|
Ad slams U.S. before Independence Day (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by drgoodvibe
his book Stupid White Men, is very excellent, quotes from so many different sources as well.
About the Ad in the NY times, I think its about time people wake up and realize that there country is stealing there rights, freedom of speech is non-existant and that killing others and enforcing your idealogy and values on others is ALWAYS wrong, even in the name of homeland security. what the U.S did in invading Iraq is simply Pre-emtpive terroism, all in the name of what? I'm still waiting for them to find the WMD. |
If freedom of speech is non-existant moore seems to be doing a pretty good job of working his way around that ... and I haven't had the opportunity to read stupid white men yet, I'm merely commenting on his movie.
And please somebody else post that site to technofan to illustrate that if anybody is being brainwashed about the authenticity of that movie as a true documentary it is him. |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
If freedom of speech is non-existant moore seems to be doing a pretty good job of working his way around that ... and I haven't had the opportunity to read stupid white men yet, I'm merely commenting on his movie.
And please somebody else post that site to technofan to illustrate that if anybody is being brainwashed about the authenticity of that movie as a true documentary it is him. |
true freedom of speech really is non-existant. In the u.s if your not with Bush, you're with the terrorists. |
|
|
| technofan |
| quote: | | And please somebody else post that site to technofan to illustrate that if anybody is being brainwashed about the authenticity of that movie as a true documentary it is him. |
Would like to see that!
Anyway - there are some kind of true things even in the movie... about fear in television for example...
On a very popular channel here in germany, there's killing & crime from 8pm for hours (cops-like productions)
The same channel cut off the interview of Loveparade-Founder Dr Motte - just when he wanted to say something against the war in Irak & the bush-administration... they simply switched back to the parade while he was talking!
Poor times for the political message of the loveparade... :(
They broadcast ONLY bull - and that not for 2 hours like bowling for colombine - they do it 24/7!!! And millions of young people watch it everyday for hours!
So what is more dangerous? |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
:conf:
So why isn't half of hollywood in jail? Why aren't all democrats in jail?
Why is this article on a major US newspaper? Why is a link to it on the front pages of CNN?
|
True Lies 2 was put on ice due to its similartieis to 9/11 and now they're re-writing the script
If anybody saw the Oscars, Michael Moore was BOOOO'd at the Oscars
Phone Booth the movie, was had its launch re-scheduled..
about Democrats, most of them would not DARE mention anything bad about Bush's anti-terror ways, why? becuase they would be chastised by the republics for being anti-american, its a simple media trick. We've been doing it for years with Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are terrorists and so on.. But if we ever wrote something about Israel and there brutal oppression and massacres, we'd be cast as anti-jew and just grouped as terrorist sympathizers. Now is that freedom of speech? To fear reprisal for saying something you believe, even when your NOT for the terrorists? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by drgoodvibe
True Lies 2 was put on ice due to its similartieis to 9/11 and now they're re-writing the script
|
What does this have to do with freedom of speech? Your reasoning for causality is incorrect. The directors had every right to put forth whatever movie they had in the works. The fact that THEY changed the film in response to similarities to a tradegy does not imply that their rights to express themselves were supressed ...
| quote: |
If anybody saw the Oscars, Michael Moore was BOOOO'd at the Oscars
|
I'm confused ... isn't booing a form of expression? Are you advocating that the oscars should have cencsored the boos? If you heard in the beginning there were cheers and clapping ... I suppose then that in order to protect our freedom of expression the clapping should have been augmented and the booing should have been supressed :rolleyes:. At any rate, again, what does the government have to do with any of this? Unless you would like to put forth the claim that the government secretely controlled the oscar awards show and had government agents perform all the booing ...
| quote: |
Phone Booth the movie, was had its launch re-scheduled..
|
Again, what does this have to do with freedom of expression? It's called directorial discretion to make money. The directors wouldn't have wanted to release the movie directly afer the sniper shootings even if the government had FORCED them to.
| quote: |
about Democrats, most of them would not DARE mention anything bad about Bush's anti-terror ways, why? becuase they would be chastised by the republics for being anti-american, its a simple media trick. We've been doing it for years with Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are terrorists and so on.. But if we ever wrote something about Israel and there brutal oppression and massacres, we'd be cast as anti-jew and just grouped as terrorist sympathizers. Now is that freedom of speech? To fear reprisal for saying something you believe, even when your NOT for the terrorists? |
One democratic presidential candidate is campaigning on the fact that he has ALWAYS oppossed the war. Democrats want to open up committees discussing intelligence failures and the decision making processes that went into the move towards war. Republicans saying Democrats wouldn't be able to protect the nation is called POLITICS.
I fail to see how you've proven this thesis: "freedom of speech is non-existant" |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What does this have to do with freedom of speech? Your reasoning for causality is incorrect. The directors had every right to put forth whatever movie they had in the works. The fact that THEY changed the film in response to similarities to a tradegy does not imply that their rights to express themselves were supressed ...
