Lets vote, for president

Who would you vote for?

  • Bush

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Kerry

    Votes: 46 79.3%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
    58
Satori said:
Well, in order to comment on a subject, you really do need to do your research first. And that would include seeing the film in its entirety. If you haven't seen the film and don't even plan to, then how can you expect the rest of us to take your comments seriously?

Well have you read all the pro-bush articles and news in it's entirity, and if you haven't, then how can you expect us to take you comments seriously? You might have done your research on the anti-bush front but I do seriously doubt that you have done any entensive research on the pro-bush front. Or am I wrong? I wasn't asking anyone or trying to make anyone believe that Moore's film is slander, just making a comment that I think it is.

sabro said:
Kerry 82% to a mere 9% for our fearless commander in chief? Wow, this is a liberal love fest.

Would anyone care to explain why Kerry has such a big lead here, but is trailing in reality?

Sabro
Maybe because this forum consists of mainly Kerry supporters :? Or is there another answer out there :?
 
sabro said:
Kerry 82% to a mere 9% for our fearless commander in chief? Wow, this is a liberal love fest.

Would anyone care to explain why Kerry has such a big lead here, but is trailing in reality?

Sabro

Who says Kerry is trailing? That sounds like the propaganda put out by Fox News. Is that what you are talking about?

Tateishi said:
Well have you read all the pro-bush articles and news in it's entirity, and if you haven't, then how can you expect us to take you comments seriously?

Unfortunately, I have read all of the pro-Bush articles and news, and that is why I can feel free to make informed comments on them.

Tateishi said:
I wasn't asking anyone or trying to make anyone believe the Moore's film is slander, just making a comment that I think it is.

And as I pointed out before, in order to make an informed comment, you need to know all of the facts. From what you have shared with us here, you have not done so, nor do you intend to do so. So again, how can we take your comments seriously?
 
Really? All the pro-bush articles and news :? And let me ask can anyone really know all the facts as well? In that sense can anyone really be taken seriously according to you? If you really want to be taken seriously then go read the 567 page 9/11 Commission report instead of relying on Micheal Moore's webpage says, then come back to me and then I'll take you seriously and maybe watch the film.

I haven't made any arguments here, and if I were to do so, I would do my research.

On a side note - I read in Japan today that on Kerry's speech on sept 11th that he said someting like
calling Sept. 11, 2001 "the worst day" for the United States, pledged Saturday to go after terrorists "before they get us" again.
is this true? If it is, am I the only one to think it's pretty stupid to say something like this.
 
Tateishi said:
Really? All the pro-bush articles and news :? And let me ask can anyone really know all the facts as well? In that sense can anyone really be taken seriously according to you? If you really want to be taken seriously then go read the 567 page 9/11 Commission report instead of relying on Micheal Moore's webpage says, then come back to me and then I'll take you seriously and maybe watch the film.

I haven't made any arguments here, and if I were to do so, I would do my research.

I take anyone seriously who has done their research. We don't have to agree, but I will always take their comments and viewpoints seriously, simply because they have done their research on the issues under discussion. All we are asking you to do is make informed comments. Why is that so difficult for you?
 
Tateishi said:
But I am pretty sure you also have not read articles just because you didn't want to listen what the writers have to say about the topic. Otherwise you would be reading all the pro-Bush articles as well. I know I have choosen not to read articles just because the first few paragraphs too me seemed completely bias. Meme was probably just saying that he didn't read the articles because it seemed to him what the article was talking about were untrue and therefore slander. I thought Michael Moore's film was alot of slander, but I don't go calling people who disagree with me idiots.

I do read articles with a conservative bias as well, but that is besides the point. As a general rule I don't comment on articles, books, TV shows, etc. unless I have read or seen them. The reason of course is that if you do someone who actually has read them can make you look like an idiot pretty damned quickly. In meme's case the article he/she was referring to wasn't at all a slander but was written by someone who obviously has a religious devotion to Mr. Bush.

