I find that there are a lot of positive statements being made on the web about the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie and Michael Moore as well as negative bashing. I find the following pretty much damns everyone though does recognize that the damnable lies of this administration are far in excess of the misinformation and possible stretching of some points that Moore makes.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106595

There is another report some where that brings PNAC as well as Israel into the equation which Moore seemed to miss, perhaps as a ploy to make his statement more acceptable. If I run across it again, perhaps I'll post the link here. As it is, he brought a lot of facts out that many, myself included, did not know. Did you ever see coverage or hear of the egg pelting of Bush's limosine at the inauguration parade and the near riot? First president to not do the traditional walk. I saw no coverage of this on the common media.

I first read about it here on sciforums, a year or more more ago I'd say. I missed it in the news too, and I'm a news junkie. Hmm.

Michael Moore, is just as afraid of PNAC as you should be. The amount of power they hold is a bit frightening, as well as the number of members in very high places. The law protects freedom of speech, but there are things that go bump in the night that you simply don't mess with. Things like PNAC, and if you have a doubt in your mind about that, I urge you to read the documents provided on www.newamericancentury.org so you can be clear about their intentions.

After it became rather public, PNAC changed their online text to remove the reference to needing a Pearl Harbor type incident to realize their plans. Here is the original, http://www.raytal.com/gate.html

First president to not do the traditional walk. I saw no coverage of this on the common media.

I remember reading about it at the time of the inaugural.

PNAC doesn't look any different from the other right-wing and left-wing groups out there. SSDD.

There is a wee bit of difference, many of the PNAC members are now members of the current misadministration. Here's a list directly from the PNAC site

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

As opposed to guys like John Podesta, who was the Chief of Staff of the previous administration, who throws so many bombshells at the current administration with his new PAC that you gotta wonder if the Secret Service should just assign all of the President's detail to follow Podesta around instead.

Edit: Wups, forgot to make a point. That being "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

I see that is an often used platform of yours Pangloss, that some supposed opposite leaning faction of the population is just as complicit in craziness or corruption as another so seeking understanding of such is not worth pursuing. You only named one for the previous administration and it is too easy to get lost in the jabberwocky to try to figure out what you mean by "PAC" now. I get the idea that you have a pretty wishy-washy perspective of existence whereby you have a tough time seeing any reason to take a little care and attention to what you say so that maybe you could avoid making so many discombobulations. I suspect this laissez-faire attitude extends to what you choose to listen to, the sources you use to formulate your opinions.

Consider the possiblity that some are subjected to experiences from which they consider the universe as relatively pointless. These people can be gullible to accepting common propaganda, unable to find sufficient motivation to determine the trustworthiness of what they see or share. Look up the word, anomie. I think it is one manifestation of our common enemy. I wonder if you could ever entertain the idea that we are all on the same side.

I stopped reading after "wishy-washy". You have a very obvious need to marginlize other people's opinions when they differ from your own, and I'm just not interested.

So I guess you see no reason to make any effort to explain what you meant.

QED.

:cool:

Nope, I think I was pretty clear.

:)

Ah, so I went and did a search on John Podesta and find he is now chief executive of CAP, Center for American Progress, not PAC as you stated, Pangloss. At first I thought Project for an American Century which does not make sense then Political Action Commitee which might have been what you meant. You were mistaken in the data you presented and unable to correct it out of what appears to be hubris.

Does CAP make a justification for facilitating a major terrorist action on US soil as PNAC did about one year before 9/11? I see they have much more information and probably many more members than PNAC. Their policy statements are by various authors and in great depth and varied compared to PNAC where one could argue that their presentation is quite a simplified view of the world.

Me thinks this gaffe of yours and inability to correct it are signs that you too are into simplifying your world view, to the point of finding no compulsion to have any general or technical validity to your over simplifications. Be that way

or not.

Pardon the typo. My point was that posting extremist "news" from extremist web sites with clear agendas does not a revelation make. You guys are all over this board with this stuff (and the right-wingers as well, although the left-wingers are clearly dominant) and it's not debate, it's just a very one-sided game of declare-and-deride. Purely divisive, completely uninformative, and utterly worthless from a debate perspective.

And, to make matters worse, when anyone casts any doubt on the subject, you jump in to deride their opinion, their motivation, and their character.

Whatever. I didn't come here to play games. But if that's what you want, fine, I'll leave you to it. Have a ball.

Pangloss,

What Mr. Chips might be referring you to is a "Middle Ground" fallacy were your taking the middle ground by claiming that if one side has insane or evil polices the other must as well. Though it may seem logical as it up holds neutrality it is not backed with evidence.

I understand. First off, I'm not neutral, I'm independent. There is a difference. It's just not a difference that Mr. Chips understands or appreciates. He finds it necessary to deride it with personal attacks. So be it.

Second, yes, I believe that extremism is the same, whether it's right, left, up, down, back, foward, whatever. Doesn't matter.

HOWEVER, I'm not saying that just because an idea comes from an extreme direction makes it wrong or evil. On the contrary -- *I'm* able to give arguments credence in *spite* of the direction they come from -- something no ideologue can ever do. It an idea is a good idea, it's valid no matter who says it.

It never ceases to amaze me the way people who scream about how other people don't have "open minds" are often actually the most close-minded people in the world.

Anyway, I might cast doubt on a story because of where it's posted, but if you back it up I'm right there. But you REALLY have to back it up, with INDEPENDENT information. Not more spurious, vague, presumptive, ideological reasoning. It has to be valid. Period.

