Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Was Bush a Deserter? (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=6652)

Django 02-17-04 03:01 PM
Was Bush a Deserter?
 
Michael Moore called Bush a deserter because he was AWOL during his stint at the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

This quote is taken from www.michaelmoore.com:

On January 22, 2004, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said the following:

"Mr. Moore said that President Bush [was] a 'deserter.' Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts."

But now the facts have come out. And more facts keep coming out every day. The definition of "desertion" is being AWOL for more than 30 days. AWOL is less than 30 days. Webster's dictionary defines "deserter" as:

"One who forsakes a duty, a cause or a party, a friend, or any one to whom he owes service; especially, a soldier or a seaman who abandons the service without leave; one guilty of desertion."

How long will it take for Peter Jennings to apologize to Mike and to the country?

Reckless? Not supported by the facts? That description, it seems, only belongs to Peter Jennings.
Moore's website also quotes the following editorial by Richard Cohen from the Washington Post:

From Guardsman...
By Richard Cohen
Washington Post

Tuesday 10 February 2004

During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a "deserter." Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't.

At least I don't think so. Nothing about Bush during that period -- not his drinking, not his partying -- suggests that he was a consistently conscientious member of the Texas or Alabama Air National Guard. As it happens, there are no records to show that Bush reported for duty during the summer and fall of 1972. Nonetheless, Bush insists he was where he was supposed to be -- "Otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged," Bush told Tim Russert. Please, sir, don't make me laugh.

It is sort of amazing that every four or eight years, Vietnam -- that long-ago war -- rears up from seemingly nowhere and comes to figure in the national political debate. In 1988 Dan Quayle had to answer for his National Guard service. In 1992 Bill Clinton had to grapple with the question of how he avoided the Vietnam-era draft. Now George Bush, who faced this question the last time out, has to face it again. The reason is that this time he is likely to compete against a genuine war hero. John Kerry did not duck the war.

But George Bush did. He did so by joining the National Guard. Bush now wants to drape the Vietnam-era Guard with the bloodied flag of today's Iraq-serving Guard -- "I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard," Bush warned during his interview with Russert -- but the fact remained that back then the Guard was where you went if you did not want to fight. That was the case with me. I opposed the war in Vietnam and had no desire to fight it. Bush, on the other hand, says he supported the war -- as long, it seems, as someone else fought it.

It hardly matters what Bush did or did not do back in 1972. He is not the man now he was then -- that by his own admission. In the same way, it did not matter that Clinton ducked the draft, because, really, just about everyone I knew at the time was doing something similar. All that really matters is how one accounts for what one did. Do you tell the truth (which Clinton did not)? Or do you do what I think Bush has been doing, which is making his National Guard service into something it was not? In his case, it was a rich kid's way around the draft.

In my case, it was something similar -- although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed.

In the end, I wound up in the Army Reserve. I was assigned to units for which I had no training -- tank repairman, for instance. In some units, we sat around with nothing to do and in one we took turns delivering antiwar lectures. The National Guard and the Reserves were something of a joke. Everyone knew it. Books have been written about it. Maybe things changed dramatically by 1972, two years after I got my discharge, but I kind of doubt it.

I have no shame about my service, but I know it for what it was -- hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade. When Bush attempts to drape the flag of today's Guard over the one he was in so long ago, when he warns his critics to remember that "there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq," then he is doing now what he was doing then: hiding behind the ones who were really doing the fighting. It's about time he grew up.
So what do you think? Was Bush a Vietnam-era deserter or not? (Using Michael Moore's terminology...)

7thson 02-17-04 03:18 PM
That is so sad, no I dont think Bush is a deserter. Why is it okay to dig up things about politicians you seem to despise versus those you do not.

Piddzilla 02-17-04 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by 7thson
That is so sad, no I dont think Bush is a deserter. Why is it okay to dig up things about politicians you seem to despise versus those you do not.
I agree. When it comes to politics I have always felt that the politics should come first, not private life or events way back in the past. On the other hand, it become a bit problematic when a country's Commander-in-chief, and a wartime Commander-in-chief as well, have a shady background in the military.

