The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 320

Thread: Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. #226
    WBBs motivational Speaker Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Between a girls ties!
    Posts
    4,593
    the brave soldiers over there, whom I have nothing but respect for, are they the rich elite? or are they the miniorites and the trash nobody cares for back home? yes? its sick that the man they have sworn to protect will let them die for a cause he couldnt even find evidence for.

    I think you know it and you like it, Moore is on your side.
    A big thanks to all my friends in the USA, I am deeply grateful for your hospitality and kindness.

  2. #227
    gonaherpasyphilaids
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    Posts
    121
    i watched the movie, didnt pay for it, my roomamte downloads movies left and right, and i found it pretty dam funny and entertaining. some people are way to trusting and assume the government is always looking out for them.

    conversations like these make me proud to be canadian. proud that my country isnt a powerhouse but more known for peace. our politic scandels are about who stole the 200,000$, not about should we kill half a nation to help set them free...

    and yes, i do like pot, i do like beer, i do play hockey, and i own more tuques than underwear so all the americans i just pizzed off , have at me


    ps. therse a documentry coming out about micheal moore. i belive its actaully called 'micheal moore hates america' . im serious, http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/ im sure all u micheal moore haters know about this site right? i mean, you wouldnt just hate him with out knowing the facts right....right?
    I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff, then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and go, "What was THAT?!" jack handy

  3. #228
    mind/body zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by bentkarnes
    conversations like these make me proud to be canadian. proud that my country isnt a powerhouse but more known for peace. our politic scandels are about who stole the 200,000$, not about should we kill half a nation to help set them free...

    Wow, I hope you don't represent most Canadians. Kill half a nation?

    Genius at work.
    Last edited by zen; 07-18-2004 at 02:42 PM.

  4. #229
    gonaherpasyphilaids
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by zen
    Wow, I hope you don't represent most Canadians. Kill half a nation?

    Genius at work.

    try explaining why you disagree with a comment, not making attempts to insult. we can argue about the topic or call each others mom fat, up to you.

    you can kill a nation with out killing the people. u can kill there customs, there government, there way of life, all of which make up a nation

    as far as me representing canadians, this should sum it up about the war part
    http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2009
    I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff, then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and go, "What was THAT?!" jack handy

  5. #230
    Simply Devious Rastaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    I never made any personal attacks on any person on here. Calling me out of touch with reality is a little too much. While my passion for this topic is strong, I am not going to be pulled into a "name calling" battle.
    Oh, and telling me once again to watch the news or pick up a newspaper is a little silly.
    Yeah, you're absolutely right. I was probably in a bad mood yesterday, and definitely was out of line with those comments. My apologies. The reason why I don't want to get drawn into the "why is the US in Iraq" debate is because it's already been done over and over and over on these forums. When you said that the US is in Iraq to save an oppressed people from a tyrannical dictator I couldn't help but find the comment extremely naive. No offense meant. Obviously you know the situation is more complicated then that, but I would say that "freeing an oppressed people" was fairly far down on the US Adminstration's reasons for invading Iraq.


    I will admit that an oppressed people WERE freed from a tyrannical dictator as a result of the invasion. Hussein was a f-cker and I was overjoyed to see his fall from power. That is definitely one big positive that came from the US involvement. However, I do not believe for one second that it was their primary reason for invading. The US acted purely in it's own self interest. It was their 'war on terror', misinformation, the Bush family's history with Iraq, and the country's oil that were the driving factors behind this war.

    Maybe now you know where I'm coming from.
    "The only sin which we never forgive in each other is difference of opinion."
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson


    Word.

  6. #231
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    :withstupi

  7. #232
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    It's all good Rasta - I love a spirited debate. I think we beat this horse enough.

    Rock - you are pretty good - you were baiting me and I started to fall for it. While I appreciate your concern for my social conscience, I think I will just continue to not have Moore on my side. You are more than welcome to have him on your team since I am sure you know how I feel on the matter. I should really thank you though, your frustrating comments allowed me to add an extra 30 pounds on my final set of military presses last night. Your title of WBB motivational speaker is accurate!
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  8. #233
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock
    the brave soldiers over there, whom I have nothing but respect for, are they the rich elite? or are they the miniorites and the trash nobody cares for back home? yes?
    actually the 'rich elite' have soldiers as well. it's too easy to make it seem like everyone is just doing it for the money, but most are doing it because they love their country. in moore's movie he tries to make it seem like none of those politicians would enlist their kids, even though those very people he was trying to make seem like they were too good for the war have a higher chance of having someone in their household in the service than the average american household. sure when i saw the movie i thought it was messed up how no one he showed could make it seem like they (or anyone in their family) had any involvement in the physical aspects of fighting for our country, but then, as most others here, i found out he was dead wrong and again, misleading.

