Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

K

Ken Finney

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mark Fergerson said:
You don't understand. The anti-Bush crowd ignores mere
"facts" since this is the equivalent of religion for them.

Everybody else already knows.

Politics is no longer about informed decision, if it ever
was.

Mark L. Fergerson

Yesterday I listened to Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech.
In it he was answering some of his critics who were complaining
about some earlier words he had used to describe the USSR.
Ronnie said that he didn't make up the words they were
complaining about, that he was quoting Lenin. Ronnie then
went on to quote the entire paragraph he had lifted the words
from. The giste of the paragraph was that all morality is, is
that which supports class struggle. If it supports class struggle,
even if is immoral by any other measure, it is moral. And if
it doesn't support class struggle, it is immoral, regardless.
Sound familiar? I'm sure Lenin is glad that Comrade Moore
carries on the battle.
 
B

Ben Bradley

Jan 1, 1970
0
You don't understand. The anti-Bush crowd ignores mere

Please don't respond to the content of such an obvious off-topic
'troll' post from an unknown poster, just send it along to the listed
abuse address:
X-Abuse-Report: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Path: bigbe1.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!news-out.ntli.net!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!news.sns-felb.debis.de!feedme.news.mediaways.net!telefonica.de!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.bubbanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:22:46 GMT
Lines: 1
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
From: Xomicron <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face: #YXnE>TPq$Xe5H_<*Egyh5>)wL0_h-&nQ.If+:ny(&UZ~"B^~;gNBqmveUm,x]\?[b'oF9"NjN1-A#.Fd5Mz^6b\*bd56Z4qfAXo159\j#8_jVh%<DOP9M}-p!/ozSn\EpZ2z;B.hNOsSym`U!YG6')p?+ZW44Ie]FJUrm1T[e[Q:&(c{5eqveL'eQ`q`ey)Nm{27~kT"epUW
Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net sci.electronics.design:496666

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
You don't understand. The anti-Bush crowd ignores mere
"facts" since this is the equivalent of religion for them.

Everybody else already knows.

Politics is no longer about informed decision, if it ever
was.

Mark L. Fergerson

Geez, if you want to talk religion, look at what the current
administration is doing to the country, and more than half
of the whole population is letting them get away with it!

And if you're one of the ones who thinks that the wholesale
murder of Iraqi people is somehow excusable, then you're just
as culpable as the rest of the pack of murderers.

The difference, you see, is "Who's killing people?"

Killing is bad.
War is bad.
People who think either is excusable are bad people.

It's just that simple.
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <[email protected]>
wrote (in said:
Killing is bad.
War is bad.
People who think either is excusable are bad people.

It's just that simple.

The trouble is precisely that it is NOT that simple. Your first two
statements are true; your third is true or not depending on how you
interpret 'excusable'.

Should we have gone to war against Hitler and Tojo? If so, was that
decision by Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Stalin 'excusable'? Many people
think it was a dire and dreadful necessity, but still a necessity.
 
R

Rolavine

Jan 1, 1970
0
Subject: Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
From: John Woodgate [email protected]
Date: 7/17/2004 6:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <[email protected]>


The trouble is precisely that it is NOT that simple. Your first two
statements are true; your third is true or not depending on how you
interpret 'excusable'.

Should we have gone to war against Hitler and Tojo? If so, was that
decision by Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Stalin 'excusable'? Many people
think it was a dire and dreadful necessity, but still a necessity.

Yes, I agree. All available evidence indicates that the Iraq war was not
necessary. Our hate for Bush follows logically from that.

I would revise:

1) Killing for nothing, or potentially nothing, is bad.

2) War for nothing, or potentially nothing, is bad.

Thinking that Both are absolutely wrong, is necessary for an informed Bush
Supporter. However there are only 500 of them and they are only doing it for
the tax cuts. Bush's support is mostly from retards. Don't believe me, ask them
why they support Bush, heck people would do more research before buying a new
vacuum cleaner.

Rocky
 
W

Wouter van Ooijen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Geez, if you want to talk religion, look at what the current
administration is doing to the country, and more than half
of the whole population is letting them get away with it!

Wasn't is just below half of the population?




Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
PICmicro chips, programmers, consulting
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
(in said:
Yes, I agree. All available evidence indicates that the Iraq war was not
necessary. Our hate for Bush follows logically from that.

The guy made (at least in your opinion) a mistake. OK, it was a BIG
mistake. Does that justify hate? How big a mistake do you need to make
to become hateful? Is a little bit of hate justified by a small mistake?
How can hate be morally justified? Have you ever made a mistake?
 
J

John S. Dyson

Jan 1, 1970
0
The guy made (at least in your opinion) a mistake. OK, it was a BIG
mistake.
Based upon the information given to Bush (and the fact that other
previous presidents had also made the same claims as Bush), then Bush
didn't really make a mistake based upon that information.
If Bush made a mistake, it was that he didn't ignore almost all of
the intelligence sources available to him (including specific information
from Russia/Putin, about the intentions of Saddam.) One thing that
we have learned: it doesn't require the resources of a large 1st
world state (even the marginal ones that are fully militarized) to
perpetrate an effective attack against open societies.

Does that justify hate?
If there is 'hate', it should be against the root causes (e.g. weakening
of the intelligence agencies, and the perpetrators like Saddam and
Usama, for each of their respective behaviors.) IMO, it isnt' worth hating
the intelligence agencies, and the weakening of the intelligence agencies
was a side effect that was done with good intentions. It might be worth
'hating' the Islamists (not Moslems) and their supporters, but that should
be a select few.

