Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Thing is I have nothing against Jews, just the Israeli government and its policies. If Israel didn't exist a lot of the problems we have in the region would not exist as well. If the US wants peace in the Middle East that will only be possible with either the genocide of one side or the other and there is nothing the US or the UK can be done about it. These people hate each other and will always hate each other. It would be in our best interest not to get involved in the conflict.
taks Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Though you do have the right to protest and air views, you don't have the rite to tell the rest of us what we can and can not decide for ourselves. i call shennanigans! i DO SO have the right to tell you what you should or should not watch and i also have the right to tell you that you can't decide for yourself. you are under no obligation to listen. that's what freedom of speech means buddy... ALL speech is heard (with a few exceptions that include advocation of a criminal activity). why is it that every time this happens it seems like some conservative group is crying foul? um, how about the outcry over the movie the passion of christ? lots of liberals screaming there... or did you just forget about that? further, perhaps a decidely liberal media tends to focus more on conservative complaints and as a result, that's mostly what you hear? or maybe you're liberal and as a result, when there's something the liberal camp is complaining about you see it as just (because that's your ideology) but when the conservatives complain, it's censorship? perhaps you should step back and view the situation objectively. yes, michael moore has a right to publish his movies. companies have a right to show it or not. the news media even has a right to not report on it if they so choose (though that's crossing their own ethical boundaries if it constitutes news...). i have a right to watch the movie or tell you it's a bunch of crap and i won't attend. i can even tell you not to watch it if i so choose. taks comrade taks... just because.
Phosphor Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 I haven't seen Fahrenheit 911 yet, but I'm sceptical of claims that it distorts the truth and facts. From what I've read about it and see in clips and trailers, it's an assemblage of interview pieces and comments directly from the people Moore is targeting. It's not as though he can change what they said. It's not like Bowling For Columbine which is comprised more of opinion. But, I'll reserve further comment until I see the film.
taks Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 you're right about using direct quotes, phosphor. however, michael moore has a penchant for piecing together different quotes and news bits out of context which tends to imply a different meaning than what was originally intended. that's the intellectual dishonesty. you can do this with anyone and it distorts their meaning. taks comrade taks... just because.
Phosphor Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Indeed, it's the context in which the quotes are used that will be the crux of the work's integrity. Like any of Moore's work, having a basic understanding of the situation he's criticising is important.
Darth Jebus Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 Though you do have the right to protest and air views, you don't have the rite to tell the rest of us what we can and can not decide for ourselves. why is it that every time this happens it seems like some conservative group is crying foul? um, how about the outcry over the movie the passion of christ? lots of liberals screaming there... or did you just forget about that? Unfortunately, like a typical conservative, you have selective reasoning, and only see what you want. If you go back and read my original post you'll clearly see I say that what the left was doing with the Passion of the Christ was equally disturbing. I also CLEARLY noted that I don't subscribe to ANY kind of censorship on the left or the right. Maybe if you step back out of your hatred and intolerance for a second you can see clearly, buddy. But I see you're more interested in getting hung up on one or two things I said, and then taking that and running with it. Sad, but not surprising. Your focus determines your reality. Read more history before ever talking to me again. Thanks.
Dennis Presnell Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Thing is I have nothing against Jews, just the Israeli government and its policies. If Israel didn't exist a lot of the problems we have in the region would not exist as well. If the US wants peace in the Middle East that will only be possible with either the genocide of one side or the other and there is nothing the US or the UK can be done about it. These people hate each other and will always hate each other. It would be in our best interest not to get involved in the conflict. Hades, why don't you try naming a policy of Israel
Dennis Presnell Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 You are racist! Why does it have to be the "Black" Lagoon? What are you trying to say? Thats not true, I have a lot of friends that happen to be from the Black Lagoon!
Dennis Presnell Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 What about from the Black Leather Lagoon? Hahahaha I love the Cramps!!!
taks Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Unfortunately, like a typical conservative, you have selective reasoning, and only see what you want. If you go back and read my original post you'll clearly see I say that what the left was doing with the Passion of the Christ was equally disturbing. I also CLEARLY noted that I don't subscribe to ANY kind of censorship on the left or the right. Maybe if you step back out of your hatred and intolerance for a second you can see clearly, buddy. But I see you're more interested in getting hung up on one or two things I said, and then taking that and running with it. Sad, but not surprising. Your focus determines your reality. Read more history before ever talking to me again. Thanks. oh wait a minute, because i didn't agree with you i'm a conservative? LOL! hardly. exactly what hatred and intolerance have i expressed? none that i can see. perhaps, a hatred or intolerance of a rampant lack of objectivity since YOU singled out conservative whining, not me. i personally could care less about the passion of the christ or fahrenheit 911. they're BOTH ridiculous to me. my only complaint, if you'll note, was that you seem to think freedom of speech is a one way street. you are dead wrong. freedom of speech allows ANYBODY to criticize, protest or debate ANY issue (exceptions already noted). perhaps you should put away the ad hominem attacks (accusing me of hatred???) and, again, view things objectively. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 btw, this is what you said that i was particularly targeting: "Yet it seems that the only time you hear of some organization trying to prevent an airing of something or a release of a movie that might be controversial, it is most certainly a conservative group leading the charge." so, how does that imply MY selective reasoning? you paint a broad picture of "conservative" intolerance, and then label me in that group yet I'M the one that's being selective. your original post had an entire paragraph regarding this concept and then you have a single aside that says "it disturbs me what the left did with the passion." get real man... observe your own focus before accusing others of failing to do so themselves... taks comrade taks... just because.
