ABC to air "The Path to 9/11", Democrats shriek

Kestra,

I am not attempting to hose you here, so I apologize if this feels like a big gangbang on you, but here goes.

We've chatted more or less amicably in several politics threads. You have very strong beliefs, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The main contention I have with most of what you put out on this forum is that you almost never cite sources which back up the things that you say.

I am fairly confident that this is due to the fact that while you have strong beliefs, you either do not know or do not share the actual reasons behind them (referring to a moral/ethical stance). As a result, your political ideology appears to the rest of us to land somewhere in the spectrum of "parrots back far-left headlines". You also have a tendency to dilute or distract issues into personal attacks on individuals or groups. You essentially never enter the realm of "Honest questioning and debate" and instead head right for the ideology mentioned above.

If you would take a little time to consider your words before you post, I am sure you would have a much more productive time here. You have to remember that not everyone shares your upbringing and experiences, and thus we can't relate to you unless you give us grounds to relate (or debate) on.

Edit: For the record (as it seems to be a point of some debate), I did not think you were directing the comment about nonchalance in going to war at the posters in this thread in particular, though you should also understand that all us military folk that have been chatting here seem to generally support the war, though we wish it had been carried out under different circumstances. When a soldier, sailor, etc says that he supports a war, it is not with nonchalance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
I am fairly confident that this is due to the fact that while you have strong beliefs, you either do not know or do not share the actual reasons behind them (referring to a moral/ethical stance). As a result, your political ideology appears to the rest of us to land somewhere in the spectrum of "parrots back far-left headlines". You also have a tendency to dilute or distract issues into personal attacks on individuals or groups. You essentially never enter the realm of "Honest questioning and debate" and instead head right for the ideology mentioned above.

If you would take a little time to consider your words before you post, I am sure you would have a much more productive time here. You have to remember that not everyone shares your upbringing and experiences, and thus we can't relate to you unless you give us grounds to relate (or debate) on.

---

This is pretty much what I sent to you almost two years ago in a private message. Please note that this did NOT come from the administration, so perhaps, you might give it a moment's consideration this time.

Thank you for your post Darion. I do appreciate it. Often it is not what people say, but the manner in which it is delievered that makes the difference.

I must disagree with you however. I do back up my statements whenever I feel it's needed, or I can find a source. I'm very willing and able to stand on my own to defend a view or point, and don't believe citing a news source necessarily makes that view more valid.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
This was a general statement, just like my other one about some people non chalant attitude to going to war, which some people assumed was meant for Savaric, Gillan, Darion, and Jidoe.

---

Ok, I let it go the first time thinking it may have been a typo, but now it is twice and its killing me.

The word is nonchalant, not non chalant.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
nor will I tolerate my character
being attacked with stupid baseless claims of being a moveon.org or other left wing group supporters.

---

It isn't baseless when it is true. You have a consistent history of parroting back moveon.org talking points. If the shoe fits...

You also have a history of making outlandish claims with no backup, and when confronted with contrary evidence you clam up, disappear, or try to change the subject.

You also rely on sophomoric cheap shots rather than intellectual debate. Some of your immature Bush-Bashing quotes (like the one you used to have in your signature) are a perfect example of this (and are yet another example of moveon.org tactics). I strongly dislike George Bush, I never voted for him, and frankly I'd prefer Bill Clinton as President. But I am able to express my dislike in rational ways. I don't have to wallow in the muck using childish misquotes out of context or other immature mockery.

Furthermore, when you spew garbage like "this President is not held accountable" you just completely obliterate your credibility. The guy gets slaughtered daily in every form of media. He has certainly been held more accountable for his actions than Bill "Pardon Every Criminal That Donates to my Library" Clinton, and I say that one paragraph after saying I'd prefer Clinton as President.

Quote:

---

I must disagree with you however. I do back up my statements whenever I feel it's needed, or I can find a source. I'm very willing and able to stand on my own to defend a view or point, and don't believe citing a news source necessarily makes that view more valid.

---

It's not the view that is the problem. It's stating opinions as fact or stating "facts" without support. It makes discussion dissolve into nothingness because there's no point in talking if someone's made up their mind on something with no facts and is unwilling to even read or post facts.

The point of a discussion isn't just to spout an opinion and stand by it no matter what and simply repeat the same thing over and over. And it's definitely not injecting the same old opinion into ANY discussion over and over and over again. That's not intelligent discourse. That's bludgeoning people. Saying "The sky is purple" 100 times doesn't make it so. Saying "9/11 was solely the fault of the Bush administration" 1000 times doesn't make it the truth. Saying that "Bill Clinton murders people who gets in his way" 2000 times doesn't make it true.

Quote:

---

Thank you for your post Darion. I do appreciate it. Often it is not what people say, but the manner in which it is delievered that makes the difference.

---

Yes, being nice and making several polite requests has no effect whatsoever. I like how you tried to imply that I wrote you some rude letter when I distinctly remember trying to help you out in order to get a better reception on the forums.

