Politics from the Fahrenheit thread

[stevetseitz]

>>Moore made a film for the have-nots, of which there are many.<<

There are far fewer "have-nots' thanks to the free-enterprise system and Democratic capitalism than there would be under any other economic system. Anyone with a work ethic and the desire can achieve his or her goals in this country.

>>The suppression and manipulation of information by the powers that be is undemocratic, unjust and actually illegal.<<

Agreed, they shouldn't be allowed to suppress or manipulate information regarding Saddam Hussein's collaboration with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They also should quit suppressing information regarding the former Iraqi regime's programs, research and materials related to the production of WMD's.

>>As Moore has said, why does a guy in a baseball cap have to be the one to show everybody what's really going on? Why is everyone so complicit (or afraid of losing their couch)? Why do people sit in silence?<<

Because some fat guy from Michigan has it all figured out. Oh, I guess he's just PRETENDING to be a "guy in a baseball cap". He really is a wealthy puppeteer selling propaganda to disillusioned neo-hippies while living in a plush million dollar penthouse in New York. Remain calm....Moore has all the answers... Everyone else are pod people ala "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Moore's been lying about himself ever since "Roger and Me" when he said he was from Flint, MI. Actually, he is from a upper middle class lily white suburb of Flint and couldn't even last a week working for G.M.! What a wuss!

>>Probably the most important thing Moore shows (we already knew Bush was a psychopath)<<

You realize that you called a sitting President a psychopath? You may disagree with his policies, you may not like his character, but a "pyschopath"? Please. It's pure hyperbole. Just like the stuff Moore shovels. You realize he makes so many errors in his psuedo-documentaries that he refuses to actually call them documentaries? When pressed he says they are "entertainment."


>>I knew then that the war was absolutely wrong and now that knowledge has been re-inforced by a trillion.<<

Some people are anti-war no matter what. Some people prefer thousands of Kurds getting gassed, Iraqis getting mutilated, tortured and murdered and 11 year olds getting raped by Saddam's sons. Some people think war doesn't solve anything. They're right, unless if your include slavery, communism and fascism. Now war is putting an end to extremist Islamic terrorism. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the situation is better than it was before. You may say "But people are still dying in Iraq!" Guess what? They were dying before the war, and in greater numbers than they are now. Democide, that is: death by totalitarian regimes, blows away war as a leading cause of human death and misery.

Even John Kerry says he wouldn't change his vote on the war.

Democracy gaining an important foothold in a volatile region of the world. Human rights for people in the Middle East is inevitable.

>>The world was not perfect before 9/11. But after 9/11 the world seems doomed.<<

Not perfect? The morale of the military was way down. Our intelligence infrastructure was broke. Islamic terrorism was being ignored by the Clinton administration.

>> We are literally on the Eve of Destruction. We are less safe than when Clinton was in office. That's fact, Jack.<<

Totally wrong. Terrorists are on the run, They are hiding in spider holes and cave complexes. They can't effectively plan, can't significantly act, can't recruit, can't train. Nations don't dare support terrorists now as THEY DID OPENLY PRIOR TO 9/11. All around the world, thousands of trained operatives are searching, investigating leads and hunting down members of al-Qaeda. Arrests fill the headlines on a weekly basis. Prior to 9/11, America was asleep. You are proposing that we should have hit the "snooze" button after 9/11.

>>I'm not a taxpayer in America, but if I was, I'd be making some loud noise over the use of my tax dollars for this fucking war. The disempowered poor people of America are being signed up for war.<<

I have no problem with taxpayer dollar's being spent on in the War on Terror. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a huge success as was our victory and liberation of Afghanistan. The ONE most basic need that brings people together is security. The War on Terror may bother the neo-hippies but most pragmatic people realize that to put the terrorists and their state sponsors on the defensive is the best way to keep everyone safe.

Check out moorelies.com, mooreexposed.com, or any of the other various fact checking sites on Moore. He is a charlatan and is laughing all the way to the bank on the dime of frustrated neo-hippies.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
They also should quit suppressing information regarding the former Iraqi regime's programs, research and materials related to the production of WMD's.
Some people think war doesn't solve anything. They're right, unless if your include slavery, communism and fascism. Now war is putting an end to extremist Islamic terrorism.
I have no problem with taxpayer dollar's being spent on in the War on Terror. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a huge success. Moore is a charlatan and is laughing all the way to the bank on the dime of frustrated neo-hippies.