Django 02-17-04 03:44 PM
The difference being, of course, that Bush has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers (as well as Iraqi civilians) by (mis)leading the country into a deceptive war. I think Bush's record as a "deserter" (to use Moore's terminology) is extremely relevant, and not just because Clinton and Dean were accused of dodging the draft... I think it is important to establish the facts... this is not about rumor-mongering or hearsay to the end of character-assassination. It is about the facts... taken in context, of course.

Caitlyn 02-19-04 12:44 AM
Being an Army brat, this whole thing is pretty laughable to me because the military is famous for misplacing records… and if you’ll notice, Richard Cohen even admitted to that in his article…

For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed.
If Cohen got paid for missed drills then isn’t it just as likely Bush could have been at drill? And it is my understanding that the National Guard only drills one week-end out of a month and two weeks out of a year… so… if that was the case when Bush was in, wouldn’t some of the news reports be a bit misleading the way they are worded?

Django 02-19-04 02:10 PM
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
Being an Army brat, this whole thing is pretty laughable to me because the military is famous for misplacing records… and if you’ll notice, Richard Cohen even admitted to that in his article…

If Cohen got paid for missed drills then isn’t it just as likely Bush could have been at drill? And it is my understanding that the National Guard only drills one week-end out of a month and two weeks out of a year… so… if that was the case when Bush was in, wouldn’t some of the news reports be a bit misleading the way they are worded?
That's a plausible explanation, but, based upon what I know of Bush so far, I think Cohen's explanation is far more likely.

Sedai 02-19-04 02:45 PM
Originally Posted by Django
The difference being, of course, that Bush has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers (as well as Iraqi civilians) by (mis)leading the country into a deceptive war. I think Bush's record as a "deserter" (to use Moore's terminology) is extremely relevant, and not just because Clinton and Dean were accused of dodging the draft... I think it is important to establish the facts... this is not about rumor-mongering or hearsay to the end of character-assassination. It is about the facts... taken in context, of course.
I guess these would be good points if M Moore was a reliable source, which he has proven himself to clearly not be by lying in his film. I used to have respect for the man, but not anymore. To bad, as he is really intelligent, and could have been a good public voice.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Yoda 02-19-04 03:10 PM
Even if we were to assume Bush's guilt in this matter, the terminology is misleading. "Deserter" is the kind of thing you would say about a man who ran from enemy fire on the battlefield, leaving his fellow soldiers to die. It's not a reasonable term to describe someone failing to show up for a couple weekend drills.

That said, there's no way to prove Bush was there without video cameras, but we have records indicating that he was paid as if he was, and we have several officers who remember him there. That's not proof, but it's enough evidence that, when viewed in conjunction with the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty, we must therefore render Bush innocent of these charges.

Whether you believe him personally or not is going to depend on what you thought of him beforehand, more often than not.

Sedai 02-19-04 03:18 PM
and Mr. Clinton btw.....
 
BTW

Bill was a draft dodger, so lets keep that in mind shall we?

Regardless, I was a Bill fan :yup:

7thson 02-19-04 09:49 PM
To impose "Deserter" status on Bush is quite frankly obsurd. Now before I continue I want the following to be known :
1. I did vote for Bush but I am not a Republican
2. I also am not a Democrat, but I did support and voted for Clinton and agree with most of his political asperations.
3. I consider myself an Independent and believe it or not I think both parties have solid convictions, but they are so often misguided.

Okay now to my point:
Bush in no way shape or form was a deserter, as Yoda pointed out a "deserter" would be one who abandoned his fellow soilder or went AWOL from a unit that was in Combat. Was Bush AWOL at a time? Maybe and maybe not, but it really does not matter. AWOL is not as serious as it seems unless it is done while you are part of a combat unit which he clearly was not. I have been a member of both the active Army and the National Guard. Being AWOL is more common than most people think. I know some good people who have been AWOL and I would like to add that they are some of the most patriotic people I know. "AWOL" does not mean "Deserter", give it a rest; and for the sake of argument lets say Bush was AWOL at a time...who cares? It made no difference to the well being of this country. It is his demons that he has to deal with, not ours. Just as Clintons demons of adultery are his to bear. Judge Bush on his current actions, as controversial as they may be, but do not fog the present situation in this country with the past of a young man who may have made mistakes. Lord knows I have made some.

jamesglewisf 02-19-04 11:47 PM
I wouldn't rely on anything Michael Moore says about a Republican. He's about as liberal as you can get.

