[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by Matthew D

Well I have noticed that there have been more than a few attempts to only persent one side of everything by a few people on here.

Thank you.

[INFOHAZARD]

Again, a college campus is not a monolithic indocrtination machine. I would guess that the organization responsible for showing F-911 has nothing to do with the tenured profs, which has nothing to do with the campus Christian organizations going around trying to harvest young impressionable souls for Christ. I would be shocked if there wasn't some organization like the Young Republicans on campus that will "set the record straight."

Michael Moore is a fine polemicist, whose goal is to be inflammaory. He is causing debate like we see here which is a good thing, even if some portion of his facts are a bit bent out of shape. The difference between Moore and folks like Limbaugh and Coulter is that as a film-maker, he is like dynamite, causing a rather dramatic effect, which is over fairly quickly. Limbaugh and Coulter are like running water that wears slowly away at stone to produce their effect. I suspect Limbaugh and Coulter are much more effective at changing the political landscape because they do not cause the same degree of inflammation and debate.

I would not, however think of Moore as anything but a good Left-Wing polemicist.

Also, I don't have a problem with liberal professors. Academia often tends towards liberalism for a reason (assuming it takes the spectrum to have a healthy society). On the other hand, where it passes into the dogma of the classic "Political Correctness" of the early '90's academia is where I get upset. When an English course becomes a diatribe on the "white male hegemony" that one must parrot back to the prof to get a good grade, something is horribly amiss....

What also bugs me is that the neoconservative reaction to "Political Correctness" simply coopted their techniques of intolerance to make the opposing point. David Brock, a former Right-Wing polemicist illustrated this in his autobiography "Blinded By the Right."

Whenever things move to the extremes, expect division and chaos. It doesn't matter whether it's the right or the left. It's my understanding that Kennedy ran on a platform of tax-cuts, and that Nixon was a bit to the left of where Kerry's platform is today (Nixon introduced price freezes, the 55 MPH speed limit and he had a plan to get the US out of Viet Nam. The welfare state flourished under him). We have swung HARD Right. It will swing back unless somebody decides to consolidate power in an unconstitutional way.

[VanillaGorilla]

Infohaz........ The problem with colleges is that both sides are not equally represented in the classroom or on campus. Much like in journalism you will find that 90% of all professors are liberal and the ones that aren't are ostracized. Obviously more young people are liberal than not. I think the saying if your young and not liberal you have no heart and if you are old and still liberal you have no head applies

What also bugs me is that the neoconservative reaction to "Political Correctness" simply coopted their techniques of intolerance to make the opposing point. David Brock, a former Right-Wing polemicist illustrated this in his autobiography "Blinded By the Right."

It's actually quite the opposite. It is the PC people who are intolerant of a diversity of opinion. They have a name to call anyone who opposes them. If you are against affirmative action your are a racist. If you are against the gay agenda you are a hetrocentric homophobic ect.

[snakebyte05]

Anyone who has not seen farenHYPE 9/11 do so. I bought it last week, great movie. You guys don't like how people around you take moore for fact, well my girlfriend idolizes him. She honestly believes everything he says is true, and that hes protecting america. When she saw HYPE 9/11 she didn't like, since it was "not as interesting". Goes to show what america has come to. People who refuse to look at the facts. Moore is one topic that I will get the most heated on, because I just can't believe how some people will refuse to look at the facts, and they believe all his stuff is true, since he has "sources" to back it up. If I asked a friend if he thought moore was an ass, I could then make a movie about moore saying he is an ass, I mean I have a source. Point is, anyone can be a source, problem is his sources are not reputible, or if they are, he takes what was said and done completely out of context.

[CDB]

The problem, Info, is that neoconservatives are not representative of the whole right wing of American politics. And that's in the same way that Kerry's position on the war is not reflective of a significant part of his party's ideology, though I don't know what I'd call them label-wise.

All the debate in this forum comes down to one point: everyone in politics is full of more **** than a fertilizer plant. Some are just more tolerable to us for this or that reason.

[VanillaGorilla]

The welfare state flourished under him).

That's not exactly true. The welfare state flourished because the democrats controlled the senate for decades. They refused to cut spending. That is similar augment blaming Regan for the deficits when in reality he couldn't force the dems to cut spending.

I would not, however think of Moore as anything but a good Left-Wing polemicist.

