-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
I don't care what Michael Moore thinks,
I don't care what Merul Streep thinks,
I don't care what Julianne Moore thinks, or Michael Douglas, or Jennifer Lopez, etc.
Just act when they say "action", and shut up the rest of the time if you're on someone else's dime.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ain't that the truth?
I recently called into an NPR affiliate down here in Houston during a live talk show and the host was doing the usual Bush bashing, etc regarding the war. Now, mind you, I don't really care for Bush but, then again, I haven't liked any of the presidents we've had or their administrations. Anyway, I pointed out that America is constantly criticized for doing too much or not doing enough. For those that feel America is responsible for Saddam being in power, then who better to take him out of power than the US. After all, supposedly he's our fault, right?
But, nothing will satisfy these people. The media seems to draw in the most un-informed posers in the fricken' world. The host of this show was no different. When we started debating information that I had read on the internet, he countered that "you can't trust anything you read on the internet or books and newspapers". In reply I said it was refreshing, then, be talking to someone that had actually been to the Gulf region and understood what was actually going on in Bagdad. Of course, he sheepishly admitted that he had never been there to which I asked,"Then where are YOU getting your information?" He had nothing to say and suddenly had to take another call.
My feeling is that it's not about whether or not one trusts Bush but, rather, whether or not one trusts Colin Powell. He is the common denominator between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and, most importantly, Powell does not strike me as a war monger. I don't agree with the ins and outs of all this but I don't see Powell as the type to go off half cocked, looking to pick a fight.
Earlier, the host of the radio show sought to point out that "important people" all over the world were against this war and were demanding that Bush be removed from his position for crimes against humanity. I asked where these same people were a few years ago when it came to light that Saddam was killing his own people by the thousands. Why didn't the protesters demand then that Saddam be removed from his position for crimes against humanity? And, if he was to be removed, then who was going to do it? France? The UN? Please! And, while we were on the subject, I asked the host what sort of "important people" he was referring to.
His answer? Susan Sarandon.
No kidding.
As this relates to Matt's initial post, I say now what I said to the host of last night's live show: I respect Susan Sarandon's terrific knockers and her ability to pretend she's other people for my entertainment. However, if given a choice between Susan Sarandon's assessment of the situation in the Gulf region or Colin Powell's, I think I'll stick with someone that's been there. No offense, Suze. [img]wink.gif[/img]
I really don't have a clue who's telling the truth and who's lying in our government. But moviestars used to playing make-believe are certainly going to be the LAST bastion of common sense and reality in this world, that's for sure.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Anyway, I pointed out that America is constantly criticized for doing too much or not doing enough. For those that feel America is responsible for Saddam being in power, then who better to take him out of power than the US. After all, supposedly he's our fault, right?
Roger</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a stupid comment, Roger. I would have expected better of you. You come over as the stereotypical "ignorant, arrogant, right wing American." Sorry to get personal, but I find myself offended by this kind of flipancy and nonsense. What a ridiculous justification for war.
Lucas
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
What a stupid comment, Roger. I would have expected better of you. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
And, typically, I expected no less of you. I was being sarcastic, dumbass, but you just couldn't miss an opportunity to take a shot, could you? I wasn't justifying the war at all, which is plain as day to anyone that isn't predisposed to being argumentative. I was talking about how these people think and that NOTHING would satisfy them, even if they THOUGHT that the US was responsible for Saddam being in power. Again, either we do too much or we don't do enough. Take your grudge somewhere else, Lucas. You jumped the gun early on this one.
Roger
-
Looks like the tumbleweeds are starting to clear out...
-
Back to the original topic at hand. Hopefully this doesn't escalate into namecalling or anything trivial.
Here is the post-oscar questionaire with Michael Moore in case anyone is interested as well as the actual transcription of what he said.
http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html
I agree with Moore in that the electoral college is outdated and ridiculous, but I am *not* going to be one of the ones whining about it after the fact. I realize that all the democrats would be defending the electoral college if it had worked their way. You didn't hear to many people complaining of it before the election, so if you want to try and get it fixed, then do so, but don't complain about Bush winning the election by the now current rules.
I think the last election procedure was basically a complete and total JOKE, and it sort of pisses me off that there has been seemingly little done to fix it (that I know of). It would be nice not to have the same "hanging chads" and ballot miscounting issues, not to mention the supreme court picking the president by the 2004 presidential election.
Its not an issue of taking Susan Sarandon's "word" Powell's either. When it comes down to it, it is a personal decision. And as I'm sure that while Powell has infinitely more facts than Sarandon, someone else could be presented the same facts and have a different opinion.
Scott
-
You were being sarcastic? So what exactly are you saying? Who were you parodying, exactly? Liberals? War hawks? The only sense I can make of it is that you were parodying liberals parodying war-hawks. Is this right? And this is supposed to be obvious? That's the thing about writing - the reader can't hear your intonation; you have to put it on the page in words.
I am not, as you put it, predisposed to argumentativeness, nor am I a dumbass. I think your comments were flippant and Americacentric and your sarcasm was confusing.