I wouldn't call you an idiot because you dislike Michael Moore's film, as long as you can make an intelligent argument to back up your opinion. But in Meme's case (in the Farenheit 911 thread) the only thing he could say was that everyone involved with the film (which he evidently has not seen) are "socialist pigs" and, I quote, "I SPIT ON THIS FILM". This is not intelligent criticism, it is plain foolishness and he deserves to get called on it, in my humble opinion.
 
senseiman said:
I wouldn't call you an idiot because you dislike Michael Moore's film, as long as you can make an intelligent argument to back up your opinion. But in Meme's case (in the Farenheit 911 thread) the only thing he could say was that everyone involved with the film (which he evidently has not seen) are "socialist pigs" and, I quote, "I SPIT ON THIS FILM". This is not intelligent criticism, it is plain foolishness and he deserves to get called on it, in my humble opinion.

OK have to agree with you there.

Satori said:
I take anyone seriously who has done their research. We don't have to agree, but I will always take their comments and viewpoints seriously, simply because they have done their research on the issues under discussion. All we are asking you to do is make informed comments. Why is that so difficult for you?
What do you call research exactly? Reading comments on Michael's Moore's webpage about a 567page report that I haven't read in it's entirity is not what I would call research. Or is research reading various articles from various indepentdent writers:? Go read the report and then I'll take you seriously. It's not that hard, just have to read 567 pages. Ganbarre!


On a side note: It's a very diffcult task to read articles that have a different viewpoint to your own and completely take in what they have to say, without putting your own bias on it. I think there are few people in the world that can do this, and I don't think I am one of them. Maybe I'm too hot headed :? But if one has no opinion on a topic it is also very easy for people with bias opinions to influence those with no opinions. I wonder who can really stay neutral on subjects? Probably not the Japanese judges with a 99% conviction rate.
 
Tateishi said:
What do you call research exactly? Reading comments on Michael's Moore's webpage about a 567page report that I haven't read in it's entirity is not what I would call research. Or is research reading various articles from various indepentdent writers:? Go read the report and then I'll take you seriously. It's not that hard, just have to read 567 pages. Ganbarre!

I'm only asking that you research the issues you're making comments about, that's all. The issue only came up when you made an accusation that Michael Moore's film was slanderous. You made that comment without even seeing the film and admitted that you had no intention of seeing the film. So how can we take your comments seriously when you won't even research the issue you're talking about? Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about anything else you wish to discuss, just that scenario or any other area where you haven't done your research. Put yourself in our place. It's as though you are asking us to accept a critique of a film you haven't even seen! Can you see where we are coming from about that? You're certainly free to choose not to see Moore's film. However, if you are going to make accusations about the film, then all we ask is that you view the film in its entirety before doing so.
 
Fair enough, but the comment on the film was just used as an example relating to a totally different subject, one where people's opinion differ widely, but one where I didn't think I needed to do research on because it wasn't the subject I was discussing. I can't go and read a 567 page report everytime I want to make a comment, or watch a "documentary". Seriously doubt watching this film would change anyone's opinion though.
 
Tateishi said:
Fair enough, but the comment on the film was just used as an example relating to a totally different subject, one where people's opinion differ widely, but one where I didn't think I needed to do research on because it wasn't the subject I was discussing. I can't go and read a 567 page report everytime I want to make a comment, or watch a "documentary". Seriously doubt watching this film would change anyone's opinion though.

Well, I was just trying to show you how it wasn't slander by providing you with the proof, that's all. I didn't realize your comments as to Moore's film were about something else entirely. I just tried to address that one issue, so maybe that's where things got complicated. Anyway, no one wants to force you to see a film you don't want to see. Just asking that if you are going to comment on it, that you see it in order to be informed about what you are addressing. BTW, it might surprise you to learn this film has changed the opinion of a lot of people, just not those who are closed to learning more facts, that's all. And another good documentary that has been released recently is The World According to Bush. Some people who have seen it feel it is better than Moore's film. It hasn't been released here in the states yet, so I haven't seen it yet (only the trailer) and can't comment on it. But if you're interested, there is a link in Duo's thread called "Documentary." Although based on your comments here, maybe you wouldn't be interested in that film either.
 
