Celsius 41.11

[JimmehH]

Thanks. And I'm happy to keep debating those "ways of new science" with you. You keep posting the theories and I'll keep playing the skeptic. I think we perhaps both learn a bit that way. :E

I'll drink to that.

*Raises glass*
*Collapses*

I need to go to bed.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Whoa now, I dont think you have any right to say that blahblahblah. Joeslucky22 does make some good points. He is about as civil as other liberal posters so I would say it is about the norm.

 

[Neutrino]

Joeslucky22 does make some good points.

And those would be....?

His constant assertions that all liberals are stupid anarchists and all democrats are silly Kerry lovers? Or were you thinking of some other points that I missed?

Or the one about me having a God complex, perhaps?

But seriously, I've seen a few real points here and there, that though I disagree with them I can see the reason behind them. But to be blunt, for the most part all I've ever seen is rhetoric about the evil democrats and liberals who will destroy our nation. Sorry though, some of my viewpoint is influenced by a different forum that we both are members of as well.

 

[Neutrino]

Sorry, ran out of time to edit.

Just thought this might be interesting for anyone who's been reading all of Joey's anti Farenheit 9/11 and anti Michael Moore posts.

I never saw it, yes.

Judging from all the political reviews and such, it sure sounds like a propaganda bowl of warm shit.

but I will eventualy see F 9 11

Mabe when bush is president in 2005 i'll watch it.

I don't know, I just thought it was somewhat relevant.

 

[Joeslucky22]

Whoa now, I dont think you have any right to say that blahblahblah. Joeslucky22 does make some good points. He is about as civil as other liberal posters so I would say it is about the norm.

Atleast I know I'm normal

I'm 18 if it matters.

First year following politics.

Most kids my age won't vote and don't care and hate both.

So We'll see what happens in november.

And i'm not a republican cause my parents raised me that way, my dad is and unemployed liberal and my mom is a conservative so I get a bit of both sides every day. :|

Neut, i don't see relevance?

It was a joke. and you mind as well quote that from being taken from the h l 2 w o r l d . com forums

 

[seinfeldrules]

I havent seen Fahrenheit 9/11 either, do you expect me to support Moore in anyway? No. I get my information from credible news sources which picked apart his movie like it was loose dirt.

 

[Kabukiavenger]

First year following politics.

im 18, been following since the 2000 election debacle;

I take good notes in history class and did research on my own from numerous sources when i didnt have all the information i needed to draw a conclusion.

i think you know where im going with this

 

[Neutrino]

Neut, i don't see relevance?

It was a joke. and you mind as well quote that from being taken from the h l 2 w o r l d . com forums

No relevance?

Let's review...

From the instant Moore's film came out you've vehemently opposed it and have continued to claim it is all a complete lie.

Now, when an anti Moore film comes out you of course are all ears and wish to keep an open mind about this film that will be full of "truth". (I have no idea about what this film will be like. Just pointing out your view of it.)

This when, in fact, you've never actually seen the film at all.

Sorry, but I see some relevance there. But other's can of course judge for themselves.

And yes it was a quote from an hl2 world thread. I don't really see why that matters though.

I havent seen Fahrenheit 9/11 either, do you expect me to support Moore in anyway? No. I get my information from credible news sources which picked apart his movie like it was loose dirt.

No I don't expect you to support Moore. But my point was that I think it's odd that Joey never saw it when he's been against the film from the moment it hit theaters. I remember he even made a thread on it here when it first came out.

While I'm sure it's a good idea to read about such a film and get an analysis of it from both sides like you've done, I personally don't see how you can let others form your opinion for you. You may not see it that way, but it just seems quite strange to me to form such a complete opinion of a film that you have never bothered to watch yourself.

I guess I just like to judge things first hand is all.

 

[Kabukiavenger]

:| yep

people have this incredible capacity to believe what they prefer to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be probable or most likely............

Gather info, determine context, draw conclusion.

thats A, B, C.

not C, A, B, gents.


i dunno why some ppl have so much trouble with that, it seems so simple and logical a process, yet so few ever bother to follow it.

