Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The battle continues

This is a sequel to the previous post. If you actually read this whole thing - I'll make a check for 25 bucks. You'll have to pass a quiz proving you are a literary masochist.

"smooveluv, so anyone who has no interest in the movie and thinks it's garbage and is tired of hearing the same, worn out insults, etc must be a Bush supporter??"

No, but if I was a gambling man, I'd say it's likely in your case - and your comments certainly present you at least as a Bush defender or apologist, whether you are aware of that perception or not.


"we have not been attacked one time since 9/11, contrary to the liberal promoted propaganda"

I suppose if you consider the soliders in Iraq not part of the collective "we" you could assert that. If you are talking about attacks on American soil, I'm not aware of any liberal propaganda asserting that we have been attacked. Please provide some documentation - I'd be very curious to read about these faux attacks. I also fail to see where this fits into the argument. It could just as easily be argued that we have not been attacked despite the administration, not because of it. I'd also be knocking on wood right about now.


"Iraq has achieved many great things since we first went over there--this is based on what friends and family members who have served in the military have personally witnessed and observed while over there."

I'm sure that there have been some gains, but the net effect is destabilization to the country, and to the region. I'm sure it could be argued that in a sense we've "taken the fight to the enemy" but I'm not that comfortable with that argument, as it essentially says we are using our soldiers as bait to lure Al Q into a one geographical area. I'm sure some people don't have an issue with that, its just my opinion.


"It's funny you ridicule the comment made about the WMDs being moved to Syria, because it's actually true, believe it or not."

I have no choice but NOT to believe it, because neither you, nor anybody else has been able to produce them. Either that's a fiction you are stating as fact, or our military intelligence is so poor that we bungled that operation as well. Are you stating that we should accept your word, without clear unverifiable proof, regarding something so important? If the government did find it, and is hiding it, then its consistent with their habit of keeping the American public in the dark. If we had found this material, wouldn't they be hoisting it up over our heads? Given everything that's gone on in this administration, I feel that the burden of proof falls on your side of the argument. Show me the money, or stop claiming that they are there. If the premise was to stop production and get our hands on those weapons, why isn't that argument being used to steamroll into Syria, and get the weapons that we know are there? And not in Lebanon. Or Iran. Or any number of other countries disenfranchised with our foreign policy.


"Are people ever going to wake up and live in the real world?"

Clearly you are on another realm of reality above ours, one that we can't possibly hope to attain. Interesting that our paths intersect at a web site dedicated to movie gossip. If you are sensing sarcasm, your detector is not malfunctioning. Methinks you perceive an intellectual chasm between yourself and the plebiscites, that is less wide than you think it is. But I could be wrong, and Morpheus will come a knocking on my feeding chamber, to awaken me from my slumber.


"CNN is bullshit. FOX is bullshit. It's all propaganda. The American public who view such news sources are being fooled by those who are paid to show you what the person behind the curtains wants you to see."

That's your opinion, but hardly relevant - I made no reference to CNN as a primary news source for me, unless you are interpreting my reference to Glenn Beck as such, which would be an incorrect conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to be part of the solution, rather than content to point out the problem, and provide us with your credible news sources. Or do you simply avoid the news media entirely, on principal? Of course, there is an alternative to avoiding "all propoganda" - take in as much news as possible, aggregate and parse it down, and use your own critical faculties to come to the most rational conclusion. Or I could just get my facts made up for me by conservative talk radio or Bill Maher. It's ironic that your criticism of the news media can be just as easily be made against the administration itself.


"You don't have to be a Bush supporter or an absolute conservative to know this or to feel the way I do about it. "

That's true, but its not your paranoia of the news that makes me think you are either A: a conservative pretending not to be, in order to wear a pretend mantle of objectivity, or B: you are unaware of your own bias. It's mostly just everything else you are saying that makes me think that.


"What one does for a living and how much money they make has absolutely NOTHING to do with their credibility."

True, but income strata have everything to do with what policies benefit voters, and recognizing what groups oppose or advocate those programs. Simply going back as recently as 1935, Republicans have serially voted against public assistance programs, using McCarthyism, the specter of death by taxation, and ideological fiery rhetoric to persuade the economically depressed to vote against programs that would directly benefit them. Social Security, Medicaid, Bilingual Education, Universal Healthcare, and Head Start are all programs that the financially distressed would benefit from - so when they vote according to party dogma, it's unintelligent. I'm not critiquing the lower class, I'm critiquing people of that group who vote for Republicans, without considering voting for programs that benefit them. I'd similarly accuse affluent people of voting against their economic interests by voting Democratic - but they have the benefit of expendable income and no threat to their standard of living, which makes such idiosyncratic behavior less self damaging. And they have nice "stuff" - so they must be smart.

Lest you accuse me of part of the machine that fuels the propaganda dissemination conspiracy, I'd be happy to produce source citation from several volumes that include direct quotes from politicians on both sides of the aisle to back this claim up.


"Most of America is so Goddamn doped up anyway on anti-depressants and other such poisons that they're incapable of logical and rational thoughts."

Certainly I hope that's just a broad, insulting generalization (substitute "American" with any social minority group, and you'll see what that statement reads like) and not a direct accusation. Still the insinuation that anyone who doesn't share your opinion must somehow be hallucinating is troublesome - I suppose by trivializing the opposition saves you the trouble of questioning your own beliefs. I feel I am well served by my grasp of logic, and I've found several holes in yours. Incapable of rational thought? That's hyperbole. Make that a literal statement, and we'd find ourselves in some post-apocalyptic wasteland. If that's the case, I'm definitely canceling my last check to the Home Owner's Association.

EDIT: This statement, which is basically taking a dumping on "most" Americans directly contradicts your earlier defense of the common man, when you stated: "What one does for a living and how much money they make has absolutely NOTHING to do with their credibility." Or are you saying regardless of occupation or income bracket, we are all just equally lacking in our mental faculties? And I'm sure I've got my share of typos, but you might want to spell check and examine grammar before you throw the collective minds of "most of America" under a bus.


"But as far as the subject at hand goes, there is no point to this movie. "

So you've seen it? Capital. Do tell. Where does Stone lose his point? Or did I misunderstand you? Maybe you were just saying that premise of this movie doesn't interest you, or that you are incapable of seeing anything new being brought to the table.

To the contrary, there is a great deal of point to the premise of making the film, in my opinion. Stone is unapologetically liberal, and a conspiracy nut to top it off. He's rushing to have it filmed, and he wants to persuade voters to vote democratic. It's manipulative, ballsy, and insulting to most Americans by thinking they are dumb enough to be so easily brainwashed. That's pretty descriptive of the tone of your argument, so in hindsight, your opposition to this film now confuses me.


Jade said...

I read it. I'll take the quiz now.

Kerri said...

You can make my check out to Kerri Snow or I'll take one of those Wack T-shirts as payment.

never/forever/whatever said...

I like your style, kid.

Erik said...

I read it, I want my money now.