get to hear people argue Moore's BULL to me all the time and they have no idea that he MADE IT UP (no facts, no truth, nothing). The US bashing is bad enough without this dippy manufacturing things to hate about this country.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
though you partially refuse to acknowledge it. Cool down and listen to people if you ever want to claim open minded-ness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your greatest glitch so far is believing that you are open minded. You are not... you are more close-minded that anyone here.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I hate having political discussions with republicans, mainly because the discussions rarely involve politics

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a Republican. You clearly have not read what I have said about my political leanings.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
"Nah, I got retribution, I'm taking the pot and your country is toast... just a buncha sandniggers anyway..."

[/ QUOTE ]

You should get some help. That was a disgusting display of all around ignorance.

I stopped reading your hate there.

RB

[karmattack]

I was born in Flint, Michigan. I was raised about 30 min. from Flint. I lived downtown for about a year. I worked downtown for a couple years. I go to college in Flint. I've met and talked with Michael Moore personally. I can tell you one thing: Roger &amp; Me is about 96% fact. The other 4% is exaggeration, but not made up or false. I haven't checked all the facts, but I feel the same way about Bowling For Columbine; some things seem fantastic or dramatic, but most everything is logical and seems to add up. And before anyone tries to argue that exaggeration makes MM false or inept, remember the person who gets defended so much in these forums who at this moment is being scrutinized for (possibly) exaggerating about Weapons of Mass Destruction and then blowing the fuk out of a country.
I'm not a Moore follower. I haven't read any of his books and I've only seen the two movies I mentioned. Like I said, I met him one time as he was walking through the mall and he seemed like a nice enough guy. He might be a bit closed-minded, a little manipulative and very outspoken about his beliefs. Again, before you criticize that, think of how that compares to our current president.

This isn't directly aimed at you, Razor -- just kind of wanted to say it. Although I wonder what liberal, critical-of-the-right authors might actually give you pause. Gore Vidal? Noam Chomsky?

[Zens_7s]

&lt;&lt; And before anyone tries to argue that exaggeration makes MM false or inept, remember the person who gets defended so much in these forums who at this moment is being scrutinized for (possibly) exaggerating about Weapons of Mass Destruction and then blowing the fuk out of a country.
&gt;&gt;
I am not sure where he gets defended all that much around here. Not by me. By being affliated with a party, it does not mean you blindly support the president. Or are you referring to the occasional..."Bush iz da best prezidnet that we have right now. he rulz my mom and englsih teachar told me so." /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[karmattack]

Mainly referring to Razorback, Psychofiend and the occassional other.

[DangerSeeker]

I think everybody on this board makes blanket statements. It's a message board post, not a term paper. We also all get a little close minded, because rarely do we post "Oh, okay, I can see your side now, agree or not." That's something we say to ourselves quietly. We're airing grievances, and learning new information as we go. At least, I am. If something strikes me as an interesting point, something I was previously unaware of, or however, I open another browser window and look into it. "The more you know..."

Moore has definitely gotten slammed for exaggerations, but the talk of the exaggerations is used to sweep a lot of the truths and/or questions he brings up. Calling him 100% fake, or implying it, is just as big an exaggeration or fallacy as anything you could be refuting.

I personally visit his site for the links and for things to look into, but I typically will make sure there's verification from an outside source. There almost always is, except on the Op/Ed or humor links, but those aren't to be used as canon anyway. I'm a fan, but a large part of it is that he makes me laugh. I don't agree unanimously with him, so I would dispute the claim that his followers are puppets.

I think that offensive statement was meant as satire, though it still used a term I won't use. It makes an assumption that there is an element of racism to what is going on, and none of us can really confirm or deny what's in the man's heart. Personally, I think his motivations are religious, but I can't deny suspicions that he makes an association between ethnicity and religion in their case, but with nothing to back it up, I won't use it as an argument.

Lastly, to calm this debate down, we all agree that Stalin was a hip cat, right? I mean really righteous and def!

{puts away the kerosene}

[brycejmcewen]

Stalin tried to kill 'The Duke', John Wayne.

[armyantmatt]

I gotta give dangerseeker credit for a rational, thoughtful post. I agree that all encompassing statements or affilliations are a turn-off, whether it is total agreement with a party line, an individual, or a web post, or total disagreement for that matter.

Saying republicans are the "darkside" with no reasoning behind it is funny to some, but certainly not informative or convincing. Just as asserting that someone is a "lying sack of [expletive deleted]" without giving even one example of said sack lying is irksome to some, but also completely uninformative.

Noone is educating anybody or convincing anyone to re-examine their standards or beliefs with these kinds of arguements. I'd like to see the reasons behind these assertions, regardless of where I stand or if I agree, knowledge for it's own sake is still cool.

Meh . . . my two cents.

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...so then RB says to me, he says:
The problem with people like you is that you make blanket statements about things (you do it in nearly every post) and truly believe that your "brilliant" deduction is right on the money (despite the dozens of flaws in each and every thought).

[/ QUOTE ]

...so then I says:
Then give me a flaw, just one, and a conversation can start, pick a topic, any topic. I can't write you off as an idiot, there's obviously a good reson for your beliefs, and I just want to know why. I was hoping for at least a tyrade, some indication of introversion from which I could gleam insight, a rise for shits and giggles as it were. Most people who believe stupid things usually believe them for really interesting reasons, sociology is more complex than any one, boring person. I know you think my ideas are stupid, and you just wrote me off, but aren't you just a bit curious as to the formation of my particular assinine set of beliefs?