Satori said:
BTW, it might surprise you to learn this film has changed the opinion of a lot of people, just not those who are closed to learning more facts, that's all.

I really do doubt that the film has changed anyone's minds at all, maybe just re-enforced what those people already believe. I seriously doubt anyone who was pro-bush before watching this film would have been anti-bush after watching this film. But everyone already knew he was an idiot, so that doesn't really take much convincing to show people he is an idiot.

By the way have you watched the documentary "Moore is a big fat american" or something to that effect :D . I haven't watched it because I ain't interested in that film either. But hey, watch it and gives us a comment on it will ya.
 
Tateishi said:
I really do doubt that the film has changed anyone's minds at all, maybe just re-enforced what those people already believe. I seriously doubt anyone who was pro-bush before watching this film would have been anti-bush after watching this film. But everyone already knew he was an idiot, so that doesn't really take much convincing to show people he is an idiot.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Tateishi said:
By the way have you watched the documentary "Moore is a big fat american" or something to that effect :D . I haven't watched it because I ain't interested in that film either. But hey, watch it and gives us a comment on it will ya.

I don't believe the documentary you are referring to is even out yet; however, I remember hearing it was due to be released just prior to the elections. Why mention it if you don't plan to see it? Again, how can anyone take you seriously when you come up with these kinds of comments?
 
Tell me where in my posts did I say Bush was a smart man? All I said was I thought that Moore's film was alot of slander. I doubt anyone(if there is anyone) who believed Bush was a smart man, after watching this film would of changed their minds. So where did I contradict myself? In saying the film probably wouldn't change people's minds :? :?

And I mention the other film so you can go see it, or didn't you get that impression from me saying you should go watch it? Maybe a bad attempt at humor :? What do you reckon Satori?
 
Tateishi said:
Tell me where in my posts did I say Bush was a smart man? All I said was I thought that Moore's film was alot of slander. I doubt anyone(if there is anyone) who believed Bush was a smart man, after watching this film would of changed their minds.

You claim that Moore's film is slanderous against the Bush administration. Yet, once again, you are making comments about a film you have never seen and have no intention of seeing. Therefore, how do you know the film is slanderous? How would you know if the film would change anyone's mind? You simply cannot be certain without having seen the film. Those of us who have seen the film and who have spoken with many people who have changed their minds due to this film can be certain of that fact. You refuse to do the research necessary to discuss this matter, yet you also want all of us to take anything you say seriously. I'm sorry, I can't. You are simply wasting my time. :rolleyes:

Tateishi said:
And I mention the other film so you can go see it, or didn't you get that impression from me saying you should go watch it? Maybe a bad attempt at humor :? What do you reckon Satori?

I reckon you're wasting my time, Tateishi. :rolleyes:
 
I could definitely see how this film would change people's minds. Well, I don't think any truly hard core Bush supporters would be swayed by it, but for middle of the road type people who aren't too interested in politics I could definitely see how it would turn them against Bush and his cronies. You can not watch the scenes of Rumsfeld philosophizing about the mercy and subliminal beauty of American high tech weaponry interspersed with clips of 5 year old Iraqis with their arms blown off by that same weaponry and not feel anything short of total revulsion at this piece of human scum. Same with John Ashcroft singing his eagle song, though instead of revulsion the feeling is more one of embarassement that anyone would make such an ass of themselves in public, let alone so high a public official. In that case, Ashcroft can't blame Moore for making him look bad because no editor could make that footage of him look good!