Caitlyn 02-20-04 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by Django
That's a plausible explanation, but, based upon what I know of Bush so far, I think Cohen's explanation is far more likely.

What Cohen’s explanation fails to mention is the fact that Bush joined the National Guard in May 1968... went through 6 weeks of basic training at Lackland Air force Base… 53 weeks of flight training at Moody Air Force Base… 21 weeks of fighter inceptor training at Ellington Air Force Base… and that when his training was complete, he had served 2 years active duty and was certified to fly F-102 fighter planes… The Air Force does not hand out certificates to fly those planes lightly… and in order to maintain their certification, the pilots must put in the required amount of flight time… which adds up to much more then just one drill week-end a month… The records verify Bush did exactly that… flying at least once a week and sometimes twice a week from May 1970 until May of 1972... adding two more years of service for a total of four already served before his service is questioned for the months of May, June, July, August, and September of 1972...

From what I understand, during the months in question, Bush was temporarily moving to Alabama and requested he be allowed to fulfill his obligations at a base there… his request was approved and he was assigned to Dannerlly Air National Guard Base… however, Dannerlly did not house enough planes for their own pilots to fly, much less a pilot assigned to temporary duty… and since Bush was not flying at this time, his obligation to the Guard would have been reduced to the normal 2 days per month… so basically, this whole stink is over 10 days…

If you dig a little deeper in the records, Guardsmen back then were awarded points based on the days they reported for service and Bush was awarded 56 points for 1972… 6 points above the requirement. I asked some Guardsmen I know about this and they said it was not unusual for members to either pre-drill if they knew they might miss a drill or to make-up a drill date at a later time… which very well could be what Bush did or the records could have been misplaced since he was only assigned to temporary duty… either way, I think the whole thing is ridiculous given his prior National Guard attendance record…

And as for Richard Cohen… I showed his article to my Dad and he said that Cohen, himself, may have been a joke… but that he was out of line saying the entire National Guard was a joke. He said he served with numerous Guardsmen in Viet Nam… and that if anyone cared to check, thousands of the Guardsmen who were state side during the time Cohen was “serving” were wearing combat patches on their shoulders for active duty already served…

Django 02-20-04 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Sedai
I guess these would be good points if M Moore was a reliable source, which he has proven himself to clearly not be by lying in his film. I used to have respect for the man, but not anymore. To bad, as he is really intelligent, and could have been a good public voice.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
As it happens, Michael Moore did not lie in his films. The allegation that he lied is simply more Republican character assassination. If Moore's film was inaccurate to the slightest degree, you can bet that the NRA would have filed a massive lawsuit against him for misrepresentation. As it happens, Moore's film Bowling for Columbine was carefully researched and underwent rigorous scrutinization from the point of view of accuracy prior to its release. You need to check out Moore's own defense of the objections made against his film.

Django 02-20-04 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda
Even if we were to assume Bush's guilt in this matter, the terminology is misleading. "Deserter" is the kind of thing you would say about a man who ran from enemy fire on the battlefield, leaving his fellow soldiers to die. It's not a reasonable term to describe someone failing to show up for a couple weekend drills.

That said, there's no way to prove Bush was there without video cameras, but we have records indicating that he was paid as if he was, and we have several officers who remember him there. That's not proof, but it's enough evidence that, when viewed in conjunction with the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty, we must therefore render Bush innocent of these charges.