I would agree with that but I would change polemicist to propagandist. I think he shot him self in the foot with his last two movies. As time goes on he will have less and less credibility.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Infohaz........ The problem with colleges is that both sized are not equally represented in the classroom or on campus. Much like in journalism you will find that 90% of all professors are liberal and the ones that aren't are ostracized. Obviously more young people are liberal than not. I think the saying if your young and not liberal you have no hart and if you are old and still liberal you have no head applies

Have you considered Bob Jones University? A person can find what they are looking for in this country (well, except for PH's soon)

It's actually quite the opposite. It is the PC people who are intolerant of a diversity of opinion. They have a name to call anyone who opposes them. If you are against affirmative action your are a racist. If you are against the gay agenda you are a hetrocentric homophobic ect.

Yeah, right. Let me give some examples of prominent spokespeople for the contemporary Right:

Ann Coulter told Time, "The Democratic Party has got to go away. It's got to just hang up its stirrups." http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/942957/posts

Can you think of 3 instances in the 20th Century when 1/2 of the political spectrum 'just went away?' How about Lennin, Hitler and Pol Pot? Just what is it she is advocating?

She also tried to ressurect the reputation of Joe McCarthy (whom even the most conservative people I know who were adults during that period despise).

Further, in referring to Muslims, she noted we should, “Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.�


Then there's Bill O'Rielly who will tell people to "shut-up" and cut the mike off on people who disagree with him, then lie about how often he does it.
http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov


Then there's the President who excludes half the population of the nation from his campaign speeches. These speeches are in no small part Taxpayer funded because of the use of AF 1 to get there (it's amazing how much 'official business' Bush has in swing-states these days).

There's members of his administration who give speeches but only allows TV media, but not print Media to attend. Why on earth would they do that?

You clearly have not read the David Brock book I mentioned, "Blinded by the Right." Even if you don't agree with it, it will make you far more knowledgable when you make your points.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by CDB

The problem, Info, is that neoconservatives are not representative of the whole right wing of American politics. And that's in the same way that Kerry's position on the war is not reflective of a significant part of his party's ideology, though I don't know what I'd call them label-wise.

All the debate in this forum comes down to one point: everyone in politics is full of more **** than a fertilizer plant. Some are just more tolerable to us for this or that reason.

Can't argue with that nuanced point.

[Funny Monkey]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

Have you considered Bob Jones University? .

What does that school have to do with this? They are actually bi-partisan as best I can tell.
Now if they have strong traditional fundametalist beleifs that indirectly lead them to one side or the other well then ok but no names of canadites come up saying vote this way or that.

I saw on my schols website today that the college dems are showing mopores film in the multi disc room next week and I go to school in TN. Try all they want Kerry will not win this state

[CDB]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

She also tried to ressurect the reputation of Joe McCarthy (whom even the most conservative people I know who were adults during that period despise).

I read her book Treason where she did this. Problem with McCarthy seems to be that while his methods were off and extreme, he was essentially right. The commies were infiltrating our government.

Further, in referring to Muslims, she noted we should, “Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.�

True, but she did say this very shortly after 9/11, and I don't think we should necessarily hold anyone's angry outbursts from that time against them. However, I find it an interesting point that you do find very few suicide bombers in the Judeo Christian, westernized world. I think what she was saying was an extreme way of putting the point out that some how, some way, someone has to take a metaphorical 2x4 and bat the middle east into the 21st century, or problems within that part of the world will continue.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by Funny Monkey

What does that school have to do with this? They are actually bi-partisan as best I can tell.
Now if they have strong traditional fundametalist beleifs that indirectly lead them to one side or the other well then ok but no names of canadites come up saying vote this way or that.

I saw on my schols website today that the college dems are showing mopores film in the multi disc room next week and I go to school in TN. Try all they want Kerry will not win this state

So when is a campus group showing F-911 on the BJU grounds? They are also not an accredited university. The point I made is you can find what you are looking for if you don't like what you got.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by CDB

I read her book Treason where she did this. Problem with McCarthy seems to be that while his methods were off and extreme, he was essentially right. The commies were infiltrating our government.

Yes there were a few spies. Unfortunately, McCarthy did immense damage to our culture, society and freedom without finding a single bona fide spy. Kind of like invading Iraq after being attacked by a bunch of Saudis.

True, but she did say this very shortly after 9/11, and I don't think we should necessarily hold anyone's angry outbursts from that time against them. However, I find it an interesting point that you do find very few suicide bombers in the Judeo Christian, westernized world. I think what she was saying was an extreme way of putting the point out that some how, some way, someone has to take a metaphorical 2x4 and bat the middle east into the 21st century, or problems within that part of the world will continue.

