F 9/11 is the beginning

Where is the end?

from JoeUser Forums

This post, on a blog I follow just so I don't have a one-sided view of the world, disturbs me. From the first line we have cognitive dissonance:

"I've written and re-written a post about Fahrenheit 9/11, and I just have to admit that I'm irreconcilably ambivalent and can't resolve the issue it presents. Moore is dishonest and grossly manipulative, but I applauded anyway, because, simply, he hates Bush and so do I."

Now, I have no idea who Unfogged is; what his or her personal motives and beliefs are, except through their blog, which I've been reading for the past few months. The impression I've formed is that he (#include StdDisclamer) is a reasonable person (other than being a Democrat <grin>), and that he thinks about things.

And then this comes out of left field - it is apparently more important that Michael Moore is ideologically correct (he hates the "right" person) than he be truthful. And the thought of hating the President is just utterly foreign to me. Let me be clear here - I do not hate John Kerry. If he is elected, I still will not hate him. I do not want him to be President of the United States; I will not vote for him. Should he be elected President, I will work against his policies via petitioning my representatives, and donating to lobbies for causes that I believe in. I will most likely be voting for President Bush in the fall (if I cannot stomach that choice, I will most likely write in Senator Lieberman). But hate for a candidate will not be part of the equation. I lavish my hate on the men who send others out to die and kill, so that civilians will be maimed and killed. I reserve my hatred for the men who would rather see a cauldron of bubbling animosity that breeds hatred than a free and functional democracy and economy that will breed riches. In short, I send my hate to where it belongs, to the enemies ofthe liberal western style of society. That is who I hate. The enemy, the terrorist.

In defense of Unfogged - he is having issues of conscience supporting Mr. Moore. I have some simple advice - the ends do NOT justify the means. Nor do two wrongs make a right. Even if the country was misled into support for the war in Iraq (a hypothesis I do not put credence in), does that jusify an attempt to misead the country into removing a President? If so, where does it stop? With a film implying that the next president had sexual relations with underage prostitutes because he cut the funding of the EPA? Because he signed a bill allowing uncontrolled distribution of RU-486? Where does it end?
politics
4,212 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now here's something to think about...

"I lavish my hate on the men who send others out to die and kill, so that civilians will be maimed and killed."
Bush has, in fact, sent others out to die and kill - the sons and daughters of ordinary Americans. And our military, acting under him as Commander In Chief of the armed forces, has used cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons, which lead to the gross deaths of civilians.
So, according to your statement, you lavish your hate on... Bush.

"I reserve my hatred for the men who would rather see a cauldron of bubbling animosity that breeds hatred than a free and functional democracy and economy that will breed riches."
Bush has brought to a head this year the issue of same-sex marriage, a major divisive issue across the American political spectrum. He has sown the seeds of hatred and discrimination, impeding our free and functional society.
So again, you reserve your hatred for... Bush.

"That is who I hate. The enemy, the terrorist."
Yes, Bush is quite the terrorist, trying to make us live in constant fear. I'm glad we can agree on that!
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
We do not target Civilians. It is the fault of the terrorists and the insurgants that hide and use civilians as shields. We have to eliminate the threat, and sometime innocents get killed.
However, a lot more innocents will die if we do nothing.

In regards to the same-sex marriage, the silent MAJORITY of people believe that it is wrong. It is NOT hatred or discrimination. It is NOT a civil rights issue.
Marriage is one man, one woman. That's it. There are no other options.

You calling bush the terrorist is idiotic. You have just branded yourself a moron, and anything you have to say from here on out is useless...
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
We do not target Civilians. It is the fault of the terrorists and the insurgants that hide and use civilians as shields. We have to eliminate the threat, and sometime innocents get killed.
However, a lot more innocents will die if we do nothing.


explain to me where the terrorists were when we invaded Iraq? Before we went in, not a single civilian in america had been hurt by them. And yet, now, we fight people who defend their homes from invaders. I-N-V-A-D-E-R-S. That's right, we went in and attacked them. That's called an invasion.