Whether you believe him personally or not is going to depend on what you thought of him beforehand, more often than not.
The term "deserter" applies to anyone who is AWOL for more than 30 days. As such, considering that Bush was AWOL for months on end, Bush was, technically, a "deserter". Maybe he did not run from enemy fire on the battlefield... the reason being that he never was on the battlefield in the first place! Being the spoilt rich kid that he obviously was (and the facts clearly demonstrate this), he was able to squirm his way out of active military duty and, instead, take a short cut out of a tough situation.

Django 02-20-04 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by Sedai
BTW

Bill was a draft dodger, so lets keep that in mind shall we?

Regardless, I was a Bill fan :yup:
Yes, but Clinton had no pretensions of being a great military commander. Clinton was a pacifist and made no bones about that. He claimed that he opposed the Vietnam War on grounds of conscience. Whatever the validity of that claim, at least he did not pretend to be the soldier that he obviously was not. Bush, on the other hand, reaps the economic benefit of placing other people's lives at risk through the baseless military invasion of a sovereign nation (on blatantly fallacious grounds) while pretending to be this great military commander... the "commander-in-chief"... when, in actual fact, he was a deserter during the Vietnam War. That makes him a liar and a deserter.

Yoda 02-20-04 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by Django
The term "deserter" applies to anyone who is AWOL for more than 30 days. As such, considering that Bush was AWOL for months on end, Bush was, technically, a "deserter".
You apparently have a very low level of reading comprehension. I'm well aware that the term is technically correct when used under that criteria. What I said, however, was that the terminology is misleading, and it is.


Originally Posted by Django
Maybe he did not run from enemy fire on the battlefield... the reason being that he never was on the battlefield in the first place! Being the spoilt rich kid that he obviously was (and the facts clearly demonstrate this)
The facts demonstrate that his family was well-off, yes. The idea that he was spoiled, however, is your own spin and speculation.


Originally Posted by Django
he was able to squirm his way out of active military duty and, instead, take a short cut out of a tough situation.
Tell me: what percentage of National Guard air force units were called into battle during the Vietnam war? If you don't know, then your accusation of squirming out of duty is unfounded.

Golgot 02-20-04 05:32 PM
A brit comedian called Rory Bremner put it quite nicely recently: While Kerry and others were off fighting Communism in Vietnam, Bush was at home fighting plaque ;)

There's the point right there. Whether he attended NG duty or not, he ran away from a war he supported. He certainly shouldn't turn up on warships in pilot's uniform and play off this **** for the glory without having got involved in the guts.

(maybe if he'd flown in on one of the obsolete planes he trained in.......nah, it still wouldn't wash. Some stuff stinks too bad :rolleyes: )

Originally Posted by Sedai
I guess these would be good points if M Moore was a reliable source, which he has proven himself to clearly not be by lying in his film. I used to have respect for the man, but not anymore. To bad, as he is really intelligent, and could have been a good public voice.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
Erm, when did he lie? He definitely over-spins and over-asserts some stuff in his books and docs, but i don't think he's "lied" as such. Which bits are you thinking of? (incidently, my impression is that he loves the ole US, which is why he worries about gun-crime/democratic-process etc etc)

Django 02-20-04 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by 7thson
To impose "Deserter" status on Bush is quite frankly obsurd. Now before I continue I want the following to be known :
1. I did vote for Bush but I am not a Republican
2. I also am not a Democrat, but I did support and voted for Clinton and agree with most of his political asperations.
3. I consider myself an Independent and believe it or not I think both parties have solid convictions, but they are so often misguided.