I'm confused ... isn't booing a form of expression? Are you advocating that the oscars should have cencsored the boos? If you heard in the beginning there were cheers and clapping ... I suppose then that in order to protect our freedom of expression the clapping should have been augmented and the booing should have been supressed :rolleyes:. At any rate, again, what does the government have to do with any of this? Unless you would like to put forth the claim that the government secretely controlled the oscar awards show and had government agents perform all the booing ...
Again, what does this have to do with freedom of expression? It's called directorial discretion to make money. The directors wouldn't have wanted to release the movie directly afer the sniper shootings even if the government had FORCED them to.
|
all these have to do with the fact that the public has been forced fed a "us Vs. them" mentality. The point that I was failing to make, was that the U.S government after 9/11 took a very us VS. them isolationist stance. If you don't believe in the same ideals as the leader, then you support the axis of evil, and the people ate it up. I'm not just some Canadian who sees all this through the news and such. I lived in Dallas Texas from 1999 till 2002. I watched 9/11 happen just like all the rest of Americans, I watched Bush make his "Axis of Evil" speech, and I also watched a great deal of speeches made by Bush proclaiming that nations better get in line and be against terrorists or be terrorist funders and supporters. The problem with that is, getting in line means basically shutting up. People and deomocrats alike could not vocalize their opinions for fear of reprisal by those who believe in the black and white for us against us mentality. Where was the outrage and rhetoric when Bush was about to go to war with Iraq by the Democrats? IF there was, I certainly didn't see any through the media. Only now after Iraq is toppled and we cannot find any WMD are democrats finding the cojones to say something simply becuase there are ALOT of Americans who think that Bush played up the evidence that WMD exists in Iraq. I'm sure that if they found a huge stockpile of WMD which would validate Bush and the republican stance, Democrats would say "job well done, glad we went in there and got them all". |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by drgoodvibe
all these have to do with the fact that the public has been forced fed a "us Vs. them" mentality. The point that I was failing to make, was that the U.S government after 9/11 took a very us VS. them isolationist stance. If you don't believe in the same ideals as the leader, then you support the axis of evil, and the people ate it up. I'm not just some Canadian who sees all this through the news and such. I lived in Dallas Texas from 1999 till 2002. I watched 9/11 happen just like all the rest of Americans, I watched Bush make his "Axis of Evil" speech, and I also watched a great deal of speeches made by Bush proclaiming that nations better get in line and be against terrorists or be terrorist funders and supporters. The problem with that is, getting in line means basically shutting up. People and deomocrats alike could not vocalize their opinions for fear of reprisal by those who believe in the black and white for us against us mentality. Where was the outrage and rhetoric when Bush was about to go to war with Iraq by the Democrats? IF there was, I certainly didn't see any through the media. Only now after Iraq is toppled and we cannot find any WMD are democrats finding the cojones to say something simply becuase there are ALOT of Americans who think that Bush played up the evidence that WMD exists in Iraq. I'm sure that if they found a huge stockpile of WMD which would validate Bush and the republican stance, Democrats would say "job well done, glad we went in there and got them all". |
Why did many democrats go along with the war? Because many of the democrats believed the intelligence reports and claims by the white house that Iraq possessed WMDs, in which case if Iraq DID possess these weapons then the action would be deserving of a "job well done" speech. However, since it appears that the white house was deceptive of its true motives there is now outrage and calls for accountability in the administration. I saw the axis of evil speech as well ... I thought it was a bunch of crap as much as you did and I expressed my opinions. Many analysts on tv expressed that it was a diplomatic mistake to place some of these countries in this group without any definition of US meaning or intent. I never got the mentality of an "us vs. them" from others when expressing my opinions. And if you read the New York Times you would see that there were many op-ed pieces that were in agreement with my assessment. Simply because a nation as a whole was shocked and outraged from a single event does not imply that the entire nation shares the same mentality about EVERY issue and censors itself to maintain such a mentality. Understand the concept of freedom of expression ... I have the right to EXPRESS my views without persecution or attack. That doesn't mean that others have to like or should be forced to like what I say. Otherwise, one could say that Germany has no freedome of expression since not everybody likes hearing what neo nazis have to say. Obviously everybody has not been "force fed" an us vs. them mentality since I don't think like that, there are plenty of Americans that don't think like that, and there were plenty of anti-war demonstrations in every major city to demonstrate that a lot of people didn't think like that. You're making the assumption that because some people thought like that, they were FORCED to think like that.
Edit: Oh yea, I forgot the point of my whole spiel :).
