PATSNUTme

I don't think so. If you did you wouldn't post such stupidity as you have just posted.

Now, I have some babes to check out and wasted enough time here.

BF80, see what you started.

Real World

Speaking of babes, I've got a nominee to post in the Ladies Lounge.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Brownfan80

That's because I'm asking for them, not giving them. But instead of facts people keep giving me their opinions of Moore or of the left/right battle. Which isn't what I'm after. Oh well.

Brownfan80

Thank you for this post, I think this is great advice.

Brownfan80

But I'm not worried about Moore. I'm worried about this administration and what is true. Why would I google a film maker if I don't care about him, but rather the topic he covered in a movie? I'd rather google the topic. Which I have, and haven't found much.

Lots of conspiracy theories and lots of Left vs Right stuff, but none of that is what I'm after.

Brownfan80

Don't blame me, blame the politicians.

Real World

Maybe you should start by offering us your opinion of the administration and the ongoing war. We could start there, and then you'll get a mountain of facts, fiction, and opinion from just about everyone in here. Some people will be harsh, others will be funny, and some might be both. Whatever happens, try to ignore anyone that gets personal. Afterall, this is an internet forum, and not real life.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PatsFanInVa

Brownfan, I consider myself center-left, and my observation of RW is that he is fairly right-wing. He would probably call himself center-right, and by the standards of this board, at least, he'd be right (as in correct.) We've gone round a couple of times on some things, usually not on the same side, but I will say this: he makes a very good point about getting all the viewpoints you can. The difficulty is, somebody will always call your source biased, so then you are stuck checking the allegations, checking the checkers, debunking the checker-checkers, and so on. I guess all this is to say, it's hard work. But when worldviews on either side start verging on hysteria and conspiracy theory, it is definitely time to roll up the sleeves and see what the hoopla is about.

One side note: don't know which of our savants is obsessing on the details of how Saddam Hussein was responsible to surrender weapons he did not have, but the gentleman in charge of inspections spells his name Blix, not Blitz. This would seem to be a salient enough fact that it would not escape the attention of our ardent fact-checking department.

On Moore's film: I agree that he has a bias. I also see the film as a documentary. It's been a while since I saw it, but I think his bias is obvious, and the fact that we should all be going "hmmm" is also obvious. I do not think there was any sort of conspiracy involved in 9/11; But I also think it is a very good point that OBL family member were not extensively questioned (for example.)

I've read the right wing debunkers, and have heard of both Farenhype 911 and something called Celsius(some number of degrees.) It's no surprise to me that the people endlessly recommending these films, invariably state they have never seen Farenheit 911. Saw Farenhype 911, was not impressed... and found exactly the sort of debunker-debunking we see here. There seems to be a cottage industry of people overstating an already somewhat specious claim, in order to debunk it; this is a particularly effective technique if the intent is to debunk a film your audience didn't see in the first place.

But to return to my point of agreement with RW: that is why you cultivate a variety of sources. I noticed you had Christian Science Monitor, which I find very good, often even on what I disagree on (for example, I am pretty solidly pro-Israel, and CSN seems quite sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.) So of course, I read that as "bias." But it is the sort of bias that could go either way, not a cheerleading, finger-pointing, witch-hunting sort of bias.

Another item to remember: If you are concerned with world affairs, read and watch other media than the U.S. media. One thing to remember is, even when you consume the local "left" end of the spectrum, American outlets root for America as the home team.

Think of what you'd think of a Russian paper which never really deeply challenged Communism through the '80s, but occasionally reported something embarassing about Gorby -- even though they were good Communists. This is the equivalent of our own media. Only the radical elements challenge the legitimacy of the state and its infrastructure. Let me make something clear - I do not agree with such elements. I am just pointing out that if we define "Right Wing" as more jingoistic than "Left wing," we will find that the left is more likely to be in step with "world opinion," because the world at large does not share the pro-American bias that we indulge ourselves in domestically.

Therefore, reading/viewing international sources is de rigeur if you're looking for a spectrum of opinion.

BBC news is available many places in the US now. Give it a look for a few nights. And bear in mind that BBC is pretty much the state information organ in the UK, and the UK is pretty much the US's closest ally. Then move on to some wackier stuff. You'll be amazed at the perspective you gain through triangulation.

I'm not saying buy it hook line and sinker. I'm saying, as you explore the various media available (pretty overwhelming amount,) you don't have to stay within US sources, either fringe or mainstream.

PFnV

PATSNUTme

You of coarse are right about the spelling of ole Hans name. So, you won the spelling bee.

But, you do have a reading comprehension problem. Saddam was to give dates, time, where, and when he got rid of his WMD's. This was so it could be verified. Which is what 1441 demanded that he do. He never did tell anyone that they were detroyed and when, where and how they were distroyed. Instead he issued a smoke and mirrors paper and sent the inspectors on hide and seek missions.

This is very important because it was the reason to go to war (agree or disagree if you want). So to say someone is obsessing about the most crucial fact around the war and dismissing it, is being very arrogant.

That is what was brought out. NOT, "he had to surrender weapons that he did not have".

Feel free to correct any other spelling errors made. But, try hard to read what was said, not what you want to be said.

Harry Boy

Kerry/Gore/Clinton and many other Democrats during War Hero Kerry's run for President all said, "Saddam Has To Go"

HE'S GONE.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself