| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2003 09:26:56 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by welcher:
In an effort to try and offset the loss of business that is sure to sting these elite Hollywood celebrities, I will be increasing my movie viewing and renting.
Seriously, these folks have an opinion just like you and me. If the media wants to give them the platform to discuss it, that's not the celebrities' fault.
Michael Moore was way over the line, though. |
oh I definately believe they have the right to say what they will... many of us would fight and die defending that right... however, I also have the right to say I think they should sit down and shut up. :o)
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 09:38:11 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by welcher:
In an effort to try and offset the loss of business that is sure to sting these elite Hollywood celebrities, I will be increasing my movie viewing and renting.
Seriously, these folks have an opinion just like you and me. If the media wants to give them the platform to discuss it, that's not the celebrities' fault.
Michael Moore was way over the line, though. |
oh I definately believe they have the right to say what they will... many of us would fight and die defending that right... however, I also have the right to say I think they should sit down and shut up. :o) |
there is no such thing as completely free speech, if there were, there would be complete unrest. respect is part of speech and knowing when not to say things is important.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 09:49:56 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by achiral:
there is no such thing as completely free speech, if there were, there would be complete unrest. respect is part of speech and knowing when not to say things is important. |
And what's important here is knowing that you don't say something when pro-war folks disagree with it, right?
Seriously, if Heston came out tomorrow and started going pro-war bonkers, you guys would be going nuts falling all over each other to laude him.
You offense with the Hollywood types speaking out is because you don't agree with them. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 09:55:22 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
there is no such thing as completely free speech, if there were, there would be complete unrest. respect is part of speech and knowing when not to say things is important. |
And what's important here is knowing that you don't say something when pro-war folks disagree with it, right?
Seriously, if Heston came out tomorrow and started going pro-war bonkers, you guys would be going nuts falling all over each other to laude him.
You offense with the Hollywood types speaking out is because you don't agree with them. |
this kind of statement is what makes people hate your side. you make assumptions about pro war people, prejudge them and even put words into their mouths.
what i was talking about has nothing to do with a debate where both sides can be heard. celebrities using their influence that normal people won't have...in a movie awards ceremony of all things...is wrong in my opinion. people waving peace signs is cool, i can agree with that, but when they cross the line into abusing free speech, i think it's wrong. i mean imagine if everyone in hollywood decided that they would start talking about legalizing drugs in america. that has a huge impact on people that look up to those actors. they have an enormous amount of influence whether people would like to admit it or not. there is a time for everything, awards shows is not one of those times
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 10:03:09.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 09:58:44 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
no need to point that I did not write the article...
I cited the author of the article at the beginning.... I only wrote the last paragraph...
|
I wasn't implying that you hadn't. However it was clear from some of the responses that people thought you'd written it yourself and had missed your attribution to the author at the top of your post.
You've now edited your original post to make clear where the quote ends and your own text begins, before you did that, it was not clear.
That's all I was saying, nothing more.
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 10:01:08.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:02:50 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by achiral:
this kind of statement is what makes people hate your side. you make assumptions about pro war people, prejudge them and even put words into their mouths. |
Ummm, here's a quote from you earlier:
Originally posted by achiral:
i honestly think most of them don't even care about issues |
What was it you were saying about making assumptions?
What makes you hate "our side" is that we don't agree with you. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:04:07 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
this kind of statement is what makes people hate your side. you make assumptions about pro war people, prejudge them and even put words into their mouths. |
Ummm, here's a quote from you earlier:
Originally posted by achiral:
i honestly think most of them don't even care about issues |
What was it you were saying about making assumptions?
What makes you hate "our side" is that we don't agree with you. |
no, it's that you make no sense
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:06:23 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by achiral:
no, it's that you make no sense |
No comment on your "make assumptions" point anymore?
Seriously, how can you say we "make no sense"? How is what you believe any more (or less) sensible that what I believe?
There are many, many good reasons to get rid of Saddam. There are also many, many good reasons for America to not invade. (Now that we ARE invading, I want our troops to do their best, stay safe, and come home quickly, BTW.) |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:06:54 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
this kind of statement is what makes people hate your side. you make assumptions about pro war people, prejudge them and even put words into their mouths. |
Ummm, here's a quote from you earlier:
Originally posted by achiral:
i honestly think most of them don't even care about issues |
What was it you were saying about making assumptions?
What makes you hate "our side" is that we don't agree with you. |
i was talking about celebrities that talk about war. i think they just find it cool and don't actually care
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:09:25 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
no, it's that you make no sense |
No comment on your "make assumptions" point anymore?
Seriously, how can you say we "make no sense"? How is what you believe any more (or less) sensible that what I believe?
