Intimidation and speech: Who is trying to silence whom?

Harper, ever been to the moon?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
I love it when so many on here ignore the question and instead attack a source or the poster of the question. I think it is a valid question to discuss. So many on here posted things claiming that those who tried to get theaters to not show F9/11 were somehow trying to censure material. But now when the shoe is on the other foot, nobody seems to want to post a thread complaining about the Kerry team wanting to keep this book off the shelves. Just seems a bit funny to me.

What was the question? It's hard to talk about the issues he's raising because it's hard to understand who's doing what. I have trouble engaging in dialogue about over-generalized accusations of hypocrisy.

In other words, invalid strawman arguments.

0 Replies

Notice how McG answers a question with a question when he's looking for extra time?

0 Replies

Is that what you think the Provocateur is doing?

Is this the "Can We Talk?" thread?

0 Replies

might as well be

0 Replies

panzade, how much time do i need to say no? Harper and others seem to think that by not seeing a movie, one is somehow unable to criticise it. I asked what I did to demonstrate the point that one does not need to experience something to speak of it.

Or we're you purposefully being obtuse?

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
I love it when so many on here ignore the question and instead attack a source or the poster of the question. I think it is a valid question to discuss. So many on here posted things claiming that those who tried to get theaters to not show F9/11 were somehow trying to censure material. But now when the shoe is on the other foot, nobody seems to want to post a thread complaining about the Kerry team wanting to keep this book off the shelves. Just seems a bit funny to me.

What was the question? It's hard to talk about the issues he's raising because it's hard to understand who's doing what. I have trouble engaging in dialogue about over-generalized accusations of hypocrisy.

In other words, invalid strawman arguments.

So Harper, tell us what your opinion is rather than make comments designed to denigrate what someone else writes. Was it ok for republican organizations to try to get theaters not to show F9/11? Is it ok for Kerry to try to pressure bookstores not to sell the book "Unfit to Command"?

That is the point of the article which started this thread. Personally, I think both groups have every right to put pressure on anyone they wish to convince someone not to do something. But it is hypocritical of anyone, repub or dem, to say one was ok but the other is not. There is no strawman argument here. No argument at all, except with those who rather than address the point of the article decide to attack the source in order to invalidate the question the article raised.

0 Replies

I know I'm a little late, but I just had to comment on this:

panzade wrote:

If self-righteousness in politics was a laxative we'd be breathing through straws.

Thanks, panzade, that gave me the best chuckle of the week so far.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

panzade, how much time do i need to say no? Harper and others seem to think that by not seeing a movie, one is somehow unable to criticise it. I asked what I did to demonstrate the point that one does not need to experience something to speak of it.

Or we're you purposefully being obtuse?

I think that when you are speaking of a movie, yes, you have to see it to criticise it. How can you speak specifically about what is wrong or right with the movie, or compare the movie to political adds if you haven't seen it?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Harper, ever been to the moon?

No but I hear most of your buddies have been to Uranus. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Damn, Harper! You stole that from my post this morning.

0 Replies

If it is true that Unfit for Command is indeed libelous then there is a precedent for having the book removed. There is no precedent I know of that justifies banning a documentary film because one disagrees with the creator's point of view. That said, if it were up to me, I would just let the book fall on its own lack of merit.

0 Replies

Yeah Mcg, I was being deliberately obtuse...that's my way of stallin for time.

0 Replies

It is not possible to validly criticize a movie without seeing it. Anyone who argues otherwise loses all credibilty with me.

0 Replies

That's why I can't criticize it.

0 Replies

That's why I can.

0 Replies

So what's your criticism of F9/11?

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

If it is true that Unfit for Command is indeed libelous then there is a precedent for having the book removed. There is no precedent I know of that justifies banning a documentary film because one disagrees with the creator's point of view. That said, if it were up to me, I would just let the book fall on its own lack of merit.

Unbelievable!!!! We agree on something. Smile

If it is libelous, then of course the sale of said book can be stopped. But to do so, Kerry would have to (I believe) sue for libel, which he should do if he can prove the libel. (Now I know there may be political reasons not to do so)

Personally, if the book is full of bogus charges, I hope he does sue them at some point and wins. But I won't hold my breath because I think there is enough truth behind some of what they claim to make Kerry nervous. But of course, I cannot criticize the book since I have not read it. lol

0 Replies

LOL!

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

So what's your criticism of F9/11?

I thought it was pretty funny. I took it to be a factually accurate but very slanted view of the present administration and its connections. I thought it was worth the money to see it and I would recommend it to others who won't get their feelings hurt by watching Bush brutalize the 'fool me once' saying.

0 Replies

Intimidation and speech: Who is trying to silence whom?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know