The Power of Nightmares

seinfeldrules said:
People said the same thing about F9/11. I found it disgusting.
Click to expand...

So instead of listening to another point of view you're going to brush it off and just assume that whatever has to be said is disgusting and a waste of your time? That's an interesting way of doing things.
 
So instead of listening to another point of view you're going to brush it off and just assume that whatever has to be said is disgusting and a waste of your time? That's an interesting way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Is it any different than saying "Dave Kopel owned guns, so all I read coming from him is blah blah blah blah".

Is this basically another documentary portraying Bush as some 'evil man' with some hidden agenda to control America? How many times do they accuse people like Ted Kennedy of the same actions (if the above statement is true).
 
its basically a history lesson, mixed in with the physcology of the human mind.

its not anti anything, but no one really likes the attitude of the neo conservatives anyway, and thats going to show in any sensible documentary simply because some of the stuff they do isnt morally cool.
 
but no one really likes the attitude of the neo conservatives anyway, and thats going to show in any sensible documentary simply because some of the stuff they do isnt morally cool.
Click to expand...

but no one really likes the attitude of liberals anyway, and that isnt going to show in most documentaries simply because its much better to act arrogant than attempt to debate in a civilized manner.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Is it any different than saying "Dave Kopel owned guns, so all I read coming from him is blah blah blah blah".

Is this basically another documentary portraying Bush as some 'evil man' with some hidden agenda to control America? How many times do they accuse people like Ted Kennedy of the same actions (if the above statement is true).
Click to expand...

I agree with Clarky. It's more a history lesson that ties up some loose ends and draws some conclusions on things. If you think it's propaganda style material I assure you it isn't.
 
It's more a history lesson that ties up some loose ends and draws some conclusions on things.
Click to expand...
Thats the part I'm afraid of. Documentaries shouldnt draw conclusions, they should present solid, unbiased evidence. I already know about the US's role in Afghanistan, so why should I have them explain it to me again over a 58 minute video. The documentary is (apparently) trying to raise the point that they (Afghanistan/Iran) were our friends back then, but our enemy now. I say that such a connection is BS.
 
arrogant , lol,, research the full extent of neo-conservative history and then call me arrogant, Its not that i dont like the right, its just .. well there not very democratic, or socialistic, or pieceful for that matter, which is why, simply put, its not worth a decently pieceful human beings attention.

the physcological part is the only thing left open to debate, ... the history is accurate and factual , the physcological aspects are drawn off of the events, using common sense of the study of the mind of particular politcians, motives, everything im sure that can be understood is factored in... but its ultimately realising that its big $ at the top , and certain egoic minds, and attitudes are real to the decision making.
 
arrogant , lol,, research the full extent of neo-conservative history and then call me arrogant, Its not that i dont like the right, its just .. well there not very democratic, or socialistic, or pieceful for that matter, which is why, simply put, its not worth a decently pieceful human beings attention.
Click to expand...

Not arrogant? After you just wrote that? Come on now, take a look in the mirror before you attack somebody else.
 
look i didnt attack you,, i was just telling you what was in the documentary,, I didnt strike with the word arrogant, which was obviously personally aimed at me,, all I was doing was telling you what to expect in the documentary.

read a tad more carefully. and you'll see its nothing personal.
 
look i didnt attack you,, i was just telling you what was in the documentary,, I didnt strike with the word arrogant, which was obviously personally aimed at me,, all I was doing was telling you what to expect in the documentary.
Click to expand...
It was aimed at liberals in general, many of whom hold the same opinon as you that conservative's viewpoints are worthless.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Thats the part I'm afraid of. Documentaries shouldnt draw conclusions, they should present solid, unbiased evidence. I already know about the US's role in Afghanistan, so why should I have them explain it to me again over a 58 minute video. The documentary is (apparently) trying to raise the point that they (Afghanistan/Iran) were our friends back then, but our enemy now. I say that such a connection is BS.
Click to expand...

The video offers a different point of view, a different perspective, on Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the terrorist threat. I'm not asking you to do anything other than watch the video. Just watch it so we can debate its points. It's no bad thing to listen to both sides every once in a while. I'm a liberal as you know, but I still make a point to give equal time to arguments from both the left and the right by listening to all possible news sources including people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Listen to all sides and it becomes easier to identify opinion/bias amognst fact.
 
a different perspective, on Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the terrorist threat.
Click to expand...
Without watching it, I'm betting they blame America. I'll watch a bit of it.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Without watching it, I'm betting they blame America.
Click to expand...

Blame America for what exactly? Sept. 11th or other attacks? I assure you they don't blame the US for any of that. The documentary simply tries to explain how a few individuals and the mass media (not just in the US either) have blown certain things far out of proportion.

You know, if you would have just watched the video instead of trying to comment on it without watching it, you could have finished by now and presented us with a worthy debate.
 
qckbeam said:
Blame America for what exactly?
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

1. The movie proclaims that 'neo conservatives' (basically referring to Republicans apparently) were out of power in the late 90s. Just because Clinton was in office doesnt mean Republicans didnt hold control. If anything, the late 90s were the waning years of liberals.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

1. The movie proclaims that 'neo conservatives' (basically referring to Republicans apparently) were out of power in the late 90s. Just because Clinton was in office doesnt mean Republicans didnt hold control. If anything, the late 90s were the waning years of liberals.
Click to expand...

Neo-conservatives doesn't refer to Republicans in general. It describes a particular group of people.
 
seinfeldrules said:
In this movie I get the feeling they are using it in that context.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken they mention very specific people in the video and label only them as Neoconservatives. If they were talking about Republicans in general (which they aren't) they'd simply refer to the Republicans.
 
If I'm not mistaken they mention very specific people in the video and label only them as Neoconservatives. If they were talking about Republicans in general (which they aren't) they'd simply refer to the Republicans.
Click to expand...
They mention Neo Cons, then cut to a picture of Bush a few seconds later. Seems pretty damn fishy to me.
 
they dont cover present day events till right at the end.. it goes in chronological order.
 
Uh oh, now the documentary is claiming neo cons control Bush's mind. Going further and furhter downhill by the minute.
 
LOL, now the documentary is blaming Neo Cons for distorting the Soviet threat. They had enough nukes pointed at us to destroy the world a few times over.
 
seinfeldrules said:
LOL, now the documentary is blaming Neo Cons for distorting the Soviet threat. They had enough nukes pointed at us to destroy the world a few times over.
Click to expand...

Only because America had even more. And the soviet empire was crumbling, can't be denied.

I'm lookin 4ward to debating you on this seinfeld, I don't mean that in any big-headed "I'm-gunna-win-way" but as a guy who debates very well for the right, it'll be nice to have a proper debate about this.

Do me a favour though, don't go into this so negatively - bbc is generally very good at not being bias, or if it is being bias, it makes dam sure it has a good reason to be.
 
stop watching it seinfeldrules, it's an utter waste, you're supposed to leave your bias at the door. Dont understand why I'm so surprised nothing sunk through your overbearing and stifling patriotism ...this is exacly why I think you'd make a terrible Intelligence man. You have absolutely no objectivity
 
CptStern said:
stop watching it seinfeldrules, it's an utter waste, you're supposed to leave your bias at the door. Dont understand why I'm so surprised nothing sunk through your overbearing and stifling patriotism ...this is exacly why I think you'd make a terrible Intelligence man. You have absolutely no objectivity
Click to expand...

hehe, u are a hardcore lefty aren't u cpt :cheers:
ignore him seinfeld, watch it, i wanna kno wat YOU, as a right-man think
 
no it's not that ..it's just that nitpicking small details like using the word "neo-con" is just an attempt at invalidating the documentary based on a perceived bias. It's just a derivative of a word, even some neo cons call themselves neo-cons
 
seinfeldrules said:
They mention Neo Cons, then cut to a picture of Bush a few seconds later. Seems pretty damn fishy to me.
Click to expand...

Gee I dont know... maybe because he's a Neo-Con?
 
