Announcement

**lester1/2jr** · 08-03-2004, 11:21 AM

It's messed up because of the newness of the situation. It's not like some country is declaring war on us. In a way, about 22 countries are delaring war on us and at the same time none of them are. So we kind of placed our bets on Iraq and it's like the many headed hydra or whatever, you get one and 2 come in it's place. Dennis Prager, who's show I listen to all the time, made the point the other day that of course terrorists don't care about France or Canada or Norway (except in their relation to us) because we are in the way of their world domination and even the domination of their what they already have.

**zachsan** · 08-03-2004, 11:50 AM

i don't think that the real reason islamic fundamentalist groups are after us is that we're in the way of their world domination, though i used to. most moderate muslims in the middle east today are more concerned with feeding themselves than taking over the world, and the moderate muslims are the support structure and recruiting base for the militants.

for example, you don't go up to a homeless guy on the street and say, "it's your birthright to take over the world, come and join me and we'll do it together!" certain more insane homeless guys might go for that. but most of them would be more immediately moved by saying something like, "you know how you can't pay for food? well, that's america's fault! come and join me and we'll take it out together!"

appealing to someone's immediate circumstances is more likely to hit home with them - and is more likely to be morally defensible in their own eyes - than grand schemes of world domination. and, the creation of a bogeyman (read: Great Satan) is the number one way to incite a movement whose eventual goal is world domination. hell, it worked for the crusaders and the nazis.

anyway, what i'm saying is that, for the fundamentalists, the U.S. does stand as a potential roadblock to world domination, but much more importantly, it serves as an immediate means to an end.

**doc** · 08-22-2004, 08:29 AM

Just watched Moore's work. Definitely wouldn't call it a work of art. I found it to be biased, one sided, and misleading. I'm amazed that so many people have found this to be gospel.

**dogchow108** · 08-23-2004, 02:17 AM

Moore's Work is...

Originally posted by doc
biased, one sided, and misleading. I'm amazed that so many people have found this to be gospel.

Doc, say it ain't so!

**doc** · 08-23-2004, 04:08 AM

It's so.

I just don't like the way he portrayed things. Completely avoided showing the planes crashing into the buildings, but just showed people's reactions (showing the actual planes I think would have brought about a pro-Bush feeling); spending so much time on some woman who lost a soldier son in the war, as opposed to the three thousand families that lost innocent civilians in the attack, focusing on stupid insignificant irrelevant things that Bush did (granted, stupid things, but, hell, who doesn't do these things on camera-I certainly did); focusing on the fact that poor people tend to go to the military (so, what's changed? No one said life was fair or full of opportunities, and it certainly isn't Bush's fault for that); and the Saudi Bush connection, well, I'm glad it's there. The Saudi's supply us with oil, and if we don't have oil, our economy will go to ****. And, Moore's poor people, that he seems to focus on so much, will suffer the most. Far more than the wealthy will.

The guy's a moron. Complete moron.

**zachsan** · 08-23-2004, 09:05 AM

i personally am amazed. i was expecting doc, when he saw the movie, to renounce his conservative ways, join the green party and run for mayor of las vegas on a "stop prostitution now" platform.

**dogchow108** · 08-23-2004, 10:59 PM

you think you know a guy...

**lester1/2jr** · 08-24-2004, 10:31 AM

I found the Al Franken book "Lying liars " etc to be superior to farenheit 9/11. especailly the paperback version which has, as the cover claims " new lies and lying liars!". Besides the jokes, I learned alot of stuff I didn't know, particularly the chapter about how rumsfeld stopped planning for the post-invasion because he thought it would make the war look pre-planned and so forth (which it was). I mean isn't that what the all these books are about? I don't think people would be talking about any of this stuff if the occupation had gone as smoothly as the war itself. DO you?

**zachsan** · 08-24-2004, 10:57 AM

yeah it's a mess. could've been handled much better, but politics got in the way. fareed zakaria has an article to that effect in the latest newsweek, i think, which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

**LeiYunFat** · 09-05-2004, 01:27 AM

Months ago, I would have dove into the thick of this post, but I am quite tired of politics and Moore and the like. I am Anti-Moore and anti-Kerry.

Here are many of my reasons for hating Moore in one excellent site. It also deals with Franken's work.

bowlingfortruth.com

**doc** · 09-05-2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by zachsan
i personally am amazed. i was expecting doc, when he saw the movie, to renounce his conservative ways, join the green party and run for mayor of las vegas on a "stop prostitution now" platform.

Wouldn't exactly be good for the local economy now, would it. Nor, for the russbo gang's social lives, lol.

**lester1/2jr** · 09-05-2004, 07:42 AM

leiyunfat - that's some post

**LeiYunFat** · 09-05-2004, 12:39 PM

Why thank you. heheheh... but really though, that site has good stuff on it. Maybe I would have copied and pasted some of my favorite excerpts, but that would have just made this thread even longer than it already is. Hahaha