 

[CptStern]

I havent seen Fahrenheit 9/11 either, do you expect me to support Moore in anyway? No. I get my information from credible news sources which picked apart his movie like it was loose dirt.

show me where?

here are the facts, disprove them

 

[Sai]

I havent seen Fahrenheit 9/11 either, do you expect me to support Moore in anyway? No. I get my information from credible news sources which picked apart his movie like it was loose dirt.

than download it, moore publicly gave permission for everyone to pirate his film, just don't bash something you've never even seen, that's just the worst way to assert your opinion.

and joey

edit: stern, i myself have no problem with micheal moore's views, but i think people that do would find information more credible that doesn't come from his own site....just a suggestion.....

 

[Parrot of doom]

The real irony is that statisically, the average American with a gun is much more dangerous to his countrymen than any 'terrorist'.

 

[Joeslucky22]

im 18, been following since the 2000 election debacle;

I take good notes in history class and did research on my own from numerous sources when i didnt have all the information i needed to draw a conclusion.

i think you know where im going with this

just shows me you had lots of time on your hands

 

[Joeslucky22]

show me where?

here are the facts, www.michaelmoore.com

I knew it was a krock of shit from day 1 yeah I remember.

Guess I was right.

I can't disprove those facts but guys who really know their stuff can.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The real irony is that statisically, the average American with a gun is much more dangerous to his countrymen than any 'terrorist'.

So is drunk driving and cancer.

Here you go stern.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

 

[Joeslucky22]

From the instant Moore's film came out you've vehemently opposed it and have continued to claim it is all a complete lie.

Now, when an anti Moore film comes out you of course are all ears and wish to keep an open mind about this film that will be full of "truth". (I have no idea about what this film will be like. Just pointing out your view of it.)

This when, in fact, you've never actually seen the film at all.

Yep, the moment the movie came out, reviews had come out too!

Then I read my local newspaper the next day "post crescent" and they said it was as truthful as saying eating fastfood every day is healthy.

So my views never changed and I never had the urge to watch the movie.

Then I saw the first 15 min of the film on some site, and the site actually disected every second of the first 15 min and showed how everything was a lie. which was quite humorous actualy.

Then I watched the news reviews and they too said it was pretty much just propaganda.

So that was good enough for me.


I am anticipating this movie (Just like you democrats did with F9/11) because:
1. I am a Republican
2. Micheal Moore's film consisted of many lies, I just want to see if this movie has learned from his mistakes.
3. It's a film bound to help the republicans.

If I said this movie will have NO LIES WHATSOEVER then sue me.

I SAID: "Maybe unlike moore's film, it'll have some truth in it."

keyword maybe.

So "shove it" Neutrono ( only can Mrs. Kerry make such a line so funny)

 

[Neutrino]

I knew it was a krock of shit from day 1 yeah I remember.

Of course you did.

Yep, the moment the movie came out, reviews had come out too!

So if I had seen it and written a review the day it came out you of course would have taken what I had to say as the complete truth too wouldn't you? Or how about the positive reviews that did come out out at that time? You must read and believe all those too didn't you?

Oh wait....

 

[Joeslucky22]

there were alot more negative than positive reviews. So me being a republican and all, I found it susspicious.

 

[CptStern]

I knew it was a krock of shit from day 1 yeah I remember.

Guess I was right.

I can't disprove those facts but guys who really know their stuff can.

what the hell does that mean?


I can even begin to point out how nonsensical that is :rolling:

 

[Neutrino]

there were alot more negative than positive reviews. So me being a republican and all, I found it susspicious.

Ah yes, here are the "reviews" you were reading at the time.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25727&page=11&pp=15&highlight=9/11

Yes, Yahoo movie user reviews are such an excellent source of unbiased information.

Then I read my local newspaper the next day "post crescent" and they said it was as truthful as saying eating fastfood every day is healthy

And this was of course a political article and not in the opinion or movie review section, right? Hmm?

Because that doesn't sound like any sort of real news article to me.

 

[SAJ]

From watching the trailer: Half-truth number one - The execution of a woman in a burka was from film shot in Afghanistan , but shown in a context that suggests it is from Iraq.

 

[CptStern]

So is drunk driving and cancer.

Here you go stern.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

that's your evidence?

lets disect that for a moment:

Dr Kelton Rhoads author of your "evidence"

"He has provided training, consulting, and presentations for industry, government and defense agencies, political candidates, credit and banking firms, non-profit philanthropic organizations, educational agencies, public relations firms, and medical entities, helping people apply the principles of influence to real-world situations."


"After studying and practicing persuasion as an art for years--as a grantwriter, a public relations officer, and a director of marketing and communications--Rhoads became increasingly dissatisfied with intuitive approaches to persuasion, and the guesswork utilized by most persuasive "experts." Seeking a verifiable source of evidence and fact regarding what causes people to change their behaviors, he pursued a doctorate in Social Psychology, specializing in persuasion and compliance."


it sounds like a Spin Doctor Resume to me

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Because [Kerry] states that he would not have gone to war based on the current information and in the very next sentence says it was the right thing to do based on what Saddam had done.

That's not funny. It's his point: There was not enough evidence to start a war based on WMDs.

Kerry says he approves of removing Saddam from power because of the evils of his dictatorship, but allegations of potential terrorism were barely founded.

So, what Kerry was saying there was that Saddam was a terrible person, but he wasn't going to attack america. Also, his statement is that a war was necessary to remove Saddam, but he disapproves of Bush's invasion because it lacks a solid plan.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Edit: And Joeslucky should really just quit while he's behind. "I hate this movie because someone in the newspaper told me to."

 

[Rico]

I remember the time when the U.S was just minding it's own business and not being too careful about terrorism.

I also remember what happened because of it, anyone who says the U.S government shouldn't be trying to protect the populace against terrorist attacks is only tempting history to repeat itself.

The current administration may be taking things a bit too far but the ideas behind most of it are sound: Employ better securty measures and the chances of an attack on national soil are greatly diminished. The U.S is known to have periods of time where they just turn "dumb" and ignore external threats. Want a little reminder on what the last one was? WW2 and Pearl Harbor.

The terror alert always has a chance of terror because nobody can predict an attack, therefore nobody can claim "nobody will blow up any buses today". You can try to prevent it but you will never truly stop it, just like you will never stop people committing crimes or killing each other.

It would be nice to live in Utopia, but some of you guys need a wiff of reality to wake you up. I don't think any of these people who claim that preventing terrorism is dumb have ever really feared for their lives.

Neutrino:

You're being slightly hypocritical here, you claim Bush "slipped" when he said the war on terrorism could not be won and then said it could be won. Both candidates have been misquoted and the opposition has taken quotes that would make sense to anyone with half a brain and turned them into slander.

Bush clearly meant (I watched the interview) that the war on terrorism could not be "officially" won like other wars can. There is no single enemy to defeat, rather it's an idea that has to be dealt with in some manner so in reality he was right to say "the war cannot be won" because it's true. Once you deal with Iraq what next? Nuke all the middle easter countries? What then, nuke America because Americans can also commit terrorist acts? Human nature, you can try to prevent it but you will never fully stop it.

Kerry has also been misquoted too, just avoid making these sort of statements because they really make everyone who says them look silly.

 

[FoxDie]

I remember the time when the U.S was just minding it's own business and not being too careful about terrorism.

I also remember what happened because of it, anyone who says the U.S government shouldn't be trying to protect the populace against terrorist attacks is only tempting history to repeat itself.

The current administration may be taking things a bit too far but the ideas behind most of it are sound: Employ better securty measures and the chances of an attack on national soil are greatly diminished. The U.S is known to have periods of time where they just turn "dumb" and ignore external threats. Want a little reminder on what the last one was? WW2 and Pearl Harbor.

The terror alert always has a chance of terror because nobody can predict an attack, therefore nobody can claim "nobody will blow up any buses today". You can try to prevent it but you will never truly stop it, just like you will never stop people committing crimes or killing each other.

It would be nice to live in Utopia, but some of you guys need a wiff of reality to wake you up. I don't think any of these people who claim that preventing terrorism is dumb have ever really feared for their lives.

The uproar isn't over the attempt to prevent another terrorist attack, it's about our wasted lives and resources on an unjustified war. Yes, Saddam was a horrible dictator who gassed his own people, stole from them, etc. But he's not the worst. Personally, I'm a lot more worried about North Korea...You see, they actually do have a nuclear weapons program, and the talks aren't going so well

Can anyone even remember the moment when focus shifted to Iraq? It was so sudden, I can't recall the event at all. One day, it was around 2,000 troops in Afganistan, then suddenly, we were sending 40 times that to Iraq :dozey:

 

[Neutrino]

I remember the time when the U.S was just minding it's own business and not being too careful about terrorism.

I'm just curious, when exactly are you referring to? Because I think the Clinton administration did a pretty good job overall at being aware of it.

I also remember what happened because of it, anyone who says the U.S government shouldn't be trying to protect the populace against terrorist attacks is only tempting history to repeat itself.

I'm not quite sure who you think is saying that. I certainly don't think that. It's an obvious reality that we need to take precations and protect ourselves from terrorist acts in today's world.

The current administration may be taking things a bit too far but the ideas behind most of it are sound: Employ better securty measures and the chances of an attack on national soil are greatly diminished.

I would actually agree that yes, the ideas behind many of the measure taken are indeed sound. However, that doesn't mean they can't be critisized for their employment of these measures, such as taking things too far with the patriot act and starting a war in the name of "terrorism."

The U.S is known to have periods of time where they just turn "dumb" and ignore external threats. Want a little reminder on what the last one was? WW2 and Pearl Harbor.

The last one? Don't you mean 9/11? That was a bit more recent.

The terror alert always has a chance of terror because nobody can predict an attack, therefore nobody can claim "nobody will blow up any buses today". You can try to prevent it but you will never truly stop it, just like you will never stop people committing crimes or killing each other.

I agree. Terrorism is incredibly hard to counter. In today's world climate I concur that we may never stop it. But times change and I like to think that we may eventually reach a much more peaceful situation. Of course that could just be wishful thinking. I don't know.

It would be nice to live in Utopia, but some of you guys need a wiff of reality to wake you up. I don't think any of these people who claim that preventing terrorism is dumb have ever really feared for their lives.

Again, I'm really not sure who you think is claiming "that preventing terrorism is dumb". I think some people are agains the methods being used, not the attempt at preventing terrorism itself.

Neutrino:

You're being slightly hypocritical here, you claim Bush "slipped" when he said the war on terrorism could not be won and then said it could be won. Both candidates have been misquoted and the opposition has taken quotes that would make sense to anyone with half a brain and turned them into slander.

Bush clearly meant (I watched the interview) that the war on terrorism could not be "officially" won like other wars can. There is no single enemy to defeat, rather it's an idea that has to be dealt with in some manner so in reality he was right to say "the war cannot be won" because it's true. Once you deal with Iraq what next? Nuke all the middle easter countries? What then, nuke America because Americans can also commit terrorist acts? Human nature, you can try to prevent it but you will never fully stop it.

Kerry has also been misquoted too, just avoid making these sort of statements because they really make everyone who says them look silly.

Here's what I said:

And Bush said one day that that the war on terrorism can not be won, and then the next day he said it could be.

Both candidates have made slip ups like that.

For that one on Kerry it could easily have been just a slip of the tongue. If he had said, "what Sudam Hussein has supposedly done." it would have made perfect sense. So he probably forgot to add a qualifier. Big deal.

First, the quote from Bush was just in response to people claiming only Kerry ever made contradictory statements. I just wished to point out that niether candidate was perfect.

By "slip ups" I merely meant that both candidates have said things which could be used against them by the other side. For Kerry he probably could have worded his statement slightly differently and Bush could probably have explained his position a bit better. My only point was that you can't single one candidate out for making such "mistakes".

