Are you scared of terror?

  • News
  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
  • #51
356
2
Pengwuino said:
Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum. :rolleyes:
I've asked like 20 times for any reason why michael moore is not credible. I have not received any response to that at all, let alone from a decent source. What makes Michael Moore uncredible? (i'm gonna start keeping count)
 
  • #52
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
Manchot said:
According to Bush, natural disasters count against safety. Why else would he put FEMA underneath the Department of Homeland Security?

As for our eroded rights, one need only look at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. (Have you?) Since a "terrorist" is defined under the as someone who coerces others, breaks federal law, and endangers human life (a definition under which many violent criminals would qualify as terrorists), wiretaps can be authorized in many cases without having to satisfy probable cause (which we are guaranteed under the fourth amendment). As a student, under the No Child Left Behind Act, if my school receives any money from the federal government, then my name is by default given to the military, without my permission.[/QUOTE}

Hmm... what section and line is that in? I'm sure you have it handy....

And when hasnt the military been able to have your name? Hell you have to register for Selective service. Oh man, my rights :(

Manchot said:
As for Social Security, I submit to you that it's too early to predict what's going to happen with it. If you say that something needs to be done now, then you must agree that Eisenhower should've done something to prevent the dot-com bubble burst. (It's the same time difference.)
Bad comparison. Are you suggesting we wait until the fund is empty to do something about it? Your comparison makes 0 sense since the social security fund is currently active and will continue to be active. On the other hand, the dot com industry did not exist back in Eisenhower's day.
 
  • #53
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
Smurf said:
I've asked like 20 times for any reason why michael moore is not credible. I have not received any response to that at all, let alone from a decent source. What makes Michael Moore uncredible? (i'm gonna start keeping count)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11? A readily available article went through about http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf that were either lies or misconceptions from that documentary. A few months later, he even stopped calling it a documentary faced with overwhelming criticism about his lack of fact-checking. I believe he started calling it a drama instead.

Theres also a counter out ... called Celsius 41.11 or something stupid like that. Yah oddly enough, the media didn't care to mention it when it came out.... wonder why :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
0
Pengwuino said:
actually the fact of the matter is that people in this thread, mainly on your side of things, are the most noterious for not providing facts. Im not sure how many times ive seen people quote the patriot act as to where we actually are losing all hope of freedom... but I assume the number is <1 time. Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum. :rolleyes:
I feel quite certain you know little of the Patriot Act, and certainly have not read it. And if you're going to make the accusation about posting facts, please be prepared to support this with evidence. I feel certain a count could be done of all posts and we would see that more liberal members provide sources/links/facts more often than conservative members--and you would be at the top of the list for failure to do so.
 
  • #55
356
2
Pengwuino said:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11? A readily available article went through about http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf that were either lies or misconceptions from that documentary.
Okay, you didn't like Farenheit 9/11. Why is he automatically discredible because he made a few mistakes, most of which weren't far off or details that don't change anything about the tone of the documentary (like the location of the pipeline - who cares?!).
Theres also a counter out ... called Celsius 41.11 or something stupid like that. Yah oddly enough, the media didn't care to mention it when it came out.... wonder why
More lies arn't going to help anyone. They didn't say anything about it because they didn't want to lie about it and they didn't want to say anything bad about it. Only other option was to ignore it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
SOS2008 said:
I feel quite certain you know little of the Patriot Act, and certainly have not read it. And if you're going to make the accusation about posting facts, please be prepared to support this with evidence. I feel certain a count could be done of all posts and we would see that more liberal members provide sources/links/facts more often than conservative members--and you would be at the top of the list for failure to do so.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: still waiting...

I looked up exactly what the ACLU told me to look up and follow the legislation along with the acts it amende and you pretty much come up with "liberals are lieing".
 
  • #57
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
14
Smurf said:
Okay, you didn't like Farenheit 9/11. Why is he automatically discredible because he made a few mistakes, most of which weren't far off or details that don't change anything about the tone of the documentary (like the location of the pipeline - who cares?!).
Denial never helps anyone :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I truely doubt you read the whole thing or checked the facts.

Smurf said:
More lies arn't going to help anyone. They didn't say anything about it because they didn't want to lie about it and they didn't want to say anything bad about it. Only other option was to ignore it.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Is denial genetic?
 
  • #58
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Smurf said:
Yeah LYN, lighten up.

Besides, exactly which one of pengwuino's posts was a 'legitimate point'? When he called me stupid? Or when he implied there was a conspiracy to kill off stupid people? Or was it when said democrats are terrorists?

Really now...
The idea was that neither makes a legitimate point, yet everyone jumps on Pengwuino while getting on the SOS bandwagon. The difference is that Pengwuino wasn't trying to make a legitimate point. He was pointing out the absurdity of the original statement by making an equally absurd statement. Let's face it, while SOS does provide plenty of links (unfortunately, they are often to opinion polls or wikipedia), but she also provides a lot of empty rhetoric.
 