In regards to the same-sex marriage, the silent MAJORITY of people believe that it is wrong. It is NOT hatred or discrimination. It is NOT a civil rights issue.
Marriage is one man, one woman. That's it. There are no other options.


If the people refuse to stand up and speak in a democrazy, then they lose their right to be counted. Democrazy requires active particapation.

Marriage is one man, one woman? what about polygyny? polyandry? polygynandry? all three are systems that have been around longer in some systems then monogamy. And have functioned better for longer periods of time. I'm sure you'll have to go look them up. Go. Look. do some learning. There are other options, and have been for a long time.

You calling bush the terrorist is idiotic. You have just branded yourself a moron, and anything you have to say from here on out is useless...


Now that is pointless. If you want to flame, leave. If you can't keep a civil tongue, then you brand yourself a hot head who is incapable of saying anything important or worthwhile.

(and yes, i spell democrazy wrong on purpose)
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
I hate Bush but I don't see him as our President anyway. Yes I'm talking about Florida and no I won't get over it. Stealing is a crime and the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet. Forget the hanging chads, disenfranchised blacks and missing ballots. I'm upset because the counting of votes was engineered by someone close to Bush and the result was that different counties had thier votes counted in different ways. Historically Liberal counties faced tighter requirements for a vote to be counted while Conservative counties had more lenient standards. If the same standards were used in every county be they the tight standards, the loose ones or something inbetween Gore would have won. It's been strongly reported that a complete recount would have shown Gore as the victor.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's some great Conservative (Il)Logic:
"We do not target Civilians. It is the fault of the terrorists and the insurgants that hide and use civilians as shields. We have to eliminate the threat, and sometime innocents get killed."

I suppose, then, that if a terrorist were to hide in Chicago, the Pentagon would be more than justified to level the entire city just to route out the terrorist threat. Nevermind all the displaced people, nevermind all the collateral damage, nevermind the ruined infrastructure, and nevermind the cultural loss. "Yeah! That's pefectly fine. Sometimes innocents get killed."
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, to put a finer point on it, it would be perfectly justified for the *Canadian military* to level Chicago in that instance, being a foreign power and all.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Looks like I need to keep a closer eye on my comments.

First, President Bush doesn't scare me. Never has, doubt he ever will.

Second; get over Florida. Almost every recount done in the aftermath of the muddle (caused, originally, by Democratic FL Supreme Court Jutices), gave the state to Bush. More importantly, the Florida Electors voted for Bush; at that point it ceased being an issue. We do not vote directly for President (for a number of reasons), we vote for Electors. Herrkut, I don't know where you got your information, but almost every post-election (private, necessarily) recount, even the ones done by major news organizations, come out favorable for Bush. MoveOn...

It's a war, non-combatants die. The US has been taking incredible pains to minimize collateral damage in this war. You will note, we did not level Fallujah. We went in with the most precise weapon the US has, the infantryman. This led to (avoidable) casualties in the US military. But Fallujah still stands, and the vast majority of its citizens are still living, and living in their homes.

This post has attracted rather more leftist whackjobs than I was expecting. (Yes, InverseWD, Sparowl, and HerrkutI mean you). It has also, sadly, attracted a rightwing whackjob (lordpenquin). Don't get me started on Gay Marriage. Really. I wish the issue would go away. A plague on both your houses - the Radical Gays for pushing hard and fast via the judiciary for something they can't get RIGHT NOW via the ballot box, and the Radical Right for pushing back with hatred and vitriol. I am personally for gay marriage. But I'm not for having it imposed by the judiciary. I am vehemently opposed to any form of the FMA.

I'm trying to decide what about this particular post brought out InverWD's commentary (hit the wrong button, perhaps?) This post is about ends and means; and particularly, do two wrongs bring about a right?