And don't insult me when I reserve judgement. That's not only rude, but pointless as well.

Pangloss,

I'm not insulting you (at least not trying to) I was only interpreting what Mr. Chips was saying. If you wish to find the true independent view point on this, then try backing your claims with said sources.

I didn't mean you.

I find that you have some strong preconceptions, Pangloss. Appears that you find a need to trivialize any criticisms of those notions to the extent of labeling such as insults. You can take it personally if you wish but it does show that when it comes down to it, you would rather cry "foul" than attempt any real debate.

Mr. Chips you seem to think you're on the high road or something. If you'd review the thread you might notice your conversation with Pangloss started and had maintained little more than personal criticism and lame psychological analysis.

Do you think these personal criticisms will advance your side of the debate?

Wes, get a grip. The man brought data here that did not apply and he did so in a slip shod devil may care way. Now if you can't see that so be it. Get off of the character assasination trip. Tell me my observations and speculation which I presented as nothing but was persoanl criticism and lame analysis. Me thinks, Wes, it doesn't matter what you say as long as you attack someone. Attack my points with some cogent analysis rather than just this blanket condemnation, wiseguy.

I've got a grip. Telling me to get one is just condescension.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm telling you how your comments might appear to someone who isn't you.

You started by concluding: "I suspect this laissez-faire attitude extends to what you choose to listen to, the sources you use to formulate your opinions."

because:

"I get the idea that you have a pretty wishy-washy perspective of existence whereby you have a tough time seeing any reason to take a little care and attention to what you say so that maybe you could avoid making so many discombobulations."

Basically, he says "well, I don't see how PNAC is much different than the other PACs out there" and you analyze his character and mistakes based on that conclusion. Without those comments, you might have allowed room for an interesting discussion. With them, you just alienate. You continue to do so after a reasonable questioning of the difference:

"Me thinks this gaffe of yours and inability to correct it are signs that you too are into simplifying your world view, to the point of finding no compulsion to have any general or technical validity to your over simplifications. Be that way"

Again I thought you might have had a very nice discussion if you hadn't been compelled to condescend. So quit being a prick so I can enjoy reading your conversations, please. I do think it would have been a much more interesting discussion if you hadn't decided to look down your nose at him, don't you?

Oh and I'm not trying to "assasinate your character". I think you've indulged in exactly what I said and I think the above is valid evidence thereof. Actually I thought some of your comments were pretty well-informed and interesting, but your condescension completely ruined the conversation you had going. I only butted in in an attempt to snap you out of your funk, since it seems to me you're obviously capable of cogent analysis... but were fucking it up with your personal criticisms and lame psychological analysis.

Thanks.

I don't want to turn this into rip-into-Chips day, but suffice it to say that I think if he just left out the personal attacks it'd be fine.

I got what he and WCF said. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade -- if they get something out of posting extremist editorials for each other and just want to be left alone in their extremism, that's fine. If I don't have anything to substantive to contribute, I'll leave it alone. Message received.

I'm done with this and I'm moving on.

Hey, Wes, those statements of mine were each carefully contstructed to delineate that these are my OPINIONS based on my observations. You didn't finish the last sentence either which made it noncommital.

Now you bring in some flame words.

Can Pangloss bring in more information to support his contentions than one instance that he badly presented and which was hardly comparable? Can you Wes? Well that is what you should be doing rather than jump on this incrimination flame war approach.

Let me say this, I have the opinion from what you have stated here and from other threads on this forum that you too, as Pangloss, simplify, simplify, simplify to the point of riduculousness, to the point of flaming, to the point of taking offense at criticism.

Is the best way to counter the arguments a person brings to respond with an attack on their character rather than rehashing and bringing more data to light to support your claims? Well it might be if you have no recourse to the dictates of sound communication.

I'm not going to call you a "prick," I'll leave that to the nincompoops, the dysfunctional who have very little recourse to information handling from what they choose to learn to what they choose to share. Can you address criticism with more data rather than dismiss it as insult? If your position is untenable, does that make it easier to take offense than admit error?

You, Wes, have levelled definite flaming insult at me. Your example of poor information handling in this instance at least, gives little credibility to the rest of your out of context and unfair recap of what has gone on here.

Wes, your foul mouth denotes a foul way of thinking.

It is your opinion that the data shared here was from "extremist editorials," Pangloss, though granted the PNAC site does fit that bill. Rather than address the information you made a general categorical denial of the validity of any of the data. And then you tried to bring up some counter data to support this general discounting of any so-called "extremist editorial" by surreptitiously, obfuscating means; no link and a typo that you could not admit when first pointed out.

Yes it would be a good idea to leave discussions amongst people who analyze if all you can do is lump categorize. Did you get that message?

Wes, your foul mouth denotes a foul way of thinking.

LOL. Yet you fail to demonstrate it. My point is valid. Demonstrate that it isn't or retract your denial.

If you don't like my choice of words, that's your problem. I was trying to help you understand how you sabotaged what seemed to me to be a potentially constructive conversation.

"flame words"?

What is there a list somewhere? You were being a prick. That doesn't mean you are always a prick, that means you were apparently unaware of your behavior for a bit. It happens to everyone I've ever met. I'm a prick sometimes, you're a prick sometimes. This time I noticed you did it so you got the finger pointed at you. I don't know if you disagree or if you're just so uptight that you can't stop to consider for a second that you might have handled the situation better.

Regardless, I don't really care. I just thought I'd try to help. I can see you don't want it. As you wish.