DVDizzy Forum

Uncle Remus wrote:i would rather hear more about war than hear about someone having an affair with another. the news about affairs sometimes makes others feel bad you know.

Wait, I take back that previous post. If you believe you'd rather wake up and hear about war (ie people dying) than about an affair, you are just one sick person. All the grief you get, you deserve.

it was bad enough that i found out the process when i was 8 years old and that is a little too early to learn about that.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:As for horrible - American fighter pilots bombing wedding parties - which they have done in both Afganistan and Iraq would qualify as horrible events.

Just to quote someone else for a change

JJJ, you continue to take the words out of my mouth

Yes, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be more interested in the sex life of an ex-president, than they would be in current gloabl events.

englishboy wrote:Wait, I take back that previous post. If you believe you'd rather wake up and hear about war (ie people dying) than about an affair, you are just one sick person. All the grief you get, you deserve.

Englishboy has it right here - I'm not saying that civilians being bombed is a pleasant thing to hear about. It IS horrible but it IS a reality. Now a President cheated on his wife. So what? A president bombs innocent civilians, and ignores the international community, THAT is something to worry about.

Now, Remus to your comments - I don't want to attack you Remus, because I don't want to feel like a bully. But if you are old enough to have an opinion on this board, you are old enough to defend your opinions, and I feel I have a responsibility to point out certain facts to you.

You may find it disturbing, but it is a fact and something that one needs to be aware of. All I'm asking you to do is to read around the internet (not just listen to the TV or the major newspapers), and form your own opinion on world events. I find it hard to believe any informed person could be more concerned with an EX-president who got some in the Oval, than with their current president waging war on the world for a very weak motivation.

Few quick articles to add, that I thought might be interesting:

Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" Is Criticized as Similar to Alex Jones' "911 - The Road to Tyranny"
http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_c ... ?n=fah_911

Of course, as the article points out, it "should be obvious to anyone who has seen both films, each of which presents the facts from distinctly different perspectives. Similarities exist, but this is only to be expected given that these are two documentaries on the same subject".

I think we should be grateful that more than one person is tackling the subject!

This one I dislike intensely, simply because it continues the assumption that if you are against the current government's policies, it somehow means you "hate America":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/

Still, would be interesting to see what the point of his doco is (beyond "Michael Moore is rich, therefore he can't talk about social injustice").

Uncle Remus wrote:it was bad enough that i found out the process when i was 8 years old and that is a little too early to learn about that.

Hi Uncle Remus.

This says more about the media today, than anything else, but I'm surprised you never new about the "process" before. After all, it's mentioned on lots of other tv dramas and shows. It's made Jerry Springer and his ilk multiple millions of dollars. People have affairs. People have sex. It also says so much about the media that Clinton's affairs were plasted so much on the news in the first place. It's not Clinton who gave the whole thing saturation coverage, it's the media and the Republican's you seem to like so much who did that. As has been pointed out, other Presidents most likely did worse... a lot worse... in the past. The only difference is neither the media or the opposition were as brazen about reporting it in the past.

As far as I can see, the main argument for the President here and elsewhere is "If you criticize the President and his decisions, you are being unpatriotic.", therefore Fahrenheit 9/11 is an unpatriotic film. Does that mean that the people who voted the President into power in the first place were being unpatriotic because they didn't vote another Democrat in to the office after Clinton? Does it mean if President Bush looses this coming election, everyone who voted against President Bush was being unpatriotic? One day, the Republicans will loose the title of President. Does this mean that that day, most of America is being unpatriotic? Of course not, its how democracies work.

In order to have a strong democracy, you need to have a leadership who is accountable, open to criticism and, above all, able to explain and justify their actions if questioned. No democracy is perfect, and no leader is perfect. A democratic leader has to make important decisions without consulting the nation, and may even make decisions against the majority of the nation's wishes. After all, you vote a leader in to govern for a term, not to constantly hold referendums over every decision that needs making. But this doesn't mean you can't speak out against any of these decisions if you don't agree with them.

You don't just vote somebody into power, and they forget all about the democratic process for 4 years – every day your elected leader is in office is a day where questions should be asked, criticisms made and actions justified. The role of the media isn't to blindly repeat press releases from the government (as, sadly most media outlets seem to be content to do these days. Mainly out of laziness and financial reasons rather then any political reasons I would guess).

How can you have a working democracy when the leader is above criticism? Nobody asked G.W. Bush to be President. He decided he wanted the position himself. And I doubt he wanted to be President solely out of the goodness of his heart (just as I doubt this is Kerry's motivation). And when deciding, he knew (or should have known) what the position entailed – including the criticisms he would be open to.

People often ask how did Hitler wrestle power in Germany? I don't have the complete answer, but reading any book on the rise of Nazism only gives half the answer in my opinion. There seems to be one major thing people don't take into consideration. Namely, there was very little political humour, satire, and yes, criticism in German media at the time. (for a number of reasons, the biggest being the aftermath of World War 1). I'd like to think that nobody with an agenda anything like Hitler's could, or ever will rise to power in Britain. Not only do we have a culture of questioning our leaders, but we also have a grand tradition of political satire. And all this is healthy to a democracy. The biggest theat to democracy are simple, single sentence arguments and soundbites that sound good on TV, but say very little.

Nobody has to go and see Fahrenheit 9/11. And above all nobody can be made to go and see the film. But it's there, just as it should be, to be viewed or ignored. I've seen lots of comment from President Bush's administration along the lines of "At least people can demonstrate here, which is something they couldn't do in Saddam's Iraq" several times when peace protestors are brought up, both at home or abroad. Well, it's the same for Michael Moore's film. In a democracy he can make and release his film. Surely, the President Bush supporters don't want to stifle democracy, not after they worked so hard, at the expense of thousands of lives, to 'export' it to Iraq?

Wait, I take back that previous post. If you believe you'd rather wake up and hear about war (ie people dying) than about an affair, you are just one sick person. All the grief you get, you deserve.

Actually Loomis, the person who said that was actually englishboy, not me. you were probably at the time thinking it was me.

Uncle Remus wrote:

Wait, I take back that previous post. If you believe you'd rather wake up and hear about war (ie people dying) than about an affair, you are just one sick person. All the grief you get, you deserve.

Actually Loomis, the person who said that was actually englishboy, not me. you were probably at the time thinking it was me.

Whoopsie...changes made...

But I was really responding to you, based on the points Englishboy made, so the points still stand.

Loomis,

go back and read my posts. You've somehow messed this thread up. We're saying the same thing. You had it right the first time.

Englishboy

englishboy wrote:Loomis,

go back and read my posts. You've somehow messed this thread up. We're saying the same thing. You had it right the first time.

Englishboy

Ah, you are right....Remus stuffed me up with the misquote thing. Originally, that rant was addressed to Remus, using your quote as an example of something....ugh. SIlly Loomis.

Ok, linesman, ballboys. Take positions. Let's start this thing again. Places everyone!