Dear Members:

Film enthusiast stevetseitz is back after a 5-month absence to impart some political wisdom. I propose that he has not seen the film under consideration, as he makes no reference to the film itself and calls those who have seen the film "frustrated neo-hippies". Let's avoid a repeat of the previous situation in which some posts degenerated into personal insults. Peter, can the post above (and this one) be moved to the LOUNGE section? (My daughter expressed her purely political opinion in that more appropriate forum). I entertain the possibility that there may be members who think something of value can be accomplished from engaging Mr. stevetseitz in a discussion.

Sincerely,
oscar

[Johann]

Cruel, vicious hate Steve- that's what you represent.

Yes, I called a sitting president a psychopath.
And I'll say it again with a bullhorn if you like.
Or a world-band radio frequency.
What is a psychopath? A person without conscience. Bush fits the bill.
As Vonnegut said: "Bush is a Christian? So was Hitler".

The man is Charles Manson with an even more demonic grin.
Is that more clear?

Hey Steve- you never mentioned oil in your rant.

That's my cue to disregard every hateful thing you typed.

[stevetseitz]

>>Cruel, vicious hate Steve- that's what you represent.<<

Excuse me? Did you even read what I posted? I simply responded to your post with a factual and logical retort. Since when is honest debate "cruel, vicious, hate"? Ahhh, the joys of communicating with leftists...

I don't hate anybody. It's against my religion. But being practical I also don't let the truly hateful people of the world bad-mouth sitting presidents without any facts. Sorry. I also think it's very dangerous to appease Islamic extremist terrorists. World Wars have started with such appeasement.

>>Yes, I called a sitting president a psychopath.
And I'll say it again with a bullhorn if you like.
Or a world-band radio frequency.
What is a psychopath? A person without conscience. Bush fits the bill.<<

What makes you think he has no conscience? What would be unconscionable would be for the leader of the free world to not respond to terrorists and their state-sponsors after 3,000 people were murdered in the World Trade Center. Bush responded properly and justly with a War on Terror. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and the Taliban were both state-sponsors of terror.



>>Hey Steve- you never mentioned oil in your rant.

That's my cue to disregard every hateful thing you typed.<<

Why would I? Has America taken over oil production in Iraq? Are we building a secret pipeline in Afghanistan? No and no. I can hear you thinking "Halliburton"...Well guess what? If you can name another American Gas and Oil field service company with the infrastructure to rebuild Iraq's production facilities please do so. Waiting....

If you want to bring oil into the issue why not go after Russia, France, and Germany's complicity in the UN's Oil for food scandal. It's a scandal far surpassing Enron by the way. Oil is the one resource stabilizing the Middle-East. I shudder to think what will become of the area when we have moved on to fuel-cell and electric vehicles.


>>Film enthusiast stevetseitz is back after a 5-month absence to impart some political wisdom.<<

Hey, the response showed up in my inbox. I don't see what not posting for a while has to do with anything. I moved halfway across the globe and finally devised a way to access the internet (although not with the speed I like)

>> I propose that he has not seen the film under consideration, as he makes no reference to the film itself and calls those who have seen the film "frustrated neo-hippies".<<

I've been a little busy relocating to see every piece of propaganda that comes down the pike. I would never see a film of Moore's when my viewing it would provide the man with any financial gain. The last film I saw was "Collateral" which I reviewed on IMDB. I have seen many sections of the Moore's film, particularly the ones with all the factual errors (Something like 36 omissions and/or outright lies.)

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
I've been a little busy relocating to see every piece of propaganda that comes down the pike. I would never see a film of Moore's when my viewing it would provide the man with any financial gain.

Then, post your political views in the appropriate forum. This thread was created to discuss the film. Go to the "Lounge" section.

[stevetseitz]

Like I said, this thread showed up in my inbox out of the blue and I simply responded to it. It's a bit of a double standard to tell me you find my political views unacceptable in this forum, while Johann can spout off anywhere he pleases. But I'll be happy to comply and continue this debate anywhere and anytime...:)

[pmw]

I've moved this to the lounge not in any attempt to make it less visible or less relevant. It's an entirely relevant and timely discussion, and the Lounge is a good spot for it. I would add that people need to be civil regardless of a difference of opinion. This country is vastly diverse and while I have my own opinions I don't expect everyone to share them. Nor do I think that that would make for a very interesting democratic system.

Born in Texas, schooled in Vermont and living in NY gives me a broad range of exposure to politics and beliefs, and while I have a firm set of my own beliefs, I have met few people whose beliefs do not stem from a true conviction that they are right. In other words, discussion of the tenants of belief is much more interesting and appropriate than berating someone's character for having a certain set of beliefs...it tends not to resonate in any real way. Hope thats not too pacifying! Feel free to speak your mind of course....
P

[Johann]

No more politics for me- I got films to see.

