Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:49 am

Aabe loses.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:10 am

<inocent voice>
Lose? I was mearly asking a question. Not making a statement. <snickers>

clubbin · Post by **clubbin** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:16 am

Jesus Rsak. So... are you trying to say that Moore's evidence is 100% false and does not take away from any of Bush's credibiltiy at all? I can't tell if you're trying to avoid the problem or if you just can't see it. It's pretty clear what Moore's assertion is: Bush is an asshole. You don't think any of the documents or video footage or interviews or testimonies of former high ranking intelligence officials supports Moore's claim at all? Its probably pretty easy to blur the situation with bad analogies when you can't see out of Bush's ass.

You see, Moore's primary source documentation doesn't require a so-called "jump in logic" as you have coined. That's the beauty of primary sources; you can make your own interpretations by judging its historical context. Moore shows many primary sources in F9/11. You are allowed to make your own logical assessment. A blind man could see this. Michael Moore is a biased asshole, but you are allowed to think for yourself. You don't have to listen to his opinion, but look at his evidence. If you want to argue my point, Rsak, then take these hard pieces of evidence and show me why they do not support Moore's claim that Bush is an asshole.

Are you really trying to argue that this guy would have been as successful as Moore if he would have just made his book a movie? I just don't see how an intelligent being could make such a "jump in logic" to reach a conclusion. Did you forget that Bush is the current president (and one of the most controversial in history) and Carter was in office 25 years ago? This is a major contemporary issue whether you are too blind to see it or not.

JamiesanTGrauerwolf · Post by **JamiesanTGrauerwolf** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:18 pm

hehehehe

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:28 pm

ROFL there is a law.. that is good.. very good =D

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:56 pm

So... are you trying to say that Moore's evidence is 100% false and does not take away from any of Bush's credibiltiy at all?

Not at all. I am saying that Moore has not proved his conclusions and while the evidence presented may be reliable (context of evidence plays a part here) it does not make Moore reliable.

You don't think any of the documents or video footage or interviews or testimonies of former high ranking intelligence officials supports Moore's claim at all?

There are peices of evidence that support Moore's claim, but there are also peices of evidence that do not support his claim. That very lack of evidence in his documentary that is just as available and reliable (both being primary sources) makes Moore very unreliable.

You see, Moore's primary source documentation doesn't require a so-called "jump in logic" as you have coined.

Of course the documentation does not require jumps in logic. To reach the conclusion that Moore reached however does require the jump in logic since the evidence and sources he presented do not prove that his conclusions are accurate ones.

Are you really trying to argue that this guy would have been as successful as Moore if he would have just made his book a movie?

Not what I was saying once again. I am saying that the mode of operation, tactics, and reliablity of both authors have shocking similarities yet there is a diametric reaction from such individuals as Relbeek.

And Relbeek nice to see you have been practicing your reading!

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:12 pm

I notice you didn't answer.

clubbin · Post by **clubbin** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:15 am

Way to avoid the whole point Rsak. You haven't cited anything and you've avoided the point or question in every post. Clearly you lack either the intelligence or the education to understand a simple argument so just don't worry about it.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:48 pm

Relbeek,

Answer what? Whether I have seen Farenheit 9/11? That information has already been provided and if you don't know then that is your fault. A search might help if you have not broken it again!

Clubbin,

Whether Moore has picked and chosen evidence that only support's his claims does not answer the question of whether Moore is reliable which is the point of dicussion. You have asserted that the use of Primary sources makes him more reliable then someone who uses secondary sources and you seem to think that since the evidence only supports the view of the one presenting it means they are reliable. That is just flat out uneducated thinking.

Take Moore's evidence for example.. One scene is where it shows Bush sitting in the classroom and he makes totally unsupported conclusions as to what Bush was thinking about. The clip does not support Moore's view nor does it disprove it since it is totally irrelevant.

You continued attempts to link the reliablity of the one making assertions with the type of source being used regardless of whether the information actually proves the point or not just might be a clear sign that you lack the intelligence or education to understand the topic at hand.

Shallon · Post by **Shallon** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:06 pm

In topic after topic Rsak doesn't ever get the point, yet people still try to pound it into the brick of his head. Give up, it will never work.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:03 pm

Was it just me or did anyone else happen to see that this article which is NOW trying to portray former president Carter as a traitor was dated Oct 21, 2002?

Better add more yeast......this kornspiracy is a slow riser.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:08 pm

Don't you love how Rsak plays coy? He spent 35 words being a dick when he could have answered the question in one.

What a waterhead.

But to get back to the point: These jackasses are calling a veteran and statesman a traitor to the country with no real motive other than to smear another liberal.

Rsak's defense is that Moore did the same to Bush in F9/11 -- but, of course, Moore didn't, and Rsak has yet to provide any citations of where Moore stated or implied otherwise.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:58 pm

God damn are you fucking partisan!

I am not defending the author of the article Relbeek, I am offering the perspective that he is doing the same thing as Moore (whether Moore used the word traitor or not). I have shown examples where Moore used example that the common person would call traitorious, but you in your infinite wisdom and perceived divinity of Michael Moore cannot see the forest for the trees.

And get over your analysis jerk off over the length of my reply... I has nothing to do with being coy, but aggrivated that you have asked the question 3 times and I gave you a direct answer the first time. I just figured since you can't handle simple answers some sarcasm would get your attention.. and wonders never cease it did! Act like a dick Relbeek and you will get the same treatment.

And Shallon your observation is enlightening except for the fact that in this instance it was not I that is not getting the point. My post was quoted and attacked by Clubbin and the points made were lovely yet they did not even broach the subject of the quote that was used. My apologies for Relbeek and Clubbin for pointed their heads into the wall as they try to continually change my position in order to prove it wrong. Not that arguing with these village idiots really says alot about myself other then a very large amount of patience..

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:58 pm

Wow, wrong on almost all counts. (I found the direct answer. Well done.)

I have shown examples where Moore used example that the common person would call traitorious, but you in your infinite wisdom and perceived divinity of Michael Moore cannot see the forest for the trees.

No you haven't, and in your arrogance and presumption you assumed I think highly of Moore. I don't. I think his methods distract from his message, and he reaches too far in his conclusions. I'm far more partial to Al Franken, who's substantially less self-aggrandizing and less prone to making logical leaps.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge your error.

And yes, I am partisan. This does not make you non-partisan, nor does it make you right and me wrong. One difference between you and me is I know my biases.

BTW - don't patronize me about acting like a dick. You walked into this thread guns blazing, full of piss and vinegar, Waterhead. "Act like a dick and you will get the same treatment."

And thanks for the laugh at having the chutzpah to call myself and clubbin village idiots, dude. I really admire your moxie, if nothing else about you.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:16 pm

I think his methods distract from his message, and he reaches too far in his conclusions.

I.E. Moore uses jumps in logic that are not supported by the evidence. Thank you for stating the truth. This very behavrior is the exact same as the author of the article aimed at Carter! Your inability to admit defeat will keep you from acknowledging this, but then again this is why you have to lie about my position just to keep the fact that I was correct hidden from your ego.

And yes, I am partisan. This does not make you non-partisan, nor does it make you right and me wrong. One difference between you and me is I know my biases.

No what it does is make you a hypocrite when you let your biases overide your ability to see the truth on something so blatantly clear. I however equally call these people unreliable and biased fools while you only have the ability to recognize the truth for those who are counter to your opinion.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:18 pm

I think his methods distract from his message, and he reaches too far in his conclusions.

I.E. Moore uses jumps in logic that are not supported by the evidence. Thank you for stating the truth. This very behavrior is the exact same as the author of the article aimed at Carter! Your inability to admit defeat will keep you from acknowledging this, but then again this is why you have to lie about my position just to keep the fact that I was correct hidden from your ego.

And yes, I am partisan. This does not make you non-partisan, nor does it make you right and me wrong. One difference between you and me is I know my biases.

No what it does is make you a hypocrite when you let your biases overide your ability to see the truth on something so blatantly clear. I however equally call these people unreliable and biased fools while you only have the ability to recognize the truth for those who are counter to your opinion.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:20 pm

Damn board being a bitch..

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:36 pm

Yes, he uses jumps in logic not supported by the evidence, which is one of the two main reasons why I don't like him.

However, those jumps in logic are not for the same disgusting purposes. It's mostly to make jeers and draw conclusions on motive, rather than action. Moore made a convincing case that there was collusion between Bush and big oil - which is not traitorous, merely bad - and went too far in such things as suggesting the reason Bush sat like a bump on a log on 9/11 was because his handlers didn't tell him what to do.

Just as you draw conclusions unsupported by the facts -- you're very much like Moore that way. Of course, you are never really on target about the actual facts either....

Interestingly, if this attack had been made on Clinton while he was President, I'd have brushed it off. If it had been made on Clinton now, i'd be a little more annoyed but shrugged it off too. If they had said this about President HW Bush, I'd be almost as pissed as if they said it about Carter (unless, of course, they had DAMN good evidence thereof.) I was pondering that while doing a partisan self-check. [/u]

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:00 pm

However, those jumps in logic are not for the same disgusting purposes.

And as predicted the lies continue...

I have never stated that the motives of Moore were the same as the motives of the peice aimed at Carter (Even taking into account the difference in targets). The only thing I have stated was that the tactics and practices were the same which you have reluctantly come around to admitting. You could have saved yourself the time and effort, but that village idiot title must have been too tempting!!

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:05 pm

Sorry, Waterhead, there's no way I could extract the title from you even were I to try.

The way you disconnect from reality amazes me.