Of course, the film is heavily edited and intended to have that sort of "revulsion" effect. I've been sickened to the core by the people in that administration since day 1, but I have to admit that the film's visual impact allowed me to reach a whole new level of disgust at them.
 
I read everything I can find- if it is short enough and I have the time. Unfortunately this leaves me highly dependant on the mainstream media and whatever bias it has. That is one reason why I come to sites like this, so I can see a wider view of the world.

I welcome the conservative opinion, even though I am rarely persuaded to change my opinion. I am not interested in unsubstantiated rants, "secret" facts, innuendo, or mean spirited assaults. I think I can recognize that intelligent people can disagree and still be intelligent, well meaning, and moral.

I tried to read "Michael Moore is a Fat Stupid White Man", but it was poorly written and not funny.

I watched another anti-Bush documentary that made a good point that the Bush administration lied to get the US into war. It wasn't nearly as compelling as 9/11 though, even though they had all these ex-CIA and importatnt sounding talking heads making the point.

I try to give the President the benefit of the doubt on Iraq- I would like to believe in the honor of our purpose...but if he wasn't lying, than he was fooled-- this is probably a bigger reason to support Kerry (even though he was fooled too).
 
Satori said:
You claim that Moore's film is slanderous against the Bush administration. Yet, once again, you are making comments about a film you have never seen and have no intention of seeing. Therefore, how do you know the film is slanderous? How would you know if the film would change anyone's mind? You simply cannot be certain without having seen the film. Those of us who have seen the film and who have spoken with many people who have changed their minds due to this film can be certain of that fact. You refuse to do the research necessary to discuss this matter, yet you also want all of us to take anything you say seriously. I'm sorry, I can't. You are simply wasting my time. :rolleyes:

I reckon you're wasting my time, Tateishi. :rolleyes:


I still don't see how I was contradicting myself :? Or does that word have a special meaning in your world?

I reckon your wasting your time as well, attacking a simple sentence like "I think Moore's film is slanderous" in the opinions section and spending nemurous posts on it. Expescially since it is only my opinion (Which you hold not respect for because I don't want to watch a film which I wouldn't really like). So don't go wasting your time answering these posts anymore because you obviously hold a special place in your heart for this film, and your posts are starting to become ridicule. Why would I want to watch a film that is heavily edited and is obviously intended to have, as Senseiman put it, a "revulsion" effect? Then you say you don't want to watch "Michael Moore is a big fat American", how can you say this, since you are obviously into people making films forcing their own opinions onto the general public, even if it is a popular opinion like that of Moore's film. If this is your reaction to a simple sentence, one which wasn't even the subject of the topic, then I am happy you don't want to take me seriously.

Since you hold your research :blush: in such high regard, I suggest you go watch "Michael Moore is a big, fat American" then come and tell us how bad it was. I for one do not want to watch it, because I like to have my own opinions and not have them formed by some else who has made a "documentary " and in which you tend to believe everything off his website instead of going to do some real research. If you really want to do research, then go read the 567 page commission report and don't just go relying on what Michael Moore says about his film on his website. I can read the report for you and tell you what I think it says if you want. I'll even make a webpage so you can believe it. Which seems to be the type of media you want to believe. I have obviously wasted enough of your time on this crap, so I'll leave it at that.

If people want to go watch the film, if people want to have their minds change by a film, then by all means go watch it. I never said everyone should avoid this film, I just said I thought it was slanderous
 
I think that Japan is a part of the US. I also think that the sun doesn't exist, and that New England has a serious problem with unicorn infestations. Notice that I said that I think this, so I shouldn't have to show any reasons for why I think so. They should just be accepted and taken seriously.

The above is why I don't like when people say things like, "this is just my opinion, so you shouldn't get upset over it." The point is that you need to explain why you think that the film was slanderous, which I have yet to see you do.
 
Do you really think Japan in part of the US, do you really think the sun doesn't exists? Do you really think that New England has a serious problem with unicorn infestations? Then your a pretty damn ignorant person. But that's your opinion and I'm not going to attack you over it.