Re-read the Eve of Destruction thread Steve.
You and anduril are cut from the same cloth.

anduril TROUNCED me in that thread- you should enjoy reading it.

[HorseradishTree]

steve,

I suggested this to anduril and I strongly suggest it to you. Hop the flick. It's relatively easy. Or you could download it illegally, and Moore said he doesn't mind if you do.

[stevetseitz]

I'll probably get around to seeing it next time I'm in my old stomping grounds where I know a guy who owns a video store. That way I can watch the film with no revenue going to Moore.


On a side note, I have a few flaming liberal friends who went to see Moore when he came to Portland a few months back for a book signing. They came back from the "rally" extremely disappointed in Moore. My friends wife's quote: "He kinda sucks."

At this same event, Moore exhorted the crowd to give him the number of a local conservative talk radio host whom I consider a friend. Moore proceeded to broadcast this person's home number throughout the entire crowd resulting in death threats and harassment of the conservative talk radio host by the "peace- loving" Moore fans.

A class act all around.

[anduril]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Like I said, this thread showed up in my inbox out of the blue and I simply responded to it. It's a bit of a double standard to tell me you find my political views unacceptable in this forum, while Johann can spout off anywhere he pleases. But I'll be happy to comply and continue this debate anywhere and anytime...:)

Isn't this the truth!! I posted several responses in the F9/11 thread after the threads failed to take off... and, despite actually having some reasonable debate, was repeatedly told to buzz off by Knipp and Johann so that they could discuss the "FILM". Yet, as soon as I agreed to stop posting, they started posting rants against me and my posts. On one occasion, I asked if they wanted me to join back in given that they were responding to my posts but they quickly reiterated their position that I was not welcome and yet again, they continued to post against my posts rather than discuss the film. What's more, they have yet to answer my challenge to identify even one reason to see the movie; they have yet to comment on the movie in a such a way as to make it obvious that I'm out of the loop. Personally, their reasoning seems clear... they want their soapbox, they aren't willing to let those views be challenged, and they don't tolerate other views.

Steve, it is self-evident that Johann has little to provide except venomous, outrageous, and hate-filled rhetoric. Personally, I'm disappointed and apalled at the obvious double-standard on this site to which you make reference. Your posts were primarily on issue and did not have the hate-filled rhetoric that Johann claims, beyond perhaps one or two quick shots that were mild (and probably more for effect than anything else). By comparison, see Johann's sincerely intended and oft-repeated hate posts in the various F9/11 threads that have nothing to do with the film, except for its exalted praises for Moore. It's undeniably Johann that has repeatedly, persistently, and continuely lowered the bar in the F9/11 threads by resorting to insults, prejudicial and bigotted remarks against people and religions, and other assorted venom; he's a hypocrite, plain and simple, by even suggesting that your posts are hate-filled (and so is Oscar for calling you out on "frustrated neo-hippies" but not once bristling at Johann's posts, which were/are loaded with swears, anti-religious bigotry, and hate speech and which never comment on the film beyond extolling the virtues of Moore). The worst of Johann's posts even caused PMW to delete and edit, which considering the hate speech that is still up on the threads, gives you a sense of just how bad Johann got. Personally, I've given up on talking to these guys. In my mind, their posts are the best possible evidence to their poor logic and outrageous hatred of their fellow Americans than anything I might offer in rebuttal.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by anduril
he's a hypocrite (and so is Oscar for calling you out on "frustrated neo-hippies" but not once bristling at Johann's posts

You have the right to insult me anduril, especially in this forum. I have never insulted you and I wish to respond.

I decided not to respond to stevetseitz labeling me (and everyone who's seen the film) "frustrated neo-hippie" because I don't consider "hippie" an insult and because I am actually "frustrated" about the actions of my State government and my Country's government beginning on Election Day 2000. I also acknowledge guilt feelings, as probably do most of the 98,000 Floridians who voted for Nader, mostly LIBERALS like me who feel the Democratic Party has tossed us aside. LIBERALS like me who feel both Parties have sold out to Big Business. My guilt feelings are exacerbated by the knowledge that if only 600 of us had voted for Gore our present reality would be much different.

Back to the main issue: you calling me a hypocrite, the first insult hurled my way in two years of participation at this excellent site. The reason I "called him out on frustrated neo-hippies" was to explain why I suspected the poster had not seen the film, given that he didn't state so categorically and that he is unlikely to consider himself a "frustrated neo-hippie". I felt that it was inappropriate for anyone who hadn't seen the film to post in a thread specifically created by our moderator to discuss the film. Our moderator has wisely directed posts such as the one I am writing to the appropriate forum, where discussion need not pertain to cinema.