Okay now to my point:
Bush in no way shape or form was a deserter, as Yoda pointed out a "deserter" would be one who abandoned his fellow soilder or went AWOL from a unit that was in Combat. Was Bush AWOL at a time? Maybe and maybe not, but it really does not matter. AWOL is not as serious as it seems unless it is done while you are part of a combat unit which he clearly was not. I have been a member of both the active Army and the National Guard. Being AWOL is more common than most people think. I know some good people who have been AWOL and I would like to add that they are some of the most patriotic people I know. "AWOL" does not mean "Deserter", give it a rest; and for the sake of argument lets say Bush was AWOL at a time...who cares? It made no difference to the well being of this country. It is his demons that he has to deal with, not ours. Just as Clintons demons of adultery are his to bear. Judge Bush on his current actions, as controversial as they may be, but do not fog the present situation in this country with the past of a young man who may have made mistakes. Lord knows I have made some.
Bush was AWOL for several months on end from National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. That makes him a deserter, in my book! Technically, a deserter is someone who is AWOL for more than 30 consecutive days. That's what it is during peacetime, but during the Vietnam War... that's a whole other ball game. Judge Bush on his actions... let's see... AWOL for months on end during the Vietnam War (which technically makes him a deserter)... lying to the country and exploiting the post-9/11 situation to lead the country into an unnecessary foreign war, from which he greatly profits by placing innocent lives at risk... what does it say about the man's character? From the most conservative of standpoints, he looks like a reprehensible character. FYI, I do not consider myself politically affiliated one way or the other. I consider myself to be an independent voice.

Yoda 02-20-04 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Golgot
There's the point right there. Whether he attended NG duty or not, he ran away from a war he supported. He certainly shouldn't turn up on warships in pilot's uniform and play off this **** for the glory without having got involved in the guts
If you're going to claim that he "ran away" from it, you've got to demonstrate that the National Guard was, in fact, a refuge for those deliberately avoiding battle. It's an accusation serious enough that simply repeating something read in an article about what is allegedly "common knowledge" is not sufficient.

As for a "war he supported" -- I've read many a quote from Bush saying that it was a "political war." I'm not saying you're wrong, but what leads you to believe Bush supported the war in Vietnam?

Originally Posted by Golgot
Erm, when did he lie? He definitely over-spins and over-asserts some stuff in his books and docs, but i don't think he's "lied" as such. Which bits are you thinking of? (incidently, my impression is that he loves the ole US, which is why he worries about gun-crime/democratic-process etc etc)
I wouldn't even know where to begin. Simple physics make his confrontation with Charlton Heston dubious to the point at which one could reasonably call it dishonest...the shot cuts back and forth in a narrow walkway, but both angles (one showing Moore, one showing Heston) could not have been shot simultaneously, seeing as how no camera is shown in either.

There's a fine line between stretching the truth and lying, a line which the "Wonderful World" montage straddles far more than any self-proclaimed "documentary" ought to. Moore believes that because his overall message is correct, his skewing is justified to make a point. I would hope that more sensible folks like yourself, Gol, would refrain from defending him for what I presume are similar reasons.

Django 02-20-04 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
What Cohen’s explanation fails to mention is the fact that Bush joined the National Guard in May 1968... went through 6 weeks of basic training at Lackland Air force Base… 53 weeks of flight training at Moody Air Force Base… 21 weeks of fighter inceptor training at Ellington Air Force Base… and that when his training was complete, he had served 2 years active duty and was certified to fly F-102 fighter planes… The Air Force does not hand out certificates to fly those planes lightly… and in order to maintain their certification, the pilots must put in the required amount of flight time… which adds up to much more then just one drill week-end a month… The records verify Bush did exactly that… flying at least once a week and sometimes twice a week from May 1970 until May of 1972... adding two more years of service for a total of four already served before his service is questioned for the months of May, June, July, August, and September of 1972...

From what I understand, during the months in question, Bush was temporarily moving to Alabama and requested he be allowed to fulfill his obligations at a base there… his request was approved and he was assigned to Dannerlly Air National Guard Base… however, Dannerlly did not house enough planes for their own pilots to fly, much less a pilot assigned to temporary duty… and since Bush was not flying at this time, his obligation to the Guard would have been reduced to the normal 2 days per month… so basically, this whole stink is over 10 days…

If you dig a little deeper in the records, Guardsmen back then were awarded points based on the days they reported for service and Bush was awarded 56 points for 1972… 6 points above the requirement. I asked some Guardsmen I know about this and they said it was not unusual for members to either pre-drill if they knew they might miss a drill or to make-up a drill date at a later time… which very well could be what Bush did or the records could have been misplaced since he was only assigned to temporary duty… either way, I think the whole thing is ridiculous given his prior National Guard attendance record…

And as for Richard Cohen… I showed his article to my Dad and he said that Cohen, himself, may have been a joke… but that he was out of line saying the entire National Guard was a joke. He said he served with numerous Guardsmen in Viet Nam… and that if anyone cared to check, thousands of the Guardsmen who were state side during the time Cohen was “serving” were wearing combat patches on their shoulders for active duty already served…
A very convincing portrait, I must say, and one that really makes Bush sound like the paradigm of duty and integrity! Which is why it is completely misleading and completely off!