I don't really see how I was being hyprcritical, but sorry if it appeared that way.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern, if you read his article he cites every site and article which disproves all the widely known falsehoods in Moore's movie.

 

[CptStern]

Stern, if you read his article he cites every site and article which disproves all the widely known falsehoods in Moore's movie.

I've read the article it doesnt disprove anything it just points to Moore's power of persuasion. Moore has sources that back up all of his facts ..all reputable. He doesnt tackle any of those points

 

[seinfeldrules]

I've read the article it doesnt disprove anything it just points to Moore's power of persuasion. Moore has sources that back up all of his facts ..all reputable. He doesnt tackle any of those points

How about when he neglects to include the interview he had with a Congressman who has two nephews serving in Afghanistan. He shows the Congressman looking confused, but refuses to include the devastating rebutle. That is just an example off the top of my head.

 

[CptStern]

How about when he neglects to include the interview he had with a Congressman who has two nephews serving in Afghanistan. He shows the Congressman looking confused, but refuses to include the devastating rebutle. That is just an example off the top of my head.

that's nitpicking at best, it's called artisitic liscense. Btw Moore clearly says in the movie .."sons and daughters" not "nephews"


what about the fact that bush lied about WMD? What about the fact bush lied about saddam trying to buy uranium in africa? what about the fact that 10's of thousands of iraqi civilians were killed by coalition forces? What about the fact that bush lied about saddam's ties to al qaeda?

I dont understand how you can jump on one small insignificant point in the movie and ignore the huge issues staring you in the face ...unless that is you havent seen the movie which means you cant criticise it

 

[Korgoth]

I though it was a good movie... Am I the only one who read the Time magazine article about f911? They had small nitpicks but their conclusion was that everything in the film was factually correct.

 

[Neutrino]

I dont understand how you can jump on one small insignificant point in the movie and ignore the huge issues staring you in the face ...unless that is you havent seen the movie which means you cant criticise it

Hmm...

I havent seen Fahrenheit 9/11 either

John: So what'd you think of that new flick shown at the theater yesterday? Pretty good wasn't it?

Tom: Absolutely not, it was completely horrible.

John: Really? What didn't you like about it?

Tom: Everything. The acting was atrocious, the plot was missing, and the special effects were medicore.

John: Well, sure there were some bad parts, but I rather enjoyed it overall. What about the death scene at the end? I thought that scene in particular was a very powerful scene and quite well done.

Tom: No, the whole movie was just bad. All the scenes were bad.

John: But what about that fight scene in the beginning? Now that was pretty awesome, don't you think? It was so exciting that if almost felt like you were really there. Boy, sure got my adreniline pumping. The whole theater shook with the crash!

Tom: Nonsense! The whole movie was just trash.

John: Ok, ok I've got one for you. What about that inspiring speech about midway through? You've got to admit that was a stellar performance. Just sitting there watching it really made quite an impact I thought. Made you feel proud.

Tom: It was just more bad acting, just like all the acting in the movie.

John: Oh well, if you truly didn't like it then you didn't like it. Guess we just have different tastes in movies. But anyway, could you believe the size of the crowd at the evening show? It was pretty difficult to get a ticket. Or did you see the afternoon showing?

Tom: Oh, well I never actually saw the movie of course.

John: You what?

Tom: I didn't see it.

John: [Long pause] ....you didn't even see the movie?

Tom: Nope, didn't need to.

John: But you've just been arguing with me for ten minutes about how bad every scene was! You said the entire movie was just horirble!

Tom: Of course I did. I read a review, silly. I didn't need to see it to know it was bad. The review told me so.

John: ....

 

[CptStern]

heheh leave it you Neutrino to butcher somebodys argument in such an offhanded way; suble yet so to the point. I'd call it a god given talent if I believed in god :E

:cheers:

 

[Kabukiavenger]

heheh leave it you Neutrino to butcher somebodys argument in such an offhanded way; suble yet so to the point. I'd call it a god given talent if I believed in god :E

:cheers:

be careful, joeyslucky might call you an anarchist!

[/inside joke]

 

[CptStern]

be careful, joeyslucky might call you an anarchist!

[/inside joke]

meh better than being called the antichrist

 

[No Limit]

Maybe unlike moore's film, it'll have some truth in it.

I won't even go into the discussion as this type of topic is started every single day on this forum but I need to make a comment. I absolutely love your thinking which you share with many liberals and conservatives. If they disagree with your views they are no good liars; if they agree they say nothing but the truth. Michael Moore did have facts in his movie just as he had stretched facts. Judging from the trailer this movie won't be any different; as pointed out the trailer alone speads propegenda (the women getting killed).

 

[Joeslucky22]

athiest.. anarchist.. (Joke)

same thing.

you're cool kabuki! :cheese:

and nice post there neut, again with the disection. hold on.

Hmm...

What are you thinking? hmmm? HMMM?

John: So what'd you think of that new flick shown at the theater yesterday? Pretty good wasn't it?

How do you KNOW john said that?

Tom: Absolutely not, it was completely horrible.

He has a point.

John: Really? What didn't you like about it?

Tom: Everything. The acting was atrocious, the plot was missing, and the special effects were medicore.

Tom is reffering to this movie as if it were not a documentary, so yes that's what critics would of said had it not been classified as a documentary.

John: Well, sure there were some bad parts, but I rather enjoyed it overall. What about the death scene at the end? I thought that scene in particular was a very powerful scene and quite well done.

So even John admits there were "bad parts"?

Death scenes can be tragic, touching, or both. I guess moore used his great moviemaking skills to make a touching tragic moment. Which is a good addition to flick of this type.

Tom: No, the whole movie was just bad. All the scenes were bad.

Death is bad, yes? Lying is bad. yes?

John: But what about that fight scene in the beginning? Now that was pretty awesome, don't you think? It was so exciting that if almost felt like you were really there. Boy, sure got my adreniline pumping. The whole theater shook with the crash!

In the first 15 min of the film (which i saw) there was no fighting. But Action in a film is always adreniline pumping! unless you're watching a movie about rollerblading psycos.

Tom: Nonsense! The whole movie was just trash.

Tom lies too.

John: Ok, ok I've got one for you. What about that inspiring speech about midway through? You've got to admit that was a stellar performance. Just sitting there watching it really made quite an impact I thought. Made you feel proud.

Tom: It was just more bad acting, just like all the acting in the movie.

Usualy interviews about a movie don't carry on with it's plot so much like this.. FAKE!

John: Oh well, if you truly didn't like it then you didn't like it. Guess we just have different tastes in movies. But anyway, could you believe the size of the crowd at the evening show? It was pretty difficult to get a ticket. Or did you see the afternoon showing?

People walked out also (few of my buddies did)

Tom: Oh, well I never actually saw the movie of course.

Good man! don't support that anti-american!

John: You what?

You heard him, bitch.

Tom: I didn't see it.

amen.

John: [Long pause] ....you didn't even see the movie?

You can ruin a movie hearing what it's about.

Tom: Nope, didn't need to.

Money for Micheal Moore = bad.

John: But you've just been arguing with me for ten minutes about how bad every scene was! You said the entire movie was just horirble!

10 min? wtf? they talked for at MOST 2 or 3! And who said Tom was arguing? John Kept slamming tom about parts in the movie saying how they rocked.

Tom: Of course I did. I read a review, silly. I didn't need to see it to know it was bad. The review told me so.

VICTORY!

John KERRY : ....

This will be him at the debate.

werd.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Joe, that was so sad it was not even funny.

And what do you mean by anti-american? Are you one of those who think that if you dont support bush you are antiamerican?

 

[Joeslucky22]

I was gimicing Neut.

Don't take anything seriously.

no, I am not. :thumbs:

 

[OCybrManO]

That was a tremendous waste of time for such a stupid joke. I mean, I can't resist bad jokes (especially those involving puns)... but even I know when to stop. There's an art to telling jokes so incredibly bad that they are actually funny. You, sir, are not blessed with that gift. :E