And yes I hate, I hated this war and I hate ones to follow, I hate injustice, and I hate the death of any people, exceeding the thousands, excecuted in my name. If your voting for Bush, you're quite neccessarily helping kill people and forgive for expecting a damn good explanation. However, as you can see, it's rather ugly and of course I'll respect your right to bow out.

[Razorback]

I have also defended Clinton and Gore, so does that make me a liberal Democrat now? It is interesting that people here only focus in on my comments about the Republican party and totally ignore my overall social/political view (which is extremely liberal).

I have said from the start that the Bush administration was being less than honest about Iraq. I have never defended the Bush administrations lies, I have defended their move towards war. Yet things that I have never said or implied are consistantly applied to me because I have openly supported the Republican Party over the Democrats.

As for Roger Moore... Bowling For Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) is full of misinformation and staged scenes. He wins an Oscar for making a documentary that is part fiction? 96% fact? I would lower that number down considerably. I used to worship at the alter of Moore... but I can only swallow crap for so long before I abandon something.

Bill Maher is my new Moore (when I liked Moore I mean). He is funny and knowledgable and he truly seems to consider all sides before talking. Most importantly, he is willing to have his opinion swayed (somewhat) by a good argument. I used to dislike him but after reading some of his work and paying more attention to him I have been swayed. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

RB

[Dr3vil]

As for the unquotable word, Arabians were dehumanized the second we got the profile of the hijackers. It was done a lot more ruthlessly in world war two against the Japanese, it's really sort of an unavoidable occurance, but it's a fact that is never referenced. We heard about a few news stories of Middle-Eastern, Islamic, and even Hindu and Indian discrimination and moved on as if this has nothing to do with bombing people who fit that description.

If some Americans wanted to attack random citizens who couldn't have possibly been involved with the hijackings, of course they'd be all for attacking the people who look like the hijackers and *might* (based on now nortiously bad intel) be involved. Race is always the skirted issue, but I don't think it should be ignored.

Oh, and yes, it was utterly and completely tactless, but I was pressed for space and mid-tirade.

EDIT: Yea, "notoriously bad intel," I do make blanket statements. Replace that three word phrase with a discussion about the grossly exaggerated sixteen or so many word phrase (good enough for Brittain, why not America?), and the report that Powell was less convinced by the "Iraq-Al queda" case he pushed to the UN than the "fact is they have weapons" case.

See? Tidy blanket, ain't it?

[Dr3vil]

I love Bill Maher, gotta catch that new hbo special.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I know you think my ideas are stupid, and you just wrote me off, but aren't you just a bit curious as to the formation of my particular assinine set of beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more like that your ideas are presented in a manner that makes me not want to listen to you. You sound a lot like one of my best friends... so nothing you have said so far is new to me. The only difference is that he doesn't accuse me of being a Republican.

RB

[karmattack]

Dude, that link rules. I'm sending that to my friend who I saw Bowling with. I wonder how it'll effect whether or not he finishes Stupid White Men.
It makes some great points, even though the writer is a bit biased himself and losing out on a few other points </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Moore's resolution is questionable. After all, early in the movie he discards the possibility that playing violent video games and watching violent flicks can cause violence -- because Canadians like, and Japanese positively love, those.

If violent movies and violent videogames cannot cause violence -- then how can newscasts about violence do so?


[/ QUOTE ] Well because one is fiction/entertainment and the other is what represents, and in some senses creates, outside reality for the people who view it. This problem with the media is just plain logic. Tracy Ullman made fun of American fear-hype Media on The Daily Show last night, Michael Moore slams it in Bowling, my hardnosed Republican bro-in-law has now quit watching the news since it was pointed out how crazy it makes him, I quit watching the news and I feel so much happier and optimistic about the outside world. Yet, I still play Grand Theft Auto.

I still stand behind Roger &amp; Me though /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[DangerSeeker]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
As for Roger Moore...

[/ QUOTE ]
He would have won the Cannonball, had it not been for Foyt!

[Dr3vil]

I love Micheal Moore, but his documentaries tend to interest me in unintentional ways. Especially Bowling, which I just saw recently. He sorta meanders and probes places, but never comes to any really good reason why Canada is less violent than the states. Media maybe, big deal, I already know these assholes and despite scare tactics they still can't get me to watch the 5:00 news. Guns, no. In fact, he keeps posing the question throughout the documentary without really answering it. Sure, I could spin ya half a dozen radical left wing yarns about why America is so violent, but they're shaky conjectures at best.

The problem to me isn't America's preoccupation with violence, but simple neglect. Marilyn Manson gets blamed as if these kids were a biproduct of something wholly different than America, but that just makes them our bastard children. Fact is, people got bigger priorities than kids, the government has bigger priorities than your kids, and we don't want to change our priorities. As shocked as we were, the end result of all of that was essentially nothing. A few more metal detectors, sure, but no search into what really triggerd and can prevent those incidents. To me that shows both the cause and ultimate result of the shooting, we just don't care. We're apparently beyond identifying with these "troubled" kids and we don't want to, we just want to be protected from them.

[Razorback]

LOL! I can't believe I wrote "Roger Moore." Damn, that nearly made me cry. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

RB

[Zens_7s]

I thought you were trying to draw some wierd love-child/comparison between Roger &amp; Me, and Michael Moore. Then I thought, well that joke went over my head and moved on.

For the record, Roger Moore was a great James Bond.

[Razorback]

Darnit... I could have just kept my mouth shut and maintained the illusion that I was being crafty. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

RB