Who exactly is constantly criticising the US for not doing enough or for doing too much? Big fucking deal anyway. That argument is meaningless. The US deserves plenty of criticism for lots of things. Who in the hell criticises America for not illegally going to war enough? Don't tell me you were being sarcastic again!
Lucas
-
Lucas, I have always appreciated your insight and international views, but I don't believe the rhetoric and namecalling is necesary.
As a side note - I posted this same thread on the 8mm.filmshooting board and it was quickly deleted by the moderator. I'm hoping that the words presented on this forum can serve to show that we can present a topic and discuss it rationally as opposed to having to censor topics to avoid arguments.
Thanks,
Scott
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
You were being sarcastic? So what exactly are you saying? Who were you parodying, exactly? </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh, I believe we were talking about uninformed media air heads like the radio host I was debating.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
I am not, as you put it, predisposed to argumentativeness</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hah! Now YOU'RE being sarcastic, right? At least you have a sense of humor. [img]smile.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
nor am I a dumbass.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
No more a dumbass than you know me to be the stereotypical "ignorant, arrogant, right wing American" so why pick a fight where there clearly isn't one? As far as being predisposed to argumentativeness, well, what can I say? You claim you aren't but then ramble on with this nonsense:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
I think your comments were flippant and Americacentric and your sarcasm was confusing.
Who exactly is constantly criticising the US for not doing enough or for doing too much? Big fucking deal anyway. That argument is meaningless. The US deserves plenty of criticism for lots of things. Who in the hell criticises America for not illegally going to war enough? Don't tell me you were being sarcastic again!</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow. Thanks for making my point, Lucas. At least you're dependable. [img]wink.gif[/img]
My point is that NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING, (including you, my friend). All those against the war have no more valid, verifiable information than those for the war.
[NOTE TO LUCAS: Heavy sarcasm ahead] Should we take out Saddam's regime? Why not? Anyone have any accurate, verifiable information as to why we shouldn't? Does anyone have any accurate, verifiable information as to why we should?
Media airheads that pose and pretend to make sweeping, courageous statements (either pro or con) regarding the war are accessing the very same, limited information that you and I read every day. People CHOOSE to believe what they want to and interpret the information based on their own predispositions. If you like Bush, then he's a prince. If you don't then NOTHING he does will make you happy. The same with Blair, right?
Regarding your statement, "The US deserves plenty of criticism for lots of things", now THAT'S about as vague and argumentative as you can get. Sorry, I won't bite. I'm not here to defend the US nor your own country (remember that Great Britain is in this, as well). I am here to say that you don't have any more "insight" into this whole affair than anyone else, including me. In that respect, you're a dumbass, I'm a dumbass, everyone's a dumbass. Anyone that thinks they know the "real truth" should book time on Nightline but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Now, do you understand?
PS: I don't think you're really a dumbass or, rather, I don't think you're any bigger a dumbass than I am. Let's keep the conflict "way over there" okay? [img]smile.gif[/img]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MovieStuff:
I recently called into an NPR affiliate down here in Houston during a live talk show and the host was doing the usual Bush bashing, etc regarding the war. Now, mind you, I don't really care for Bush but, then again, I haven't liked any of the presidents we've had or their administrations. Anyway, I pointed out that America is constantly criticized for doing too much or not doing enough. For those that feel America is responsible for Saddam being in power, then who better to take him out of power than the US. After all, supposedly he's our fault, right?
Roger[/QB]</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger. Please admit that it is very unclear what you meant to parody here. First you say that the host is "Bush bashing" and then, you claim, parody him as justifying war on stupid grounds, which makes no sense at all. I misinterpreted it as your straightforward comment because it is badly written, in my very humble opinion.
Come on, Roger - you absolutely bloody love a good argument - admit it and I will too (or admit that although I hate it I can't resist it). You and I were both at the heart of the whole airport security sillyness after all, and you absolutely have to have the last word.
Yes Roger, we're all stupid, but some of us is more stupider than what others is. It is also true when you suggest that given the same info., different people will draw different conclusions, but this is always your point - that no-one knows anything. That's just too much for me. I think I know more about this war and the way of the world than some people and choose to use my un-constitutional right to free speech in trying to elucidate them. Some people are really really stupid, disinterested in truth, and morally deplorable to boot, and my degree of wrongness is nothing compared to theirs. Wrongness is relative, surely.
I apologise if I misunderstood your sarcasm for a genuine, offhand, ignorant expression and for any offence caused in suggesting that you "sound" like a stereotype. In fact my apologies for everything. You are actually too veciferous an arguer even for me. I haven't the strength for it. The selective quoting thing wears me thin and Airport Security frazzled my nerves in the end.
Lucas
-
Where are the tumbleweeds all of a sudden?
OK, Come on - who wants a fight? Better keep it up lads. I love that Saddam bloke. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I hope he wins, actually.
Super8? Film? Ha! What idiots you all are. I switched over to video years ago, and I've never looked back. Much better resolution than film, far less flicker and so cheap.
Grrr! Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough, Saddam hating, Super8 loving bitches!
Lucas
