liberals....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You've totally lost me AND your arguments.

You went from faulting him for his gimmick, to saying you're not faulting him for his gimmick, back to faulting him for his gimmick.

I'm done with this line of debate, you aren't making sense.

As for people touting it as fair and balanced, put down the crackpipe. No one has ever said that. The most we've said is that it's factual, which it is.

Bless your heart, I am saying MM's film wsa good and he was very effective in it. If I am faulting him for anything it is the film is too one sided to be touted as factual in general. But, that was his goal and he reached it by employing the same histrionics most employ. Thus, no fault can be attached. He meant to use these tactics. So, he and the film are without falut. Were I do find fault is with people that procliam the movie is the only version of events and facts. That is wrong. The movie is a one sided version.

better!

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=Wild Heart]

Originally Posted by dissention

.................so he has to over-analyze every frame of it so as not to get flamed by the two conservatives around here......


Make that three...........although technically I'm a lurker Ledgie and not an active poster anymore. I stopped posting sometime ago after the realization that this board has become increasingly intolerate to opposing views and seeing how anyone expressing an opinion outside of the far left is ridiculed. I was a diehard Rush Limbaugh hating tree hugging liberal Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 when I first joined this board. I even got flamed on this very site once for making a Republican joke. I have been liberal all of my adult life until the morning of September 11, 2001, after watching the second tower fall, I stunned myself when I realized all I could think is Thank God Bush is President. The change wasn't immediate but it was enough to make me to look deeper into my opinions and values. Two and a half years later I'm now a Hannity & O'Reilly loving One Nation Under God Go NRA Bush for President conservative. I don't agree with everything Bush does, I do not like Dick Cheney, I still don't care for Limbaugh and I think Ann Coulter needs to take a pill (or get laid, no offense ladies).

I began to feel unwelcomed here after my political views changed, even though I steered clear of the political debates, so I slipped into lurker status. I never realized how intolerate people on this board can be until I stepped over to the "wrong" side of the fence. Now I just check in occasionally to see what's up with the band but it even spills over into the FM forums. You can't even read a thread without being bombarded with Vote For John Kerry and Anti Bush signatures. I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have those signatures because I believe in free speech but I'd hate to see the backlash if I had a Vote For George W. Bush and anti Democrat signature because free speech only applys around here if you share the majority's opinion. It would be more ugly than I could dare to imagine. I would never have even saw this thread if a misplaced thread in the Rumours forum had not lead me here out of curiosity over what was being said about the Moore film.

Well I've said too much already and I'm sure the liberals are foaming at the mouth and ready to pounce on the lone conservative. And no I have not seen the Moore film. I would really like to see it but I didn't even like Moore when I was a liberal. He will make millions but not one cent from me.

I guess to point of my post is that friendly debate is one thing and everybody has different opinions but the level of intolerance for opposing views on this board is outrageous and not just in political threads. I'm sure I'm not the only Ledgie who has chosen lurker status or completely left the board because they feel unwelcome because they do not agree with the majority on certain issues whether it be political, moral or the Mac themselves. I think it's very sad how bipolarized we've become and our own Ledge is an example.

I hate to tell you this but our government did 9/11. At the very least, they allowed it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No thanks, Mrs. Harris. I'm a bit tired of that discussion.

Called for and could not come

Again, please show me one recount from a credible news source that indicates Gore won and I will gladly eat crow. Until then, you lose this one as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I hate to tell you this but our government did 9/11. At the very least, they allowed it.

Prove it. If you think for one minute people are going to believe that W met up with OBL and planned the attacks of 9/11 and thousands of officials around the world from Clinton downward are playing ball with W and not letting the cat out of the bag . . . then I do not know what to say.

IMO the more logical argument is the American govt., including the prior administration, was caught with its pants down. The govt. should have done more to stop this. That they did not is sad.

But to imply W did 9/11 is just a farce to me.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bless your heart, I am saying MM's film wsa good and he was very effective in it. If I am faulting him for anything it is the film is too one sided to be touted as factual in general. But, that was his goal and he reached it by employing the same histrionics most employ. Thus, no fault can be attached. He meant to use these tactics. So, he and the film are without falut. Were I do find fault is with people that procliam the movie is the only version of events and facts. That is wrong. The movie is a one sided version.

better!

I posted that you said Moore's appraoch lent him less credibility. Your response?

"Well, it does."

What am I not getting? You're faulting him for his approach, plain and simple. Why won't you admit it? And since when can a one-sided argument supported by facts be considered not factual?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Prove it.

Wait until the 9/11 report comes out saying that 9/11 could've been prevented. But you won't admit that, either.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I posted that you said Moore's appraoch lent him less credibility. Your response?

"Well, it does."

What am I not getting? You're faulting him for his approach, plain and simple. Why won't you admit it? And since when can a one-sided argument supported by facts be considered not factual?

I guess I do not see that as a fault since it was his objective. But, yes, I think it makes anything less credible when the presenter uses one sided approaches when presenting the facts. Again, he admits he wanted to do that. That was his objective. I do not fault him for it. If I did, I recant.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Well, he refuses to do it. But I already characterized his actions quite aptly in another post...

No, we got some Republican talking points meme about Democrats and Iraq instead.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Wait until the 9/11 report comes out saying that 9/11 could've been prevented. But you won't admit that, either.

Yes I can, but it has not been proven to my eyes. Nothing suggested we were going to be attacked like we were at that time. I know the 8/01 doc says we were going to be attacked, but it was hardly specific.

I think the animosity between the agencies (which has been there forever) was far more of an obstacle.

In the end and given how the govt. works, I think it would have taken a lucky break to tie it al together. That did not happen. I also think the buck stops with W and he is to blame for the interagency aquabbling that prevented the lucky break even more. But, to say W knew we were going to be attacked on 9/11 and did nothing about it simply cannot be supported by any facts I have seen.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Tone - I know Dissention, Carne, Goldie and I (and a few others) growl and bark at each other. But, I think it is important to realize we are all friends and like each other despite our misgivings politically!!!!!!! I guess that tone does not really come across too often. So, here is the post where it does!!!!!

Truth.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

you just need to read her post several times to understand where she is coming from and then accept her position, her intellect and not judge it as ignorance which needs to be corrected, that's all

Well, I did. I see fear, lots of fear. BTW, part of having a debate is to present an opposing viewpoint. Sitting back and digesting everything we are told has been happening for way too long in this country. I, for one, won't do it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes I can, but it has not been proven to my eyes. Nothing suggested we were going to be attacked like we were at that time. I know the 8/01 doc says we were going to be attacked, but it was hardly specific.

Yeah, because the American people have the same information the panel has. We still don't even know what Bush and Cheney said in their interrogations, although it's been rumoured to have been almost all about the HUGE f*ck-up that was Cheney's shoot-down order.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Called for and could not come

Again, please show me one recount from a credible news source that indicates Gore won and I will gladly eat crow. Until then, you lose this one as well.

about that ol' Gore vs Bush fiasco can be found with the following title:

"36 Days-The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis

Written by the Correspondents of the New York Times"

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

thanks for the convo everyone!!!! gotta a bus to catch!!! Feel free to flame!! Nite

Yeah. Did you actually have a point to make?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that and said it before. Again, stop the spin .

Dude, you're spinning like a broken washing machine right now.