Both America and the Soviet Union were as bad as each other during the Cold War. America put short range nuclear tipped missile systems in Turkey to attack the Soviet Union with no warning, when the USSR tried to do the same by putting them in Cuba, Kennedy cried foul. You don't have to be of average intelligence to figure out that with the end of the cold war, military spending would fall. How do you stop that fall, divert the attention to other enemies, an enemy so powerful, that it can't just be destroyed with conventional weapons,but requires brand new weapons.

It is like an episode of Dragonballz, lol, when Frieza is killed, you get Cell, when Cell is killed, you get Buu.
 
stop watching it seinfeldrules, it's an utter waste, you're supposed to leave your bias at the door. Dont understand why I'm so surprised nothing sunk through your overbearing and stifling patriotism ...this is exacly why I think you'd make a terrible Intelligence man. You have absolutely no objectivity
Click to expand...
Where is your counterpoint to this movie?
 
what does it matter? why am I obligated to present the other side of the argument? That's your job not mine ..when you've watched the movie then we ca talk, untill then you might as well just piss in the wind, because that's how accurate you'd be juding how objective I am about this movie
 
what does it matter? why am I obligated to present the other side of the argument? That's your job not mine ..when you've watched the movie then we ca talk, untill then you might as well just piss in the wind, because that's how accurate you'd be juding how objective I am about this movie
Click to expand...
I've seen at least half, my commentary should be evidence of that. I dont think it is very fair for you to call me unobjective, when this is most likely the only movie/source on this topic you will watch. Its like getting an F on a test and calling somebody else who got an F a moron.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I've seen at least half, my commentary should be evidence of that. I dont think it is very fair for you to call me unobjective, when this is most likely the only movie/source on this topic you will watch. Its like getting an F on a test and calling somebody else who got an F a moron.
Click to expand...

hah! accusing me of only using one source? this is pointless, just debate the points brought up in the movie ...besides the "ooooh they called bush a neo-con ...it must be liberal propaganda!!!!" one more movie/article/viewpoint on the "anti-american, anti-patriot do not watch list"
 
Even if you look just at the proven facts and ignore all the commentry, this goes the same for Michael Moore's documentry, you'd have to be blind to see something dodgy wasn't going on.

The old "Dirty Bomb" being ineffective really put me off trusting the news press ever again, especially after that "fact" based tv movie done last year about the Dirty Bomb. The news press help the politicians by spreading fear.
 
hah! accusing me of only using one source? this is pointless, just debate the points brought up in the movie ...besides the "ooooh they called bush a neo-con ...it must be liberal propaganda!!!!" one more movie/article/viewpoint on the "anti-american, anti-patriot do not watch list"
Click to expand...
Well I'd rather see an objective documentary on this which displays both sides of the argument. This 'documentary' clearly does not live up to that standard.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Well I'd rather see an objective documentary on this which displays both sides of the argument. This 'documentary' clearly does not live up to that standard.
Click to expand...

Since this documentary does not put forth the opposing argument that is so obviously there, how about you give an intelligent, thought out, and researched arguement to counter this documentary, instead of screaming bias. Of course it is going to have some amount of bias, it was produced by people. People have opinions, and when writing news articles or in this case, a documentary, their bias will often seep in. It is unavoidable. However, do not confuse bias with false information, the two are completely different things. So I ask you, please refute this documentary's claims with legitimate facts from legitimate sources, instead of rhetoric.

By the way, if you would actually watch it, you would know that they interview a key former member of the Bush administration (I can't remember the name at the moment, but I believe the last name starts with a P) how does give the Bush administration's view of this. His own words, and no clever editing.
 
CptStern said:
what does it matter? why am I obligated to present the other side of the argument? That's your job not mine ..when you've watched the movie then we ca talk, untill then you might as well just piss in the wind, because that's how accurate you'd be juding how objective I am about this movie
Click to expand...

this movie is biast... i bet.
and you got brainwashed from it all. :naughty:

EDIT: even more brainwashed. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
2K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
Chris D
Forum update
Replies
8
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top