  9. #234
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    and of course there's gonna be WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more poor people in the army, and far less of the 'social elite', because the fact of the matter is that there's far more poor people in our country than rich

  10. #235
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    and of course the rich as well as poor have the same choice: join or don't join. I know plenty of poor people who choose not to join the military and had some guys in my platoon who came from filthy rich families.

    wait - damnit! - I am sucked in again! I have to unsubscribe to this thread - I am becoming obsessed!
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  11. #236
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    even though those very people he was trying to make seem like they were too good for the war have a higher chance of having someone in their household in the service than the average american household

    ...and you have proof of this?

  12. #237
    Party of "No." Tryska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    23,193
    maybe he means those people have relatives at West Point or the Citadel or soemthing.....
    A little learning is a dangerous thing...

    Live Dangerously! Learn a Little!


    Dude, did Doogie Howser just steal my fucking car?

  13. #238
    mind/body zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastaman
    I will admit that an oppressed people WERE freed from a tyrannical dictator as a result of the invasion. Hussein was a f-cker and I was overjoyed to see his fall from power. That is definitely one big positive that came from the US involvement. However, I do not believe for one second that it was their primary reason for invading. The US acted purely in it's own self interest. It was their 'war on terror', misinformation, the Bush family's history with Iraq, and the country's oil that were the driving factors behind this war.
    Yay Rasta!

    We are on the same page (or atleast same chapter). I also felt that liberating Iraqi people was not at the top of the list for reasons the U.S. went. Weapons of Mass destruction was at the top of the publically broadcast list, and while I think they bought into the intelligence that WOMDs were soon to come from Iraq, I think it was also probably surmised that it wasn't but in all reality going to come within a period of months.
    The main reason was because all intelligence led them to believe that Iraq was the next logical step in the war on terror, WOMDs would come out of Iraq within a period of years, and we already had our troops and battle groups positioned in Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean.

    That is why I supported the war somewhat reluctantly. It was logical in the War on Terror. I did support Afghanistan 100%.

    But I will go you one (evil conservative) step further, Rasta. One step I bet you would never take. I do think the U.S. should have seized control of Iraq's oil until we returned sovereignty to that country. I think we should have turned on all the spickets and fixed all the pipelines and filled up all the tankers headed for the U.S.
    *sigh* but noooo, we are the good guys.

  14. #239
    I want some crack! TBone4Eva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Greenbelt, MD
    Posts
    986
    ^^Does anybody know where the money that is being made from selling Iraqi oil is actually going?
    The half-million citizens of the District of Columbia, like citizens of the fifty states, bear all of the obligations of American citizenship: they are required to obey the laws passed by Congress; they pay federal taxes; they serve in the military; and they fight and die in our wars. Yet they lack the most basic right that should accompany American citizenship—the right to full voting representation in Congress. This makes the United States the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies citizens of its capital representation in the national legislature. In fact, no fewer than 183 nations provide their citizens the type of representation citizens of Washington, DC are denied.

  15. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Slim Schaedle
    even though those very people he was trying to make seem like they were too good for the war have a higher chance of having someone in their household in the service than the average american household

    ...and you have proof of this?

    Congressional Children in War

    Deceits 53-56



    Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”



    Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.



    How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.



    Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?



    The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

    ….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
    According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

    What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

    Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.

    Fahrenheit Fact.



    George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

    Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”

    Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

    Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

    Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.



    This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

    Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

    Kennedy: How would I help you?

    Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

    Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

    This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.



    So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.



    Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.



    Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.



    Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.



    We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.



    In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.



    Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

    Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.



    Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.



    (Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)



    [Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.]

  16. #241
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    sorry so long

  17. #242
    Party of "No." Tryska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    23,193
    just one thing (i must admit i stopped reading half-way through) being an enlisted man is a lot different from being an officer. how many actually have sons who are real live grunts?

    i guess the answer to that is 1.
    A little learning is a dangerous thing...

    Live Dangerously! Learn a Little!


    Dude, did Doogie Howser just steal my fucking car?