There are many, many good reasons to get rid of Saddam. There are also many, many good reasons for America to not invade. (Now that we ARE invading, I want our troops to do their best, stay safe, and come home quickly, BTW.) |
your ideas that give you these good reasons for America not to invade are purely opinion, conjecture, and speculation. no one really knows what will happen in the future, but most of the people that are anti-war would like to think they have a crystal ball and can see exactly what will happen. it's funny
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:13:01 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by achiral:
your ideas that give you these good reasons for America not to invade are purely opinion, conjecture, and speculation. no one really knows what will happen in the future, but most of the people that are anti-war would like to think they have a crystal ball and can see exactly what will happen. it's funny |
This is absurd! My ideas are purely opinion and speculation? And yours aren't? Anti-war people think they have a crystal ball? And you guys don't? I am astonished at this statement. Your opinions are no more or less rooted in fact, or opinion, or speculation that anyone else's.
Originally posted by archiral:
i was talking about celebrities that talk about war. i think they just find it cool and don't actually care |
There you go making those "assumptions" again. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:16:46 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
your ideas that give you these good reasons for America not to invade are purely opinion, conjecture, and speculation. no one really knows what will happen in the future, but most of the people that are anti-war would like to think they have a crystal ball and can see exactly what will happen. it's funny |
This is absurd! My ideas are purely opinion and speculation? And yours aren't? Anti-war people think they have a crystal ball? And you guys don't? I am astonished at this statement. Your opinions are no more or less rooted in fact, or opinion, or speculation that anyone else's.
Originally posted by archiral:
i was talking about celebrities that talk about war. i think they just find it cool and don't actually care |
There you go making those "assumptions" again. |
prove it. anyone can take a sentence out of context to make a point. i'm not going to waste my time arguing that with you. explain your reasons for not going to war without conjecture and speculation. i base my reasons for war on what has already happened, and what hasn't happened in terms of saddam complying.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:35:49 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by achiral:
prove it. anyone can take a sentence out of context to make a point. i'm not going to waste my time arguing that with you. explain your reasons for not going to war without conjecture and speculation. i base my reasons for war on what has already happened, and what hasn't happened in terms of saddam complying. |
I will prove it. You complain about "my side" making assumptions about your side's motivations, and I've provided you with two examples of you doing just that.
As to my reasons for being against the war:
- A $75billion (and counting) hit on an economy that frankly can't take it.
- Forseeable, and increasingly likely, Turk/Kurd disaster.
- Forseeable, disaterous, and (thankfully) increasingly unlikely, Israeli involvment.
- Instability of some "friendly" dictatorships/regimes in the area could be worsened by protracted invasion/occupation.
- Complete and utter diplomatic failure leading to loss of decades-worth of international goodwill.
- Sewing more seeds of distrust in the fertile bed of hatred and suspicion that is the Middle East. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:41:24 AM · #39 |
One important point - Bush's connections and money had a lot to do with him getting into Yale, running oil companies, etc. On the other hand, someone like Michael Moore, brought up in the factory town of Flint, Michigan, quits college in his first year and goes out to find the money to make his own documentaries, gets his own show, authors a best selling book, wins an oscar, and builds an entire political/media career out of hard work and enthusiasm. Does that make his opinions less important? Not to millions of his fans all around the world.
I don't agree with Michael Moore all that much. He crosses over into sensationalism and manipulates facts to appeal to people's emotions. However, you don't have a healthy democracy unless you have all the important issues exposed and analysed in the media from ALL sides of EVERY issue. Whoever does it isn't important, the voices have to be out there. I'm as grateful to Charleton Heston as I am to Michael Moore for using his profile to get debate going. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:56:44 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by lisae:
One important point - Bush's connections and money had a lot to do with him getting into Yale, running oil companies, etc. On the other hand, someone like Michael Moore, brought up in the factory town of Flint, Michigan, quits college in his first year and goes out to find the money to make his own documentaries, gets his own show, authors a best selling book, wins an oscar, and builds an entire political/media career out of hard work and enthusiasm. Does that make his opinions less important? Not to millions of his fans all around the world.
I don't agree with Michael Moore all that much. He crosses over into sensationalism and manipulates facts to appeal to people's emotions. However, you don't have a healthy democracy unless you have all the important issues exposed and analysed in the media from ALL sides of EVERY issue. Whoever does it isn't important, the voices have to be out there. I'm as grateful to Charleton Heston as I am to Michael Moore for using his profile to get debate going. |
i agree about the michael moore thing. why is important why a person gets into a college? influence and past family members attendence of a college may not be fair, but it is a big part of why some people get in. but ultimately why does that discount someone's future decisions? bush might have gotten bad grades at yale, but compared to many other schools in the US, a C from Yale is the same or better than an A. but that is a useless argument really because it is so relative. there are definitely greater presidents than bush that came to the white house with lesser education and less prestigious degrees. gpa isn't a measure of performance in the white house just as it isn't taken into account in the majority of jobs in the US
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 10:57:33 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
prove it. anyone can take a sentence out of context to make a point. i'm not going to waste my time arguing that with you. explain your reasons for not going to war without conjecture and speculation. i base my reasons for war on what has already happened, and what hasn't happened in terms of saddam complying. |
I will prove it. You complain about "my side" making assumptions about your side's motivations, and I've provided you with two examples of you doing just that.