With regards to Johann and other members posting on the 9/11 threads, I wish you had shown more empathy and understanding. A lot of us feel deeply sad about the sacrifice of innocent lives and the squandering of resources. We have strong convictions that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. Moreover, many of us feel that this type of violent action breeds hate and increases the possibility that we will again be the target of terrorism. You may disagree but I suspect this is the genesis of Johann's passionate outrage. I expected you to realize it comes from a good, noble place. You had gone a long way towards changing my perceptions of folks who identify strongly with any of the major organized religions. I bid adieu by thanking you for the enjoyable exchanges we had.

[anduril]

You are right, Oscar, that this was the first time I insulted you. I do not generally do so because I do not see it as a productive way to discuss points. But, in this case, I was bothered by your actions because you had chosen to post very little in the F9/11 thread, even when I tried to back out as per Knipp's and Johann's objections, but then suddenly you post to jump on Steve and accuse him of baiting a discussion that will degenerate into personal insults and be off-topic. From my vantage, no one is more guilty of that in those threads than Johann... and at epidemic proportions. I could count on one hand the number of salient points Johann made in what probably amounted to 60-80 posts. His comments were outrageous, over-the-top, and probably offensive to many. And yet, not a peep from you on that... but then out of nowhere you slag Steve. That strikes me as hypocrisy... If not, please help me understand the way you see this.

As for my lack of empathy and understanding... I'm not so sure I showed a lack of empathy. First of all, I'm as horrified by loss of life, whatever the nationality, as the next man. In fact, this is at the core of my arguments against Knipp and Johann. They seem to think that Saddam was some neighbourhood bully whose actions weren't really that bad. Yet, this man exterminated whole tribes that had existed practically since the dawn of civilization. He used chemical weapons against men, women, and children. He stopped the Tigris and Euphrates from flowing in order to cut off the southern tribes from water; in so doing, he destroyed a way of life that quite literally gave birth to the earliest civilizations and he annihilated a truly amazing ecosystem. This man tortured, brutalized, and killed thousands upon thousands. The British and the Americans did everything in their power to stop him (post-Halabja); they ended their commercial and diplomatic ties; they imposed sanctions; they tried to isolate him in a myriad of ways; they repelled his invasion of Kuwait; they set up more sanctions; they tried weapons inspectors (twice); they set up no-fly zones; they even tried to have the man assassinated; they tried to foment rebellion. Still, the man was belligerent and tyrannical. In 1994, just one year after GWI, he set up his forces to try again to invade Kuwait. He repeatedly evaded the inspectors. And then, with the Oil for Food program, he finally discovered a mechanism to re-arm and this he was doing. Billions were being funneled to Saddam (and to the French and Russians, by the way) via this program. It is a scandal of outrageous proportions. But, let me stop short before I write an essay, I empathize with the outrage over the loss of life caused by GWII; but that doesn't change the fact that it was a necessary war. Saddam had to go, sooner rather later. It also doesn't justify the tirades that Johann went on against Bush, Jesus, and just about everything he could get his hands on.

Believe it or not, I'm no Bush-lackey; and, I'm also not a Fundamentalist Christian. But, Johann, went too far!

Do I think you, Oscar, have noble intentions in your anti-war stance? Sure, at least from what I know of you.

Even with Johann, I repeatedly avoided his attempts to bait me into personal insults and attacks... read my posts. The only person that I baited with some insults was Knipp and I only did it with regard to his constant bickering about me "hijacking" the thread and then at the same time he would engage my posts rather than discuss what he apparently really wanted to discuss. He acted like I was controlling the forum or something. My insults were never directed at his position on the war or on Michael Moore's film; there I dealt in facts... being the only one to provide links to actual primary sources (rather than just opinion pieces). What's more, when he posted some critical interaction with the film, I responded by pointing out where I agreed with him; not an easy thing to do!

So, Oscar, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate my presentation and really ask if I lacked empathy and understanding... or, if it's just that you feel strongly about this and so my taking a different position felt abrasive to you...

For my part, I stand by my conduct and arguments. Perhaps, my only regret is that I took the sarcasm a bit far... but I was downright amazed at how much they were willing to agree on.

In any case, I thank-you for the kind comments that you made at the beginning of your post... and I hope you would reconsider your evaluation of my conduct here and in the F9/11 threads.