  18. #243
    MulletII - AKA Ninja Boner Gyno Rhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    FFFA Headquarters
    Posts
    11,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Tryska
    just one thing (i must admit i stopped reading half-way through) being an enlisted man is a lot different from being an officer. how many actually have sons who are real live grunts?

    i guess the answer to that is 1.
    Maybe so. But officers are dying over there as well.
    Founding Member and CEO of the FFFA

    "All that matters is beauty on the inside! Outside beauty doesn't matter!"
    ~This is something ugly people say to feel better about themselves...

    "Strength and size don't matter! It's not fair to judge training knowledge based on strength and size!"
    ~This is something wussy people say to feel better about themselves...

    Pearls of Wisdom...


    Resident Ninja Demon (with a pet Radioactive Sloth) and SchlonkeyMaster of WBB!

    Rock is my 'Big Viking Brother', and not in a homo-esque way.

    And no COLON jokes, bastards!

  19. #244
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    I agree with rhino - rank doesnt matter - that's shouldn't be a factor when relating to service. They can die just as easily as an enlisted man (in fact, they are more of a target!)
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  20. #245
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Whatever. It's all irrelevant when you consider the simple fact that we have 900 dead servicemen and women, and it hasn't made us more secure. Osama is still not captured. Islamists the world over are having a recruiting bonanza, and and there is a chance that one of the few secular states in the Middle East will collapse into a Iran-style theocracy.

    Nit pick all you want about Moore's assertions, but for anyone to claim they rise to even a mere fraction of the significance of Bush's incompetent and misguided war is clear indication that they have been brainwashed.
    Last edited by MixmasterNash; 07-19-2004 at 03:29 PM.

  21. #246
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Do you seriously think that Iraq was better as a "secular state"? Now that sounds like a really brainwashed statement!

    I said I wouldnt get pulled back into this thread, but I am a glutton for punishment!

    Let's take a little stroll through history, shall we?

    From the Foreignaffairs.org website:

    In thinking about the reconstruction of Iraq, many have looked for insight to the American experiences in rebuilding Germany and Japan after World War II. Optimists point to similarities across the cases and argue that they bode well for the Bush administration's efforts today. Pessimists point to differences and draw the opposite conclusion. In truth, some aspects of the occupations look familiar and some do not. As the saying goes, history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. What is most striking about the comparison is that in all three cases, several months into the postwar era the future of the country was still hanging in the balance.

    Try this one:

    statistically you have a better chance of being shot to death in Washington, D.C., than you do in Baghdad. So, the next time your local daily or nightly TV news trumpets the number of US battle casualties in Iraq, you should probably give some thought to wearing a bulletproof vest if you plan to visit the Lincoln Memorial.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  22. #247
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    even though those very people he was trying to make seem like they were too good for the war have a higher chance of having someone in their household in the service than the average american household

    Your comment refers to service personel in general, meaning the entire armed forces.

    Your post that examines Moore's deceits explains the ratio pertaining to service personel in Iraq.

    This is not the same.
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 07-19-2004 at 03:49 PM.

  23. #248
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    Do you seriously think that Iraq was better as a "secular state"? Now that sounds like a really brainwashed statement!
    We had to fight Germany and Japan. Iraq was completely optional. When we did fight Germany and Japan, it was total war, it was not half-assed like Iraq.

    It is indeed possible, in fact it now seems likely, that Iraq was ineed better FOR THE U.S. as a secular state than the current quagmire that it is now. Obviously, the people of Iraq are better off, even with the current violence, than they were under Saddam. But last I checked, there's nothing in our Constitution about protecting the people of Iraq.

    If we simply wanted to save lives and do good the world over, there were and are many places where we could do much greater things, such as East Africa, were a few thousand troops could save millions.

    Perhaps most importantly, there were and are greater threats to the U.S. than Iraq. The Bushies were obviously fixed on Iraq even before they were elected. Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda and loose nukes in the USSR were and are significantly greater threats than Iraq, which was strategically neutralized by sanctions and inspections. The notion that they could pass material or give support to terrorists is laughable compared to the amount of support actually given to terrorists by Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Iraq has not just been costly in terms of American lives and money, but it has taken resources away from all of these other more important operations.

    Saddam Hussein was highly secular, by necessity, in order to maintain power over Iraq, where the only other powerful factions were religious (with the exception of ethnicly different Kurds). He was strategic counterweight to Iran, and the U.S. supported him for years. Our government is partially responsible for the use of WMD against Iranians. Good or bad, we are indeed closely tied to Saddam, and this may make Saddam's trial very embarrassing for us.

  24. #249
    mind/body zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    386
    "quagmire"

    who's brainwashed?

  25. #250
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by zen
    "quagmire"

    who's brainwashed?
    900 war dead. You tell me.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •