I am actually reading this and I have already found one discrepancy.
They make this fact known:
[quote]Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
[/quote]
While trying to call the following statements by Moore “deceit”:
[quote]The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy… .All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”
[/quote]
But if Fox did call it first for Bush, where is the deceit?
They are claiming :
[quote]
Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida. [/quote]
When this isn’t even what Moore said according to this article. He didn’t say they withdrew claiming Gore won by following Fox, he specifically said:
"[quote]Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy… .All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.[/quote]
Where is the lie here? I don’t even follow anything Micheal Moore writes or says and have not even seen this movie but none of these articles seem to be taking an unbiased look at the “deceit” in this film. That makes me question their version of “truth” as well.
I personally don’t have the time to go through that ENTIRE article, but they sure aren’t starting off well and it makes me wonder why no one else seems to be asking the same questions.
Hate Moore all you want to, but if you are going to blatantly say he lied, at least show some real LIES instead of pointing out his black humor and calling it “deceit”.
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.
You are the one that does not get it. It is apparent in any of your posts.
In order to fight terrorism on our side of the pond you have to infringeon civil rights. You have stood against that.
In order to fight it at its source you have to use the military, the CIA and other tough tactics. You have stood against that.
In your own words you think it is a law enforcement issue. Let’s wait until they attack us and arrest them!
Did the British military prevent the recent attempted bombings? Or the subway bombings?
Who got better info from al-libbi? The fbi(traditional techniques) or CIA (alternative techniques including fake burials). Keeping mind al-libbi told the cia al-qaeda was wmd training in iraq (false).
And again, the techniques you’ve described have increase terror how many fold? If military commanders in Iraq are against such tactics why aren’t you?
Did Clinton’s law enforcement policies stop multiple attacks throughout his presidency?
Did the British police prevent the London bombings on 7/7?
Did the Spanish police prevent the train bombings?
Law enforcement is only one tool in the tool box.[/quote]
Again, obviously its the best tool. (Our military did not prevent the attack in syria right?)
I am actually reading this and I have already found one discrepancy.
They make this fact known:
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
While trying to call the following statements by Moore “deceit”:
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy… .All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”[/quote]
The deception is suggesting that the other networks merely followed what FOX reported rather than relying on their own independent information.
If Moore is claiming they just jumped on board, he’d need to offer up evidence that they did.
His claim is not that FOX called it first, but that it is that other networks changed their story the moment they heard FOX report its story.
[quote]When this isn’t even what Moore said according to this article. He didn’t say they withdrew claiming Gore won by following Fox, he specifically said:
"Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy… .All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.[/quote]
The last quote is obvious, or should be. Moore’s contention is that FOX caused the other networks to change their story and were therefore complicit in engineering the Bush victory.
If this is presented as a documentary, Moore can’t imply certain facts when there is evidence to the contrary. The implied fact is that the non-FOX networks simply switched over after hearing FOX’s report, but that isn’t what happened. Moore deliberately omits that FOX had prematurely declared Gore the winner as well, which is a very important fact, since his obvious implication is that ‘something called the FOX News Channel’ is a biased entity working to ensure that Bush will be elected.
In short, he paints FOX as complicit in helping Bush to victory and the other networks following like sheep.
This is the essence of presenting a half-truth - and it is patently dishonest, especially if you use it in a documentary.
Well, perhaps you need to, because your analysis of the first claim was lacking.
In sum:
The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (“All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”)
…none of which can be supported by a full complement of facts.
The deception is suggesting that the other networks merely followed what FOX reported rather than relying on their own independent information.
If Moore is claiming they just jumped on board, he’d need to offer up evidence that they did.[/quote]
Where is the evidence they didn’t? Further, the only thing claimed is that Fox reported first and then, (apparently minutes later) the other channels followed with the same report. That is how journalism works even during 9/11 when constant replaying of the crash was going on because the news stations were finding that it brought more ratings.