[Johann]

I was outraged and still am outraged at the plain and simple fact that Steve and anduril do not seem to acknowledge the severity of what we are discussing here.

Have you heard me talk about oil?

This war is about oil- not Saddam.

Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.

Are you listening? Obviously not. You two are completely ignoring the reasons for this war. Oil. Not terrorism, not Saddam, not WMD's.

Oil. People are dying for oil. That's what my passionate outrage is based on- the needless, pointless deaths that result from Bush's business interests.

This is the severity of this situation in Iraq. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety or fighting potential terrorists.

You two blind clowns are not informed on what this war is all about. You blindly, stupidly endorse murder.

That's my argument with you. That's what my rants & venomous attacks on you are based on-pardon me for being righteous- I am 100% correct.

[stevetseitz]

>>This war is about oil- not Saddam.

Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.
Not Saddam. <<

This war is about terrorism. Before we can discuss anything intelligently we must establish some definitions.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear to obtain a political objective.

State sponsorship of terrorism is refuge, financing, training, weapons, intelligence or logistical support of terrorists.

It is indisputable fact that Saddam Hussein has engaged in all of the above listed activities. The times, names and dates of the following list were confirmed by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission:

1985: The mastermind behind the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, Abu Abbas, was harbored and welcomed by the Iraqi regime.

1988: More than 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children are massacred in the village of Halabja by Saddam Hussein’s forces using weapons of mass destruction.

1992: Iraqi intelligence documents list Osama Bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset.

1993: A non aggression pact between Iraq and al-Qaeda is formed. The rift between secular and Islamic extremists in the Middle East has all but disappeared.

1994: Deputy Director of Iraqi intelligence confirms that Osama Bin Laden requested arms and training from Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.

1995: Abu Hajer al Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officials.

1996: A phone call between al-Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq’s chemical weapons program was intercepted by the NSA.

1997:Abu Abdallah al Iraqi, a member of al-Qaeda, went to Iraq to help in obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

1998: The Clinton administration’s justice department indicted Iraq for providing “assistance” to al-Qaeda’s weapons development program.

1999: A senior Clinton administration counter terrorism official said that the U.S. government was “sure” Iraq had supported al-Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999.

2000: September 11th hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar was photographed with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Kuala Lumpur en route to a meeting at which the terrorist attacks of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center were planned and discussed.

2001: Satellite images show al-Qaeda members traveling to a compound in Iraq, a compound financed in part, by the Iraqi regime.

September 11th, 2001: The World Trade Centers in Manhattan, in the heart of New York City become ground zero for the worst terror attacks in American history. Attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda.

2002: Senior al Qaeda member, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention with the knowledge and approval of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

2003: Prior to the war in Iraq, it was suspected that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi weapons expert who mixed the chemicals for the
1993 World Trade Center attack. This was confirmed in documents found in postwar Iraq.


Your oil theory is convenient and it sounds good as a slogan or written on a signboard, but it is completely false and, more to the point, totally illogical.

Oil prices rise when wars in the Middle East happen, high oil prices adversely affect all other levels of the economy. Bad economies don't get Presidents re-elected. If Bush had some diabolical plan (which I have yet to hear any leftists describe) he would do nothing as Clinton did, allow state-sponsors to continue to support and encourage terrorists. Like Clinton he could talk tough in speeches and maybe lob a few cruise missiles. He would appease the terrorists and allow them to continue to recruit, train, and plan devastating attacks. In doing so he would also appease our "allies" France, Germany, and Russia who were making billions in contracts through corruption in the UN food for oil program.


>>Are you listening? Obviously not. You two are completely ignoring the reasons for this war. Oil. Not terrorism, not Saddam, not WMD's.

Oil. People are dying for oil. That's what my passionate outrage is based on- the needless, pointless deaths that result from Bush's business interests.<<

Wrong. If you had your way. Iraq would still be a totalitarian regime. Innocent Iraqis would be getting kidnapped, beaten, tortured, raped and killed by a ruthless Baathist dictator (and in greater numbers than fell in the Iraq war.) The Taliban would still be throwing homosexuals off roofs in Afghanistan and harboring al-Qaeda.

John Stewart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The biggest killer the world has ever seen isn't war. It's Democide. Totalitarian regimes like Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, the Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein's are responsible for far more human suffering and death than all wars combined!

You have no facts. You have only emotion. You have the desire to believe what you believe because of an irrational world view.

If you have any facts please provide some shred of evidence. I have defined the terms about which I am speaking and provided confirmed dates, names and places. You have slogans.


(Please also note that I refrained from calling you any names in this post because it's immature and serves no purpose.)