As to my reasons for being against the war:
- A $75billion (and counting) hit on an economy that frankly can't take it.
- Forseeable, and increasingly likely, Turk/Kurd disaster.
- Forseeable, disaterous, and (thankfully) increasingly unlikely, Israeli involvment.
- Instability of some "friendly" dictatorships/regimes in the area could be worsened by protracted invasion/occupation.
- Complete and utter diplomatic failure leading to loss of decades-worth of international goodwill.
- Sewing more seeds of distrust in the fertile bed of hatred and suspicion that is the Middle East. |
i said WITHOUT conjecture and speculation, not with
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:01:24 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Hoogie:
Who says the american leaders are stupid after all they have the majority of americans believing this war is to liberate Iraq!
And the intelligent people know the real reason. |
You know or are you assuming? Intelligent people look at all the facts not just bits and pieces!!
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:11:51 AM · #43 |
I feel that the whole point in this thread was to show that President George Bush is not stupid like some have been saying. He is a smart man and thinks and prays before he acts. If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this. You have a choice to believe that what Saddam is doing is right or you can believe that George is just out there to get the oil or what ever the case. Let the man do his job and the people fighting for our country and others do their job. Give them support. Show them you are rooting for them. Give them encouragement to battle the stress out there.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:17:28 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i said WITHOUT conjecture and speculation, not with |
How exactly is that conjecture or speculation? Any more than "we KNOW he has WMD"? Or any more than "we KNOW he will supply terrorists with WMD"?
No, my fears are legitimate possible outcomes of a war, every bit as much as your fears are legitimate possible outcomes of no war. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:30:30 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this. |
What about the Pope? |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:30:49 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by achiral:
i said WITHOUT conjecture and speculation, not with |
How exactly is that conjecture or speculation? Any more than "we KNOW he has WMD"? Or any more than "we KNOW he will supply terrorists with WMD"?
No, my fears are legitimate possible outcomes of a war, every bit as much as your fears are legitimate possible outcomes of no war. |
those are claims i haven't even made yet, what are you talking about. although i think he does have wmd, it is enough that he turns his nose to the international community for 12 years, basically playing games with the "diplomatic" process. how do you promote diplomacy with saddam? it's impossible. he's a pathological liar.
the only thing you stated that even comes close to actually being able to predict is the effect of the $68 billion dollar price tag on the war. but this is what happens when there is a war. deficits occur. they haven't ruined us before. the american economy is strong.
all of your other points have yet to be proven and have little current support besides speculation from other people who have the same views as you. i'm not saying bad things won't happen after the war. i'm not saying definitely good things will happen. i'm not going to put my name out there next to something that can't be proven however, i won't compromise my position
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:33:42 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this. |
What about the Pope? |
i would hardly expect the pope to come out and say "Nuke Em All To Hell". just because someone is pro-war does not mean they aren't peace loving people.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:35:48 AM · #48 |
So the ONLY reasons you're for this war is because he has thumbed his nose at the international community? I'll alert Israel (in violation of the UN), North Korea, and indeed the US (which has flagrantly thumbed its nose at the international community) to expect strikes from us next.
The world is littered with nations that ignore world diplomacy. Why, in your view, have we singled Saddam out?
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 11:36:09. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 11:54:19 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by welcher:
So the ONLY reasons you're for this war is because he has thumbed his nose at the international community? I'll alert Israel (in violation of the UN), North Korea, and indeed the US (which has flagrantly thumbed its nose at the international community) to expect strikes from us next.
The world is littered with nations that ignore world diplomacy. Why, in your view, have we singled Saddam out? |
tell north korea, not israel though. i've heard about these israeli non compliance. does anyone have a link to the un resolution they went against. just for my own education
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 12:01:50 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by welcher:
So the ONLY reasons you're for this war is because he has thumbed his nose at the international community? I'll alert Israel (in violation of the UN), North Korea, and indeed the US (which has flagrantly thumbed its nose at the international community) to expect strikes from us next.
The world is littered with nations that ignore world diplomacy. Why, in your view, have we singled Saddam out? |
okay welcher, i think you have a problem comprehending what i'm saying. i think it is enough to take action in iraq when there are weapons saddam says he destroyed unaccounted for over and over again. there are thousands of tons of wmds and 1000s of missiles that haven't been accounted for. if saddam keeps saying that he doesn't have these weapons, why won't he give records about such weapons in question. this would have been over probably 8-10 years ago if saddam had actually wanted to be honest. this is not the US being out of control. saddam has the burden of proof. he says he's innocent but is unwilling to prove it. the inpectors in iraq weren't sent there for some wild goose chase to hunt down weapons, saddam was supposed to present the weapons the world knows he has for destruction.
|
|