[quote]
If this is presented as a documentary, Moore can’t imply certain facts when there is evidence to the contrary.[/quote]
Where is the evidence to the contrary?
[quote]
The implied fact is that the non-FOX networks simply switched over after hearing FOX’s report, but that isn’t what happened. Moore deliberately omits that FOX had prematurely declared Gore the winner as well, which is a very important fact, since his obvious implication is that ‘something called the FOX News Channel’ is a biased entity working to ensure that Bush will be elected.[/quote]
Moore never claimed they didn’t declare Gore the winner originally.
[quote]
In short, he paints FOX as complicit in helping Bush to victory and the other networks following like sheep.
This is the essence of presenting a half-truth - and it is patently dishonest, especially if you use it in a documentary.[/quote]
It wasn’t a half truth. He said Fox reported Bush as the winner…and then the other networks followed suit. That is what happened even according to this article. You can twist that any way you want to but it isn’t a lie.
To you, of course because you are more inclined to believe anyone who is “anti-Moore” whereas I truly don’t care one way or the other.
The facts are that you are reading into it when something was bluntly stated. If you quit looking for implications and what he “was trying to say”, there is no lie here.
That means my point is, a biased person is going to find smoke everywhere if they are biased enough to believe its there. I would love to read a NONBIASED report of all of these lies. My bet is, it would be much different than what you have presented.
Where is the evidence they didn’t? Further, the only thing claimed is that Fox reported first and then, (apparently minutes later) the other channels followed with the same report. That is how journalism works even during 9/11 when constant replaying of the crash was going on because the news stations were finding that it brought more ratings. [/quote]
Where is the evidence that they did? It is Moore’s documentary and Moore’s claim - if he is going to make a claim that something happened, he has to back it up. Especially if he is going make up a nefarious bad faith move on behalf of the other networks, which is a pretty radical assertion.
You are suggesting that Moore makes a claim and it is up to us to believe him on pure good faith? Nope - it doesn’t work that way. If Moore makes an assertion, the burden is on him to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
Yes, that is exactly the point - Moore didn’t mention that fact because it undermined his assertion that FOX was trying to help Bush win via the media. How can FOX be trying to help Bush win if it declares Gore the winner, which has a chilling effect on voting in polls still open?
Moore never claimed that FOX didn’t declare Gore the winner originally - and it was done so intentionally as an omittive half-truth. That is where the deception comes in, Prof - when you leave out key facts that undermine your assertion, you are being dishonest.
No, that is what happened - but Moore wants to suggest why the change occurred. Moore doesn’t care just that other networks changed their story - he wants to put in your mind that they did so because of a very sinister reason. Hey, fantastic. But the burden is on him to show that the implication - the other networks were complicit - has support. He doesn’t, and ignores other facts (see FOX’s declaration of Gore being the winner) that undermine his claim.
Not really, the documentary is five years old and if you are paying attention, some of these things are quite easy and can’t be blamed on bias. Even some liberals criticize Moore as hurting their cause because he does such a sloppy job in his presentation of his claims. It’s no secret that Moore edits to rip out context - and F9-11 is not his only project that does that. Doing so is journalistically dishonest, and trying to explain away his tactics now is flimsy at best.
If you truly want to learn up on criticism of Moore and his ‘documentaries’, have a Google-fest. There is five years worth of debunking, from a variety of sources.
This is silly. I don’t go ‘looking’ for implications - Moore’s whole intent is to make the implications, all over the place. That is the whole purpose of his documentary. Please, Professor. Moore doesn’t just do a factual recitation of what happened - his entire motive is to present a viewpoint and leave his audience with a ton of implied facts - after all, that is all any conspiracy theory could be.
Since Moore’s whole point is to imply certain conclusions based on his political agenda, your point - that I am ‘looking’ for implications - is ridiculous.
So why are you so convinced this site is biased? Spinsanity - a link Doogie provided - goes after everyone. And from the same page of the Independence Institute’s fisking of Moore:
[i]Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?
Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush’s characterization of his immigration proposal as not granting “amnesty” to illegal aliens is quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty. As one immigration reform group put it, “Any program that allows millions of illegal aliens to receive legal status in this country is an amnesty.” Readers who want a scathing, and factually reliable, critique of the Bush administration might enjoy James Bovard’s new book The Bush Betrayal (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004). (Free excerpt here.) Another good choice is All the President’s Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth, by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan (Touchstone, 2004).[/i]
So, this source you are so concerned about being biased actually directs readers to go read information on the lies of the Bush Administration from other sources. To close, from the site:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You are suggesting that Moore makes a claim and it is up to us to believe him on pure good faith? Nope - it doesn’t work that way. If Moore makes an assertion, the burden is on him to prove it, not on me to disprove it.[/quote]
Actually, what I am suggesting is that if someone is going to “debunk” everything in a documentary, then they should be in the process of proving their claims against what was said. That hasn’t been done either.
[quote]
Moore never claimed they didn’t declare Gore the winner originally.
Yes, that is exactly the point - Moore didn’t mention that fact because it undermined his assertion that FOX was trying to help Bush win via the media. How can FOX be trying to help Bush win if it declares Gore the winner, which has a chilling effect on voting in polls still open?[/quote]
I am interested now…you saw F9/11? Then I question how you know what he was “trying” to say.
I have not doubt in my mind that Fox wanted Bush to win over Gore. Fox isn’t exactly neutral in their political stance so how much of a stretch is it really that they would be quick on the draw, as much as possible, to sway public opinion? implying such is not a lie. I just did it. I didn’t lie. He didn’t make that specific claim therefore he didn’t lie either.
I didn’t see this movie because I knew there was bias involved. That is the same reason I didn’t see the new film on the flight that crashed. If The Discovery channel or TLC do a report on the same, that is something I will watch and pay attention to.
Micheal Moore making a movie using his own brand of humor to get his point across is not “dishonest”. While doogie found ONE advertisement that called his film “the truth”, the man’s own website describes it differently. Most sources of info on his movie describe it differently as I showed earlier. If anyone is in the dark about that, it is truly their own fault.
[quote]
This is silly. I don’t go ‘looking’ for implications - Moore’s whole intent is to make the implications, all over the place. That is the whole purpose of his documentary. Please, Professor. Moore doesn’t just do a factual recitation of what happened - his entire motive is to present a viewpoint and leave his audience with a ton of implied facts - after all, that is all any conspiracy theory could be.[/quote]
None of this is news. That was my point originally to Doogie. The issue is claiming that he is blatantly LYING because he implied something based on facts he presented. That isn’t lying. That is no different than the same interpretation of facts we do on this forum on a daily basis.
[quote]
Since Moore’s whole point is to imply certain conclusions based on his political agenda, your point - that I am ‘looking’ for implications - is ridiculous.[/quote]
No, I think we ALL look for things to validate our own specific view points while ignoring somethings that go against it. On this one topic, I can honestly say I am neutral as I pay little attention to Moore and have not seen ANY movies of his. Therefore, your own bias shines like a light in the dark on this one.
For the same reasons I picked apart that initial “deceit” they tried to post. It wasn’t deceit. Again, it makes me question every word after that point.
I’m happy about that. You would have to be blind and dumb to not notice some shady actions happening in this administration.
[quote]To close, from the site:
Quite obviously, there are many patriotic Americans who oppose George Bush and who think the Iraq War was a mistake. But Moore’s deceitful movie offers nothing constructive to help people form their opinions. To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information. It’s wrong when a President lies. It’s wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it’s wrong when a film-maker lies.[/quote]
His movie may be total bullshit, but what you presented wasn’t a lie. Persuasive to a particular view point? Yes. But to call it “deceit” is a little over the top and probably worded this way so this source you listed can grab more attention itself.