John
 
J

John S. Dyson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Geez, if you want to talk religion, look at what the current
administration is doing to the country, and more than half
of the whole population is letting them get away with it!

Wasn't is just below half of the population?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the 'popularity' of the liberation of Iraq tends towards
greater than 1/2 of the population (depending upon how the questions
are asked.) There are some polls that imply that the popularity has
dropped, but that isn't really consistent. If you are speaking of the
coup attempt against the
consititution by the Gore team -- it is important to remember that
the election of the president is done by the electoral college (and
it is interesting to note that the losers have not seriously endeavored
to change the system.) (The US Supreme court MOSTLY just bounced the
unprecedented and essentially illegal meddling of the Florida Supremes
back to the Florida court. The biggest mistake by the US supreme
court was to imply the laws of physics -- effectively running out of
time, along with the FACT that federal law doesn't allow for modification
of precedent DURING THE ELECTION PROCESS.)

John
 
X

Xomicron

Jan 1, 1970
0
And if you're one of the ones who thinks that the wholesale
murder of Iraqi people is somehow excusable, then you're just
as culpable as the rest of the pack of murderers.

I don't know anyone who thinks that the insurgents murdering Iraqis is
excusable except for the extreme left.
 
X

Xomicron

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] (Rolavine) wrote in
Yes, I agree. All available evidence indicates that the Iraq war was not
necessary. Our hate for Bush follows logically from that.

I would revise:

1) Killing for nothing, or potentially nothing, is bad.

2) War for nothing, or potentially nothing, is bad.

Thinking that Both are absolutely wrong, is necessary for an informed
Bush Supporter. However there are only 500 of them and they are only
doing it for the tax cuts. Bush's support is mostly from retards. Don't
believe me, ask them why they support Bush, heck people would do more
research before buying a new vacuum cleaner.

I didn't think it was possible to be as ignorant as you have proven
yourself to be.
 
J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Killing is bad.
The trouble is precisely that it is NOT that simple. Your first two
statements are true; your third is true or not depending on how you
interpret 'excusable'.

Should we have gone to war against Hitler and Tojo? If so, was that
decision by Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Stalin 'excusable'? Many people
think it was a dire and dreadful necessity, but still a necessity.
John Woodgate

I don't know what the definition of "war" is there, but
here it's defined in Article 8, Section 8, Clause 11 of our
Constitution
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ution.html+congress-shall-have+to-declare-war
and it hasn't been been entered into legally since December 8, 1941.

All those idiots who say "War in Korea" and "War in Vietnam"
and "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs" just dilute the meaning.
Note: We've lost all of these.
"War in Iraq" and "War on Terrorism" seem to be similar fiascos
when it comes to the civil rights of Americans.
Moore touches on this with his commentary
on the sparse numbers of family members of gov't officials
who are being put in harm's way in this "war".
....and do I have to go into The-Draft-dodger-in-Chief /
Deserter-in-Chief?
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
All those idiots who say "War in Korea" and "War in Vietnam"
and "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs" just dilute the meaning.
Note: We've lost all of these.
"War in Iraq" and "War on Terrorism" seem to be similar fiascos
when it comes to the civil rights of Americans.
Moore touches on this with his commentary
on the sparse numbers of family members of gov't officials
who are being put in harm's way in this "war".
...and do I have to go into The-Draft-dodger-in-Chief /
Deserter-in-Chief?

---
Since all you can offer is your obviously less than objective opinion,
which seems to be based on the opinions of others, and since you're
referring to your president as a draft-dodger and a deserter and you
haven't yet been arrested and charged with sedition and treason, it
seems to me that your civil "rights" are still intact. For the
moment, at least.

The other side of the coin is that since your opinions are banal, your
commentary trivial, and the threat you pose to the powers-that-be so
far down in the noise that the expense required to afford you status
even approaching that of a cockroach is unwarranted.

If you choose to, and you've got the balls, it seems to me that a much
more effective way for you to begin to redress what you percieve to be
wrongs would be to formally charge Mr. Bush with what you consider to
be unlawful acts, through the courts, instead of just flapping your
gums in a newsgroup. Certainly the avenue is there, and available,
whether or not you wish to walk the walk already paved for you by
others who did more than just talk the talk.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
I don't know anyone who thinks that the insurgents murdering Iraqis is
excusable except for the extreme left.[/QUOTE]

I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.
 
J

John S. Dyson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I don't know anyone who thinks that the insurgents murdering Iraqis is
excusable except for the extreme left.

I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.
[/QUOTE]
It would more likely be the Islamist insurgents and their supporters think
that it is okay to murder Iraqis. Unfortunately, there are individuals
in the west who are misguidedly supporting the Islamists, primarily for
domestic political hatred reasons.

John
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think you meant to say "extreme right" didn't you.
It would more likely be the Islamist insurgents and their supporters think
that it is okay to murder Iraqis.[/QUOTE]

... and these are "religious fundamentalists". This makes them religious
rightwing extremists.

Unfortunately, there are individuals
in the west who are misguidedly supporting the Islamists

A quick review of the history indicates that it is not supporters that the
extremists can thank for their freedom to kill Iraqies. Before the war
Hussein ruthlessly suppressed the islamists. The purpose of the war was
to remove hussein. Any reasonable planner would know that the islamist
were an issue that would come up. The fact that the US went to war with
Iraq and did not deploy enough troups to Iraq to control the islamists is
the reason they are free to commit murder. The folks who planned the war
considered the risk of these murders acceptable.

The US left, most likely, would not have started the war in spring of
2003 so if it had been up to them, the issue may not have even come up.
 
D

DaveC

Jan 1, 1970
0
Stop replying to this troll! It only encourages him.
 
Top