triCritical Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 why is it that every time this happens it seems like some conservative group is crying foul? um, how about the outcry over the movie the passion of christ? lots of liberals screaming there... or did you just forget about that? further, perhaps a decidely liberal media tends to focus more on conservative complaints and as a result, that's mostly what you hear? or maybe you're liberal and as a result, when there's something the liberal camp is complaining about you see it as just (because that's your ideology) but when the conservatives complain, it's censorship? I object to your use of liberal. The media is not liberal controlled, if so I would be able to tolerate it. And the only people I know complaining about the Passion of Christ was Jews. There are just as many religous liberals and conservatives.
bigbrotheriswatching Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 ooh! the perfect topic for Bigbrotheriswatching! Just looking at all these off-topic threads and I can say that Freedom of Speech is at least well protected by Obsidian "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." (George Orwell) Hmmm...I guess Big Brother would rather say: War is PeaceFreedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength -Party slogan (from 1984 by George Orwell)
Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Hades, why don't you try naming a policy of Israel’s that you have a problem with? Even if you could I've got dollars to doughnuts that I could prove you wrong.The US aids Israel because our country men witnessed first hand the horror that was the Holocaust. It may not be in our best interest to get involved, but it would be wrong not to. There's currently a Middle East Road Map to peace that is ongoing, unfortunately terrorist groups like Hammas, Hezbollah, and the PLO have stalled it by continuing attacks against innocent people. They are not concerned with peace, just with the extermination of the Jewish people. Well lets see, Israeli military shooting at unarmed civilians, using rockets to kill one terrorist leader and 20 innocent bystanders, and bulldozing homes of a people who had been living there for years so new settlers can move in. The Holocaust was indeed a horrorific thing but its too bad the US government isn't equally concerned about the Native American Holocaust here in the states that has went on for centuries. Sure, lets help out the Jews but if the Sioux get uppity about the Black Hills lets put the smack down on them. They are not concerned with peace, just with the extermination of the Jewish people. Exactly my point. There will be no peace and militant Jews are equally seeking the extermination of the Arab people. Its a lose lose situation and thanks to US policy since the late 1940's we are stuck in the middle of it. THe US needs to be concerned with American lives, not Israelis, not the Arabs, not the Japanese, Africans, Germans, British, Egyptians, Lybyans and so forth and so on.
Phosphor Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 The whole Israel/Palestine issue is such a bloodied, violent mess, and you can't show support for one or the other without coming off as a complete bastard. The way I see it, both sides are "so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin"; they've both commited atrocious acts against the other and it only causes retaliation ad nauseum.
Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 The only real solution is to wipe out both people and peace will be achieved.
Phosphor Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Genocide tends to get people a bit riled up though. Maybe someone ought to declare war on both Israel and Palestine, forcing them to work together for survival. Perhaps then they could learn to co-operate.
Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 The won't. Even if they did they will immediately go back feuding after the threat had pass.
Dennis Presnell Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Hades Israel does not have a policy of killing unarmed civilians, that
Darth Jebus Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 Genocide tends to get people a bit riled up though. LMAO!!! Ya think??
Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 I don't really give a crap if its "policy" or not, actions speak louder than words and when I hear Palestinian children getting shot up by Israeli soldiers using US made weapons it makes me sick. Also the houses bulldozed over are not of known terrorists, but just normal on the street palestinian. Of course if you think that all Palestinians are terrorists then you have a point. They only tried to exterminate them because they have no right to be there in the first place. Such as the Native Americans tried to fight against the US calvary a century before. They saw the US as an invader and had no rights to the land and that is how a good chunk of Palestinians and other Muslims see the Israelis. Cultural Relativism, see through the eyes of the oppressed Palestinians who fight the only way possible against the more powerful foe. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Judge Hades Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Yep, George Washington would have been labeled a Terrrorist today using the tactics thathe did.
Phosphor Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 I think eventually terrorism will come to an end when people see that it is not a viable means of change and that it only continues to make they
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now