Actually, what I am suggesting is that if someone is going to “debunk” everything in a documentary, then they should be in the process of proving their claims against what was said. That hasn’t been done either. [/quote]
They did - just because you said they didn’t doesn’t mean it is so. If Moore makes an implication and backs it with an omittive half-truth, it is a deceit. As in:
A: FOX used the media to try and help Bush win.
B: FOX did something that undermines the claim in A.
Leaving out B because it hurts your claim is being dishonest if you are claiming A and you know about B.
Geez, seriously? You don’t have to see the movie (which I did, btw) - look at the transcript. Presumably, you have enough brains to see exactly what Moore is implying. Don’t come here and obfuscate that - everyone knows exactly what Moore wanted to imply because he did exactly that with the way he narrated and edited the clips.
Be serious, Professor - you mean to tell me Moore meant something else than what he deliberately tried to imply? Nonsense.
Doesn’t matter - what Moore is saying is that FOX did something to help Bush win, not just prefer Bush over Gore. Seriously, keep up. No one is disputing what FOX ‘thinks’ - what Moore is suggesting is what FOX ‘did’. And readily available facts undermine Moore’s claim of what FOX and the other networks ‘did’.
Irrelevant - but as to your second point (“how much of a stretch…”), no problem, just demonstrate supporting evidence of the claim. Did FOX try and sway public opinion? Show me. The evidence suggests the exact opposite.
It most certainly is a lie when there are obvious facts that contradict the implication and you are completely aware of them.
This really is awful, Professor. Moore suggested it and backed it with selcted facts. He knew of facts that directly contradicted his exact points. And you don’t think leaving them out is dishonest?
I am aghast at your lack of understanding at basic journalism.
It isn’t humor. It is presented as a documentary. There has to be a foundation for factual accuracy in the claims it makes. Nothing wrong with saying stuff with humor, but that does not absolve Moore’s responsibility to report the information accurately and completely. If it is a documentary, it will be held to the standards of one.
It is lying if you use omittive half-truths. You don’t think so? Ask a reporter or any company that issues public stock and see if they think it is lying.
When you deliberately leave out information that hurts or undermines your claim in order to present a claim, that is an affirmative act of dishonesty, and it is lying. There is no other way to parse it.
My bias against Moore is outloud and clear, and that has nothing to do with the fact that I can find dishonest reporting and dishonesty in Moore’s work.
The claims can be substantiated or not, regardless of bias.
Well, Prof, newsflash - you didn’t pick apart anything. You give yourself too much credit, as usual.
Second, the example of initial deceit are quite sharp, but though you claim to be neutral, you aren’t going to see it because you don’t want to. Moore engaged in an omittive half-truth - by any measurement, that is deceptive. You’ll never agree to that, since that would require you admitting you got something wrong, which you won’t do - but any observer that understands that documentaries are obligated to include all facts, even the ones that cut against you.
Just as when you edit a sentence and put in an ellipsis, the reader assumes you aren’t cutting out anything important or that would change the meaning of the sentence. If you have used an ellipsis and omitted something that would change the meaning, you have been dishonest. Moore does the film version of irresponsibly using the ellipsis in this initial deceit, which Christopher Hitchens points out (and where the ellipsis example comes from).
Sadly for you, it actually is. And I am no genius for coming up with it - this is pretty standard stuff.
Persuasive, eh? There is a name for documentaries that blatantly cherrypick facts to suit their agenda - propaganda.
Ask anyone who has to present information - scholars, authors, documentarians, issuers of stock, - if they get to leave out those inconvenient facts the way Moore did. They will all contradict exactly what you say.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It isn’t humor. It is presented as a documentary. There has to be a foundation for factual accuracy in the claims it makes. Nothing wrong with saying stuff with humor, but that does not absolve Moore’s responsibility to report the information accurately and completely. If it is a documentary, it will be held to the standards of one.
[/quote]
This is the basic issue. Do you feel that The Path to 9/11 is a “documentary” even with all of the extra dramatic details, additions and changes? I feel that Micheal Moore’s movie was no different. You can pretend everyone thought it was classic documentary all you want to, but who is really falling for that?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Did anyone actually take the time to watch both episodes?
I watched them both. I didn’t see it as bashing Clinton. It wasn’t pro-Bush, either.
It did seem to place most of the blame on the beauracracy that was to heavy, and too politically correct to do anything.
Condi Rice was made to be a bitch - but no more of one that Albright was.
I haven’t been watching the news, but is this movie really causing that much of upheaval in politics?[/quote]
I watched both episodes and I did not think it was overly partisan either way. RJ is right in that both Condi and Albright were made out to be bitches. Peobably more so with Albright.
I think the larger point made was this; the bueracracy that is our federal government is really strugling to fight the ideoligy that is terrorism. Also, I think, the episodes showed what happens when terrorism is treated as a law enforcement/criminal issue. That particular theme kept showing up.
I must say that the episodes made me sort of upset that, five years later, we as a nation are so divided on how to confront this new and dangerous enemy.
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
It isn’t humor. It is presented as a documentary. There has to be a foundation for factual accuracy in the claims it makes. Nothing wrong with saying stuff with humor, but that does not absolve Moore’s responsibility to report the information accurately and completely. If it is a documentary, it will be held to the standards of one.
This is the basic issue. Do you feel that The Path to 9/11 is a “documentary” even with all of the extra dramatic details, additions and changes? I feel that Micheal Moore’s movie was no different. You can pretend everyone thought it was classic documentary all you want to, but who is really falling for that?[/quote]
I think that the major difference between the two is that F911 was blatantly partisan, while “Path To 9/11” wasn’t. Also, disclaimers kept popping up throughout the episodes explaining that they were dramatizations based on real events.
I just don’t think that the episodes were that partisan. It was more of a slam on how buerocracies function.
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
-Bigflamer
[/quote]
That point of view frightens me. You don’t get freedoms back easily once you give them up. It might be something you might be ok with now, but will your kids and their’s feel the same 50 years from now based on decisions made now?
I think too many people only think of “right now”. We were always at risk of an attack. This isn’t anything new. They just caught us off guard one good time and it cost us big time.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Did anyone actually take the time to watch both episodes?
I watched them both. I didn’t see it as bashing Clinton. It wasn’t pro-Bush, either.
It did seem to place most of the blame on the beauracracy that was to heavy, and too politically correct to do anything.
Condi Rice was made to be a bitch - but no more of one that Albright was.
I haven’t been watching the news, but is this movie really causing that much of upheaval in politics?
I watched both episodes and I did not think it was overly partisan either way. RJ is right in that both Condi and Albright were made out to be bitches. Peobably more so with Albright.
I think the larger point made was this; the bueracracy that is our federal government is really strugling to fight the ideoligy that is terrorism. Also, I think, the episodes showed what happens when terrorism is treated as a law enforcement/criminal issue. That particular theme kept showing up.
I must say that the episodes made me sort of upset that, five years later, we as a nation are so divided on how to confront this new and dangerous enemy.
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
-Bigflamer
[/quote]
The following is from Wikpedia. The event was also portrayed in the movie.
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation. Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission to search his laptop computer, but they were turned down. Other materials he had when he was arrested included two knives, 747 flight manuals, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.
FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui’s personal rooms. This request was first denied by her boss, Deputy General Counsel Marion “Spike” Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further attempts failed the very same way. As a result, the chance of finding early evidence passed unused.
FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:
“If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.”
Moussaoui’s laptop is alleged to have had enough evidence to lead to several of the hijackers that participated in the 9/11 attacks. If only a fraction of them were caught, it may have led to a breakup of the cell and a prevention of the attacks.
This event was portrayed in the ABC movie. The agent pleaded to be able to just look at the laptop to see if enough evidence was there to proceed further. This while the man was in custody for overstaying his visa and was on a terrorist watchlist. The FBI had also gotten a tip from the French intelligence service that he was up to something but they didn’t know what.