Let's face it... Bush was AWOL for months on end, which, technically makes him a deserter. And it was during wartime, which makes him a deserter even in Yoda's context... if he is AWOL during wartime, he is clearly running away from a war.

Furthermore, Bush was assigned to the National Guard in Texas and Alabama, of all places! If that doesn't tell you anything, you would have to be blind! With his father's influence, his family influence... he was obviously running away from active duty.

To Yoda: that Bush was a spoilt rich kid is not "my spin of the facts". It is a fact corroborated by his lifestyle during his college years. His partying and alcoholism, to say nothing of the DUI he has on his record.

If records can be misplaced in the army, isn't it as likely that attendance records can be forged or certifications can be bought? Considering the Bush family influence and considering that we're talking about Texas and Alabama, I think that this scenario is more than likely.

Yoda 02-20-04 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by Django
Bush was AWOL for several months on end from National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. That makes him a deserter, in my book!
Congratulations; you've managed to completely ignore my point. And Caitlyn's very well-researched post, I might add. You're conveniently ignoring straightforward data from those in and around such institutions, offering only a personal slant on some AP stories in response.


Originally Posted by Django
Technically, a deserter is someone who is AWOL for more than 30 consecutive days. That's what it is during peacetime, but during the Vietnam War... that's a whole other ball game. Judge Bush on his actions... let's see... AWOL for months on end during the Vietnam War (which technically makes him a deserter)...
You've actually yet to prove that Bush was AWOL at all. You're taking abscence of proof one way or another, and merely filling in the blanks.


Originally Posted by Django
lying to the country and exploiting the post-9/11 situation to lead the country into an unnecessary foreign war
All evidence we have indicates that Bush made a mistake, and did not simply "lie." Frankly, the idea that he knowingly played up an angle he knew well to be a lie just before election season is completely implausible.


Originally Posted by Django
from which he greatly profits by placing innocent lives at risk
How did he profit, let alone "greatly"? And if your only answer is "Halliburton," you don't have any case.

Face it: you're given one step, and you build the rest of the path yourself.

Yoda 02-20-04 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Django
A very convincing portrait, I must say, and one that really makes Bush sound like the paradigm of duty and integrity! Which is why it is completely misleading and completely off!

Let's face it... Bush was AWOL for months on end, which, technically makes him a deserter. And it was during wartime, which makes him a deserter even in Yoda's context... if he is AWOL during wartime, he is clearly running away from a war.
Uh, no. Yoda's context was relating to the battlefield...not a few weekend drills.

You also offered no counterpoint to Caitlyn's post. You're just repeating yourself in lieu of an argument.


Originally Posted by Django
Furthermore, Bush was assigned to active duty in Texas and Alabama, of all places! If that doesn't tell you anything, you would have to be blind! With his father's influence, his family influence... he was obviously running away from active duty.
How does serving in one state as opposed to another have any effect on the likelihood of whether or not he'll be called to duty? People generally are assigned to places convenient to them. That's the whole point of the National Guard; to give people an easy, convenient way to train for duty in the event that additional units are needed.


Originally Posted by Django
To Yoda: that Bush was a spoilt rich kid is not "my spin of the facts". It is a fact corroborated by his lifestyle during his college years. His partying and alcoholism, to say nothing of the DUI he has on his record.
Having a DUI record is by no means a definitive indication that a person is "spoiled," though it should be noted that he became a born-again Christian and gave up alcohol after the incident in question. As for partying: you've got no leg to stand on, as you've boasted about alleged parties in Los Angeles many times, even going so far as to mock those who you've concluded probably don't attend many.