You know, Kestra, I probably would never have posted in reply to you if I hadn't been up at 4 am. I would have just gone about ignoring your posts as usual, but just ONCE, it would be nice to have a place where people could NOT be posting the same damn thing that can be read at any extremists site. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about an issue without it always turning into:

Quote:

---

They were planning on doing this anyway.
911 made the Bush Admininstration's war on terror a much easier sell to the public.

When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.

---

It's not FACT that the Bush administration had any such plans. Since all the people who were involved in the actual hi-jacking of the plane are dead and like a gajillion people either deny or take credit for 9/11, there's no RIGHT way to tell the story. It's like trying to tell the "right" story behind how life was created. No one was there. No one really knows. You just theorize, research, and try to find evidence to support your theories. It's good to look at lots of different theories as to what might have happened or how something came to be.

Anyway, I'll freely admit that you're the unfortunate scapegoat to my utter frustration with political "discussions" nowadays. I apologize for the fact that I didn't state things in a more polite way like I usually try to do, and have, in fact, taken out my frustrations on you. You are HARDLY the source of it all.

It frustrates me terribly that every discussion turns into Bush-bashing/Bush-loving when the damn thread wasn't even about Bush. However, you have reminded me that as an administrator of the forums, I SHOULDN'T be discussing these topics, and I thank you for that. (I'm being totally serious. No sarcasm.) I do hope that you NEVER feel that your character is any way threatened by any disagreements or frustrations I have with the forums. This'll be my last post here.

Sorry for derailing it, guys.

I dont feel that I have anything constructive to add to what's just been said above.

So getting back on track. I would like to see an objective view of what lead up to the hijackings and terrorist attacks that happened on September 11th. It's a very serious moment in our history.

That being said, I am shocked at the new level of hypocrisy that the left (leaders and their zealots) are rising to over this documentary. I do not remember any outrage at all on the left when Michael Moore released the absolute garbage he portrayed as "accurate" "factual" and "true documentary".

Granted, if this new documentary falls to the level of a Michael Moore film I would be just as outraged. However, the left has no room to complain.

Quote:

---

It isn't baseless when it is true. You have a consistent history of parroting back moveon.org talking points. If the shoe fits...

---

You can't parrot back something from a website when you haven't read it there to begin with.

Quote:

---

It's not FACT that the Bush administration had any such plans. Since all the people who were involved in the actual hi-jacking of the plane are dead and like a gajillion people either deny or take credit for 9/11, there's no RIGHT way to tell the story.

---

It may not admittedly be fact, but it raises important questions.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/f...rke/index.html

Quote:

---

Some of your immature Bush-Bashing quotes (like the one you used to have in your signature) are a perfect example of this (and are yet another example of moveon.org tactics).

---

I always thought they were rather funny, however, to each their own. But once again, moveon.org was never my source.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, when you spew garbage like "this President is not held accountable" you just completely obliterate your credibility. The guy gets slaughtered daily in every form of media. He has certainly been held more accountable for his actions than Bill "Pardon Every Criminal That Donates to my Library" Clinton, and I say that one paragraph after saying I'd prefer Clinton as President.

---

Frankly, I think the media gives the president a free pass much to often. Sure, issues and topics get raised regarding the handling of the war but then they seem to vanish. In a twisted way, I'm fascinated by Bush's defense of certain things, like phone tapping, lack of WMD's, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I think the media gives the president a free pass much to often.

---

Come on now, Bush is CRUCIFIED in the media on a daily basis for all the things you specifically mentioned!

Quote:

---

Frankly, I think the media gives the president a free pass much to often. Sure, issues and topics get raised regarding the handling of the war but then they seem to vanish. In a twisted way, I'm fascinated by Bush's defense of certain things, like phone tapping, lack of WMD's, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib.

---

You should read Aristotle and Plato, it may actually help you understand how the world really works. Aristotle posits that only the heads of state may lie, and when they do they may do so effectively because of the large, diverse, number of peoples they have to lead.

Here, you're getting all upset over what appears to be the standard ultra-left viewpoint. Nothing you've said so far is a fact, has been proven, or anything like that. It is simply your opinion on the matter.

Understand, that there are probably just as many people who don't think CIA Prisons, Gitmo, or Abu Graib are big deals. Moreover, some of us don't care that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (I certainly don't).

You seem to be getting all caught up in a pretty common problem that infects the extremes of the political spectrum. You focus in on one set of issues and argue them to the exclusion of all others, to the point that you cant see that there might be very legitimate and valid counterpoints OR that there might be very important issues that are being ignored all together.

A few examples:

1- No WMD: What about the massive human rights violations? What about Saddam sponsoring terrorism? (And he did, see: Israel --- our ally)
2- Gitmo: Where should we place prisoners of war? Kentucky? Should we put them in min security? Should we release them back into the field?
3- The 9/11 documentary: Why was it ok for Michael Moore to completely fictionalize a very serious event but not ok for another group to possibly be wrong on a very narrow issue?

See my point?