Notice how I took your words out of context, that is why I think the film is slanderous, it's heavily edited to voice an opinion. I did watch almost half the film and just didn't want to watch the rest. Do you really expect me to sit through a film which I dislike just because you believe it's voicing something you agree with?

edit: Look I'm on a red ball now :wave: I really do think you should go use your moderator powers somewhere else, like posts that actually ridicule people like the one you posted about me above. If I say I think Egypt is a fascinating place but isn't a good place to live, then would you expect me to go on a fact finding mission to Egypt and actually live there?
 
Last edited:
Tateishi said:
Do you really think Japan in part of the US, do you really think the sun doesn't exists? Do you really think that New England has a serious problem with unicorn infestations? Then your a pretty damn ignorant person. But that's your opinion and I'm not going to attack you over it.

Did you not just attack me about what I said?

Tateishi said:
Notice how I took your words out of context, that is why I think the film is slanderous, it's heavily edited to voice an opinion. I did watch almost half the film and just didn't want to watch the rest. Do you really expect me to sit through a film which I dislike just because you believe it's voicing something you agree with?

The point is that you can't just say that something is slanderous without providing any sort of evidence for it, in the same way that I can't say what I said without providing some sort of evidence for it. I was just trying to illustrate what remarks without evidence to back them up sound like. Granted, they were a bit out there and ridiculous, but they were just a means of illustrating the point.

By the way, here is the definition of "slander."

Main Entry: 2slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL

Point out what was false in the movie, or stop claiming that it was slanderous. That is all that anyone is asking you to do.

Tateishi said:
edit: Look I'm on a red ball now :wave: I really do think you should go use your moderator powers somewhere else, like posts that actually ridicule people like the one you posted about me above.

Hey, at a way to accuse me of something I didn't do. This falls in line with your comments about the movie. You just say something and have no evidence to back it up.

Tateishi said:
If I say I think Egypt is a fascinating place but isn't a good place to live, then would you expect me to go on a fact finding mission to Egypt and actually live there?

Uh, you're asking me if I think you should know what you're talking about before talking about it? The answer is "yes." Are you telling me that you would tell someone that Egypt is a fascinating place but not a good place to live without actually having been there or at least knowing someone who has, or reading about the experiences of someone who has? I wouldn't expect you to go on a fact finding mission after you said that, though. I would expect you to know something about it before you said it.
 
There was no attack intended, just trying to show that things can be taken out of context. The entire point of what this argument originated from was me using the example of a sentence like "I think Moore's film is slanderous.", which wasn't even the topic of what I was saying, and shouldn't be attacked so heavily. Just like you saying the sun doesn't exists. It wasn't the point you were trying to make.

And I did know something about Moore's film before I made the comment, I watched half of it, so I do know that I didn't enjoy it. As you said above I don't need to of lived in Egypt, but you expect me to know something about it before making that comment, and I did know somthing about it.

Slanderous - Since the film was highly edited, or do you disagree with this? Therefore, in my interpretation, misrepresented alot of what was said, and defaming the people that said it, therefore slanderous.

edit:
Uh, you're asking me if I think you should know what you're talking about before talking about it? The answer is "yes." Are you telling me that you would tell someone that Egypt is a fascinating place but not a good place to live without actually having been there or at least knowing someone who has, or reading about the experiences of someone who has? I wouldn't expect you to go on a fact finding mission after you said that, though. I would expect you to know something about it before you said it.
So all I basically have to do is go read some information about it and then I can comment on it? Well I have already seen almost half the film and there's probably as many articles out there aimed at proving this documentary then there are simed at disproving it. So what parts should I read? The articles that try to disprove it, or go to Moore's website? (Ihave already read articles by the way) But just like anyone else I choose what I want to believe.
 

This thread has been viewed 7627 times.

Back
Top