  • #59
468
4
actually the fact of the matter is that people in this thread, mainly on your side of things, are the most noterious for not providing facts. Im not sure how many times ive seen people quote the patriot act as to where we actually are losing all hope of freedom... but I assume the number is <1 time. Unless of course, sites like reopen911.com and michael moore are credible on this forum.
As a matter of fact, I did cite specific examples of how the PATRIOT act limits our freedoms, and you have ignored them. Do you deny that it defines a terrorist to be what I described? Do you deny that wiretaps can be ordered without showing probable cause? Do you deny that No Child Left Behind requires schools to give away the names of the children if they receive federal funding? Do you deny that FEMA was put under the Department of Homeland Security? Do you deny that the social security trust fund is projected to run out in 40 years? The point is that none of my facts are in dispute, but I think you know that.
 
  • #60
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
0
loseyourname said:
The idea was that neither makes a legitimate point, yet everyone jumps on Pengwuino while getting on the SOS bandwagon. The difference is that Pengwuino wasn't trying to make a legitimate point. He was pointing out the absurdity of the original statement by making an equally absurd statement. Let's face it, while SOS does provide plenty of links (unfortunately, they are often to opinion polls or wikipedia), but she also provides a lot of empty rhetoric.
When I first joined PF what I saw was a Russ Watters bandwagon that you have jumped on frequently. :rolleyes: Your opinion of whether I or other members who made a similar point are legitimate is your opinion, but no--Pengwuino's statement was not equally absurd--it was completely ridiculous. As I've said before, I realize many don't like what I have to say, but my sources are not mostly opinion polls (though very applicable in political science), but are mostly news sources. Pengwuino does not do his homework that any of us can see--too bad it's not permitted to do a poll. But since I don't want to continue to derail this thread into personal reviews, I will not reply to Pengwuino's post, and if either of you want to PM me feel free.
 
  • #61
Informal Logic
SOS2008 said:
Edit: I'm not afraid of terrorists except those in my own government.
SpaceTiger said:
I'm not scared of terrorism itself, just what it makes politicians do.
Both of which do not attack a particular party, and in view of the poor performance of protecting Americans after Katrina, these remarks have much more basis than:

Pengwuino said:
And the only terrorists im scared of are democrats.
Regarding a minority party with limited power and influence, and why I posted this:

Informal Logic said:
I am shaking in my shoes that the massive hoards of heavily armed Democrats will march to the hill and take over the country too. Right. :rolleyes:
Only to see this reply:

Pengwuino said:
"America is less safe now"
"Bush is going to take away your social security checks"
"Bush is going to take away all your rights"

Good point. Democrats don't use fear-mongering tactics
On the first point, “52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer” – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html. On the second point, Bush inaccurately asserted that social security was "headed to bankruptcy" by 2042 in his State of the Union Speech, and for even more fear-mongering on the topic:

Only on Fox: "Kill Social Security!"
Promotions for the August 13 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox included on-screen text exclaiming "Kill Social Security!" and featuring a Social Security card with "R.I.P." superimposed over it. The Forbes on Fox segment, hosted by David Asman, featured a panel of editors and writers from Forbes magazine discussing the merits of abolishing Social Security.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170003 [Broken]

On the third point of individual civil rights – I take it you all support what happened to Terri Schiavo?

Talk about empty rhetoric. I am afraid of where this country is headed far more than terrorists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
Skyhunter
Pengwuino said:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11? A readily available article went through about http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf that were either lies or misconceptions from that documentary. A few months later, he even stopped calling it a documentary faced with overwhelming criticism about his lack of fact-checking. I believe he started calling it a drama instead.
Actually it is called an op-ed, opinion editorial. I saw the movie, the point was to create a dramatic effect. But he is no less credible than the links you refer me to when I ask for sources.

Like I mentioned before, if you want to have serious dialogue you need to have credible sources.

Has anyone here used Fahrenheit 911 as a source for their arguments?

If they have I am not aware of it. Yet here is an example of what you provided me as a 'credible source' to back up this argument.

Pengwino said:
Being unsure about an administrations policy does not equate with the necessity of declaring imperialism. And ahem... wasnt there a mock impeachment trial in the Congress from the loonies? Err, democrats? I don't know where you get your information but every other second i hear someone in Congress complaining about the administration or questioning every single sentence the President says or NY times says he said (even when it turns out to be a lie on a newspapers part)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

This is an op-ed as well, do you understand the difference between a journalist and a columnist?

Between journalism and op-ed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
356
2
We'll give you a hint: A columnist is that girl from sex and the city who writes about "twenty-something girls".
 
  • #64
McGyver
More Fearful of Domestic Incidents and Failures

Without a doubt, I am more fearful of financial, physical, emotional and other forms of "harm" emanating from WITHIN the United States - than I am from OUTSIDE sources such as terrorists.

As a population, until we figure this out - we will forever remain in the grips of politically fed paranoia from evil-doers of other parts of the world. When it comes down to it, all of us on earth all want essentially the same thing, and have the same heirichical needs.

Stephen Dolle
www.diaceph.com
 

Related Threads for: Are you scared of terror?

  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
119
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Top