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS STILL PROTECTED. Saying that there is no freedom of speech is simply extremist. I stated this before in another argument, but I could be equally as extremist, take Canada's hate laws, and make the claim that Canada has no freedom of expression :rolleyes: |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Why did many democrats go along with the war? Because many of the democrats believed the intelligence reports and claims by the white house that Iraq possessed WMDs, in which case if Iraq DID possess these weapons then the action would be deserving of a "job well done" speech. However, since it appears that the white house was deceptive of its true motives there is now outrage and calls for accountability in the administration. I saw the axis of evil speech as well ... I thought it was a bunch of crap as much as you did and I expressed my opinions. Many analysts on tv expressed that it was a diplomatic mistake to place some of these countries in this group without any definition of US meaning or intent. I never got the mentality of an "us vs. them" from others when expressing my opinions. And if you read the New York Times you would see that there were many op-ed pieces that were in agreement with my assessment. Simply because a nation as a whole was shocked and outraged from a single event does not imply that the entire nation shares the same mentality about EVERY issue and censors itself to maintain such a mentality. Understand the concept of freedom of expression ... I have the right to EXPRESS my views without persecution or attack. That doesn't mean that others have to like or should be forced to like what I say. Otherwise, one could say that Germany has no freedome of expression since not everybody likes hearing what neo nazis have to say. Obviously everybody has not been "force fed" an us vs. them mentality since I don't think like that, there are plenty of Americans that don't think like that, and there were plenty of anti-war demonstrations in every major city to demonstrate that a lot of people didn't think like that. You're making the assumption that because some people thought like that, they were FORCED to think like that.
Edit: Oh yea, I forgot the point of my whole spiel :).
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS STILL PROTECTED. Saying that there is no freedom of speech is simply extremist. I stated this before in another argument, but I could be equally as extremist, take Canada's hate laws, and make the claim that Canada has no freedom of expression :rolleyes: |
I agree with you whole heartedly, though I do have to mention some things i've been through so that maybe you may more clearly understand why I feel this way. While going to school in Dallas Texas, I was privy to much racism due to my muslim background while I was going to Medschool, after 9/11. What does this have to do with anything? Well, my views are quite liberal and never understood the Us Vs them mentality either, and was and am, vocal about politics and so on. So now to what i'm getting at. Whilst trying to act upon my freedom of speech, and making my views public, I was berated with insults, threatened with violence as well as such things as being nicknamed "Bin Laden" by class mates and such, becuase my views were different from theres. Becuase I took a more critical stance at the U.S. NOW if thats not forceabley shutting someone up then I really don't know what is. You see through the propeganda, but really some people do not. Some people believe in the us vs them mentality and truly believe that if you're not a "good ol boy" then your the enemy. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by drgoodvibe
I agree with you whole heartedly, though I do have to mention some things i've been through so that maybe you may more clearly understand why I feel this way. While going to school in Dallas Texas, I was privy to much racism due to my muslim background while I was going to Medschool, after 9/11. What does this have to do with anything? Well, my views are quite liberal and never understood the Us Vs them mentality either, and was and am, vocal about politics and so on. So now to what i'm getting at. Whilst trying to act upon my freedom of speech, and making my views public, I was berated with insults, threatened with violence as well as such things as being nicknamed "Bin Laden" by class mates and such, becuase my views were different from theres. Becuase I took a more critical stance at the U.S. NOW if thats not forceabley shutting someone up then I really don't know what is. You see through the propeganda, but really some people do not. Some people believe in the us vs them mentality and truly believe that if you're not a "good ol boy" then your the enemy. |
Well I sympathise with your experience but you are really characterizing an entire nation from your experiences in Texas (of all places). Granted there are going to be a lot of cocks who are going to be gung ho over such an issue (especially in the immediate aftermath) and on a personal level your rights were infringed upon. But you weren't prevented from expressing your opinions on a national level so to speak. If you wanted to organize a rally or a debate to express your viewpoints or to gather with others who shared your opinions nobody could legally stop you. If you were threatened with violence for expressing your opinions you could have either filed criminal complaints or sued that person if you were physically harmed. If the state had violated your rights, you could have sued them and get rich. Hell I WANT some stupid state to infringe upon my rights (ummm as long as they don't physically hurt me) so I can sue the hell out of them, settle, and retire a millionaire! I understand perfectly where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily think that the actions of the few punks you interacted with reflect the actions of all or the intepretation of the law. |
|
|
| technofan |
| quote: | | Sigh ... and I'll post it for technofan ... one last time |
Thanx... but even if you take out what may be not 100% correct...
Even if half of the other stuff is true - it is very disturbing, isn't it? Just because it is dramatized dosen't make the other things good!
And what about his book? Everything wrong, too?
| quote: | | Why is this article on a major US newspaper? Why is a link to it on the front pages of CNN? |
Have u seen the advertisement next to that article??
| quote: | | Own a piece of History - CNN presents War in Irak (VHS/DVD) |
I'm soo sick - as if this was some kind of "Adventure-Trip"...
:mad: :mad:
Don't u see the media (yes! CNN too!) is covering only what they think should be covered and tell you sooo much !
I'm still waiting for anyone saying somthing about the sweatshops...
I wasn't aware of this for a long time - are there ppl who find this is some bull too? |
|
|
| biznology |
ah, non countrymen telling us how it is.
how i love forcing viewpoints down the throats of often agreeable liberal americans via 50k USD ads.
is this just further proof that Canadians have nothing better to do? |
|
|
|
|
