PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum
Page 11 of 18 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)
-   -   9/11 critic suspended (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/164091-9-11-critic-suspended.html)

mikemover 09-19-2006 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1281656)
It is a fanatical Christian organization bent on forcing Christianity on us at a state level, not unlike the Islamo whackos we're supposed to hate.

Maybe Disney's into that stuff.
A meaningless and unfounded assumption on your part. What his father did/does is hardly an accurate indicator of his own motivations.

My OWN father was a pastor, christian school owner/operator, and was in fact what many would probably consider a "fanatical christian"....

Yet I am far, far, FAR from being anything of the sort.

Kind of throws a wrench in your whole "like father/like son" theory, doesn't it?.....

Mike

cmac2012 09-19-2006 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemover (Post 1281688)
A meaningless and unfounded assumption on your part. What his father did/does is hardly an accurate indicator of his own motivations.

My OWN father was a pastor, christian school owner/operator, and was in fact what many would probably consider a "fanatical christian"....

Yet I am far, far, FAR from being anything of the sort.

Kind of throws a wrench in your whole "like father/like son" theory, doesn't it?.....

Mike
Not when you consider that the son is joining his father in the work, having created a media arm to put the message out there.

Honus 09-19-2006 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1281429)
...That's the story as he sees it, straight from himself...
No. That's the story as he says he sees it. Since important parts of the movie are clearly false, I don't see why you give him the benefit of the doubt when he writes a self-serving essay.
Quote:
...His job was to sell cereal and deodorant, not to present a graduate seminar on modern American governance...
The "history" portrayed in his movie will be accepted as true by many people. IMHO, that is a disservice to history.
Quote:
...It's not like he claimed it was documentary or anything--where one would assume that facts would be presented fairly and accurately...
:confused: I guess I missed the point of the following part of his essay:
Quote:
...I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. ...Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Had a propaganda piece been presented as though it were a documentary that would be unconscionable and malicious deceit.

Bot
I guess the fact that movie was a drama with actors makes a significant difference for you. To me, parts of the movie are deceptive.

peragro 09-19-2006 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1281708)
Not when you consider that the son is joining his father in the work, having created a media arm to put the message out there.
I think I'd find out exactly what it is that father and son are supposedly doing before I cast aspersions their direction. Much less use one guy in a production team of dozens to cast aspertions on a fictional movie that you don't like.

Why don't you rebutt what you think are the factual innacuracies. You can start with Dick Morris, LtCol Pattersen, Mike scheuer, the 9/11 commision and so on with regard to Clinton's ineffectivness and blatent non-concern.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281289)
...With regard to the actual events that did happen; there are various sources, including the 9/11 commission report, that say the Clinton administration was lax on terrorism. The same was said about the Bush administration prior to 9/11. Both are correct statements...
I think a more accurate paraphrase of the 9/11 Commission report was that Clinton was ineffective against terrorism and that Bush was completely absent from the fight until 9/11/01, but that is beside the point. If the movie just portrayed Clinton as lax, then that portrayal would simply be the movie makers' point of view, which would be fine. The movie, however, makes up things THAT DID NOT HAPPEN and portrays them as if they did. I'm amazed that anyone would defend such a thing.
Quote:
...As a conservative...
What does conservatism have to do with this? Either the movie is accurate or it isn't.

peragro 09-20-2006 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1281720)
I think a more accurate paraphrase of the 9/11 Commission report was that Clinton was ineffective against terrorism and that Bush was completely absent from the fight until 9/11/01, but that is beside the point. If the movie just portrayed Clinton as lax, then that portrayal would simply be the movie makers' point of view, which would be fine. The movie, however, makes up things THAT DID NOT HAPPEN and portrays them as if they did. I'm amazed that anyone would defend such a thing.What does conservatism have to do with this? Either the movie is accurate or it isn't.
I have no idea, either your are adding things to what I've said or rearranging them out of context for some reason.

It's kinda common knowlegde that Clinton had several chances at bin laden, as pointed out in several sources, some of which I've mentioned. He was simply afraid of the polling results if he went for it. A lesson to those who would be governed by polling data.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1281480)
I'm guessing that you and Old300D didn't actually read his little essay. The degree to which it is propaganda is more evident to people who actually saw the series, read the 9/11 Commission Report and read the guy's essay. Of those three things I have done all except watch the series. How about you two and dCulkin?

What a person says concerning his own work maybe propagandistic. Especially if the guy is from Hollywood, I would think it would be at the very least self-serving. But dismissing what the man himself said of his own work is just plain willfully ignorant.

Can you think of a dumber thing to do when offering criticism of a piece, NOT read what the author says of his own work?

Bot
I find it odd that you assume that others did not read the essay. And I don't see anyone "dismissing what the man himself said." I see people saying that the man appears to be dishonest because he is saying things that appear to be verifiably untrue.

BTW, I would not waste my time seeing this ridiculous movie, just like I would not waste any time watching that ridiculous movie about Ronald Reagan a few years ago. When I say the ABC movie is inaccurate, I am relying on press accounts about it.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281536)
...Clinton - 8 years of ignoring the problem
What's your source on that? Certainly not the 9/11 Commission report.
Quote:
Bush - 8 months of ignoring the problem
I will agree with you there.[quote]

peragro 09-20-2006 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1281730)
What's your source on that? Certainly not the 9/11 Commission report.I will agree with you there.
I figured your agreement would be selective.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281536)
...Clinton - 8 years of ignoring the problem
What's your source on that? Certainly not the 9/11 Commission report.
Quote:
Bush - 8 months of ignoring the problem
I will agree with you there.
Quote:
Assign blame accordingly.
IMHO, it's silly to blame either President.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281724)
...It's kinda common knowlegde that Clinton had several chances at bin laden, as pointed out in several sources...
That's true, it is kinda common knowledge, but is it true? There is strong evidence from non-partisan sources that your "common knowledge" is not true.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281724)
I have no idea, either your are adding things to what I've said or rearranging them out of context for some reason...
I don't think so. If I did that, it wasn't intentional.

Honus 09-20-2006 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1281733)
I figured your agreement would be selective.
Right. I selected the accurate parts and agreed with those. So, where is your evidence that Clinton ignored terrorism?

mikemover 09-20-2006 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1281740)
...evidence that Clinton ignored terrorism?
What did he do in response to the USS Cole attack?... Nothing.
What did he do in response to the '93 WTC bombing?... Nothing.
What did he do about Islamic terrorism in general?... Nothing.

Mike

Honus 09-20-2006 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemover (Post 1281743)
...What did he do in response to the '93 WTC bombing?... Nothing...
The perpetrators are in prison.
Quote:
What did he do about Islamic terrorism in general?... Nothing...
It's been a while since I read the 9/11 Commission report, but I believe that they disagree with you on that. Clinton was ineffective, but it's inaccurate to say he did nothing.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 AM.
Page 11 of 18 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website