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
-Bigflamer
That point of view frightens me. You don’t get freedoms back easily once you give them up. It might be something you might be ok with now, but will your kids and their’s feel the same 50 years from now based on decisions made now?
I think too many people only think of “right now”. We were always at risk of an attack. This isn’t anything new. They just caught us off guard one good time and it cost us big time.[/quote]
X is right on the money.
Your freedoms do not need to be infringed to catch bad guys.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Did anyone actually take the time to watch both episodes?
I watched them both. I didn’t see it as bashing Clinton. It wasn’t pro-Bush, either.
It did seem to place most of the blame on the beauracracy that was to heavy, and too politically correct to do anything.
Condi Rice was made to be a bitch - but no more of one that Albright was.
I haven’t been watching the news, but is this movie really causing that much of upheaval in politics?[/quote]
Not as much of an upheaval as it seemed to have caused down here in the poli forum. I haven’t heard a word about it on the news except for Olberman’s dumbass commentary last night.
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
-Bigflamer
That point of view frightens me. You don’t get freedoms back easily once you give them up. It might be something you might be ok with now, but will your kids and their’s feel the same 50 years from now based on decisions made now?
I think too many people only think of “right now”. We were always at risk of an attack. This isn’t anything new. They just caught us off guard one good time and it cost us big time.[/quote]
If you want to give up your freedoms, fine. When I took my girlfriend to the rodeo I willingly disarmed (I open carry). I hated to do it, but I made a choice as an individual to give up one of my freedoms in order to be entertained. There is a huge difference between giving up YOUR individual rights and legislating that I give up MY individual rights. That, is unamerican.
The fact is that government ALWAYS gets bigger. Occasionally it takes a hit and gets a little bit smaller for a while, but in the end it is always growing. Any rights you give up right now will likely have to be gotten back a great many years from now at the end of a gun.
I am a proponent of the war. But I will say that I have NO fear of a terrorist attack. I am afraid however of the BATFE and the FBI. I would rather have ten 9/11’s than give up a single article in the Bill of Rights. We can give give up our rights now and let our own government put on the shackles and live our lives as slaves mildly entertained on the way to our death with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. (Excuse me, I think I just thre up a little in my mouth) Our other option is to live in a slightly more dangerous world. The government can take our rights, Al Qaida cannot! If you think the insurgency is badin Iraq, take a minute to imagine an American insurgency.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that some personall rights will have to be infringed upon if we’re goingto be effective against the animal that is terrorism.
-Bigflamer
That point of view frightens me. You don’t get freedoms back easily once you give them up. It might be something you might be ok with now, but will your kids and their’s feel the same 50 years from now based on decisions made now?
I think too many people only think of “right now”. We were always at risk of an attack. This isn’t anything new. They just caught us off guard one good time and it cost us big time.
If you want to give up your freedoms, fine. When I took my girlfriend to the rodeo I willingly disarmed (I open carry). I hated to do it, but I made a choice as an individual to give up one of my freedoms in order to be entertained. There is a huge difference between giving up YOUR individual rights and legislating that I give up MY individual rights. That, is unamerican.
The fact is that government ALWAYS gets bigger. Occasionally it takes a hit and gets a little bit smaller for a while, but in the end it is always growing. Any rights you give up right now will likely have to be gotten back a great many years from now at the end of a gun.
I am a proponent of the war. But I will say that I have NO fear of a terrorist attack. I am afraid however of the BATFE and the FBI. I would rather have ten 9/11’s than give up a single article in the Bill of Rights. We can give give up our rights now and let our own government put on the shackles and live our lives as slaves mildly entertained on the way to our death with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. (Excuse me, I think I just thre up a little in my mouth) Our other option is to live in a slightly more dangerous world. The government can take our rights, Al Qaida cannot! If you think the insurgency is badin Iraq, take a minute to imagine an American insurgency.
Mike [/quote]
Good post. Too many seem to make all judgements based on fear.