Hate speech is hate speech and is especially heinous when uttered by a prominent spokesperson during a time of crisis.

I don't think for a moment that that's not EXACTLY what she meant, and she found the opportunity to say it when it had the most impact. If it weren't for the fact that the people of concience can still speak out she'd be leading the mobs.

You are very forgiving of such things when spoken by someone whose politics you sympathise with. What if someone on the Left had uttered something that intolerant? And what about her statement about the Dems just needing to go away?

She's a facist. There are a lot of them out there.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

Hate speech is hate speech and is especially heinous when uttered by a prominent spokesperson during a time of crisis.

In all honesty I have no problem with hate speech. I feel if you hate someone, be honest about it.

I don't think for a moment that that's not EXACTLY what she meant, and she found the opportunity to say it when it had the most impact. If it weren't for the fact that the people of concience can still speak out she'd be leading the mobs.

You are very forgiving of such things when spoken by someone whose politics you sympathise with. What if someone on the Left had uttered something that intolerant? And what about her statement about the Dems just needing to go away?

She's a facist. There are a lot of them out there.

Yes, she's bordering on a good looking Hitler these days. As for hate speech from the left, there's been plenty of it. How about the constant plastering of Pat Buchannan as an anti-semite because he is critical of US support for Israel, most notably by Abe Rosenthal? How about the near interminable hate speech against men that floods almost nonstop from most feminist groups, many of who are undeniably left leaning in the extreme? The All Sex Is Rape, Dead White Male lines are the ones I'm talking about.

I think the basic disagreement you and I would have here is on the issue of tolerance. I really don't see the merits of it. I see the merits of general politeness and cordiallity. And once more, in my personal experience with actual liberals in daily life, they are far more intolerant than any conservatives I know. I hear far more invective and see more insults hurled by liberals every day than from conservatives. Racist, anti-semite, fascist, biggot, etc. Once more, in my personal experience which I related in another thread a long time ago, as I started to change my ideology while I was still in college the first thing I noticed, and which outright amazed me, was the unbelievable amount of venom on left, much of it from people who I thought were friends as I tried to explain a point of view they didn't agree with. The casualness with which they labeled and insulted me was stunning. The substitution of name calling for debate was frustrating. In fact ironically enough the first taste of this came from feminists, because I disagreed with many of their judgements on this or that issue. I was called "a rape enabler" because I didn't think some guy was guilty of rape. The situation presented to us was two people, guy and girl, both drunk out of their minds have sex. She wakes up the next morning, charges rape. What I said was that it was basically an instance of two people making a stupid decision, one or both may regret it, but it isn't rape. The **** flew when I said that, to say the least.

I'm sorry for the lengthy response, but it seems to me to be on topic for this thread. Do I agree with Coulter? Like I said it's amazing how few suicide bomber we produce in westernized culture. I don't see Bush sawing anyone's head off while praising God. I see little to no repudiation of terrorists by supposedly true Muslims, the ones that say Islam is a religion of peace. In the end I don't agree with her because I don't think I know enough to make a good judgement at this point. But after seeing some 200 plus people I have some connection with deal with or actually die in the twin towers on 9/11, I sure as hell don't blame her for suggesting it might be time to solve the problem of the middle east with a few nukes and a shitload of Bibles. Would it be humane? No. Would it be effective? Probably.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by CDB

I read her book Treason where she did this. Problem with McCarthy seems to be that while his methods were off and extreme, he was essentially right. The commies were infiltrating our government.

Were? I'd go as far as to say are in the form of radical socialists.

Remember good 'ol Lord Acton? "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." I feel that applies to socialism and big government. The more social programs we less decisions we make , the less decisions we make, the more decisions they can make, and as you can see, I'm demostrating the domino effect. But I do believe that if we keep giving them power, eventually they can just give themselves power more easily and things will get really nasty.

True, but she did say this very shortly after 9/11, and I don't think we should necessarily hold anyone's angry outbursts from that time against them. However, I find it an interesting point that you do find very few suicide bombers in the Judeo Christian, westernized world. I think what she was saying was an extreme way of putting the point out that some how, some way, someone has to take a metaphorical 2x4 and bat the middle east into the 21st century, or problems within that part of the world will continue.

Agreed.

[Funny Monkey]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

So when is a campus group showing F-911 on the BJU grounds? They are also not an accredited university. The point I made is you can find what you are looking for if you don't like what you got.

No and they sure wont be showing stolen honor either. What exactely does being accredited have to do with this?