You're taking tiny bits of data and spinning elaborate conclusions based on them.


Originally Posted by Django
If records can be misplaced in the army, isn't it as likely that attendance records can be forged or certifications can be bought? Considering the Bush family influence and considering that we're talking about Texas and Alabama, I think that this scenario is more than likely.
Anything's possible, but seeing as how you have no evidence of this happening whatsoever, it's pretty out of place. This thread, I'd have thought, was about reality, and the facts. Instead, it's quickly become a place for you to detail elaborate, paranoid suspicions that you ultimately have no evidence of.

Django 02-20-04 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda
Congratulations; you've managed to completely ignore my point. And Caitlyn's very well-researched post, I might add. You're conveniently ignoring straightforward data from those in and around such institutions, offering only a personal slant on some AP stories in response.
Caitlyn's post is a well-researched eyewash. Some things are so obvious that they stare you in the face and all the technical jargon in the world cannot whitewash them out of existence. All I'm offering is the layman's perspective. The facts are staring you in the face, but your standard response is to dig up obscure nonsense in an attempt to confuse the issue.

Originally Posted by Yoda
You've actually yet to prove that Bush was AWOL at all. You're taking abscence of proof one way or another, and merely filling in the blanks.
I don't have to prove it. The facts are out there. There are no attendance records for months on end. What does that tell you?

Originally Posted by Yoda
All evidence we have indicates that Bush made a mistake, and did not simply "lie." Frankly, the idea that he knowingly played up an angle he knew well to be a lie just before election season is completely implausible.
A mistake... yeah right! Some mistake! I wonder, if Hitler had said that the Holocaust was a mistake, you'd probably believe him, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Yoda
How did he profit, let alone "greatly"? And if your only answer is "Halliburton," you don't have any case.
Oh, please! I have an entire thread devoted to this subject! Halliburton is the merest tip of the iceberg! You have to be tremendously naive to swallow the official line wherever it is presented, when there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the fishiest of circumstances.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Face it: you're given one step, and you build the rest of the path yourself.
Yoda, what can I say? If you believe half of the things you claim in this forum, you would have to be the most naive individual in the world! Otherwise, you're just a slick Republican covering up the embarassing facts with your hollow and extremely unconvincing version of the truth.

Django 02-20-04 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda
Uh, no. Yoda's context was relating to the battlefield...not a few weekend drills.
Well, as it happens, there was a certain little war going on at the time, to which the youth of America were routinely being drafted and shipped to the battlefront. It was called the "Vietnam War".

Originally Posted by Yoda
You also offered no counterpoint to Caitlyn's post. You're just repeating yourself in lieu of an argument.
Well, I don't see the relevance of Caitlyn's claims, well researched though they might be. Nothing she has said counters the fact that Bush was AWOL for months on end during wartime, which, in effect, makes him a deserter.

Originally Posted by Yoda
How does serving in one state as opposed to another have any effect on the likelihood of whether or not he'll be called to duty? People generally are assigned to places convenient to them. That's the whole point of the National Guard; to give people an easy, convenient way to train for duty in the event that additional units are needed.
My God, you are blind! If "Texas" and "Alabama" don't say anything to you, you are completely out of it!

Originally Posted by Yoda
Having a DUI record is by no means a definitive indication that a person is "spoiled," though it should be noted that he became a born-again Christian and gave up alcohol after the incident in question. As for partying: you've got no leg to stand on, as you've boasted about alleged parties in Los Angeles many times, even going so far as to mock those who you've concluded probably don't attend many.
Well, the fact of the matter is that Bush was an alcoholic and was engaged in a college lifestyle that, by any standards, qualifies as the college lifestyle of a spoiled rich kid. By contrast, I went to university on a full scholarship and graduated in the top 5% of my class, magna cum laude. I did party, I don't deny that, and still do. But I was certainly not an alcoholic and have never done drugs. Nor do I have a DUI on my record. Also, I am a baptized Christian... in the Episcopal church. Bush claims to be a Christian, yet:
a) He was a wartime deserter
b) Has a DUI on record and a history of alcoholism
c) Lied to initiate the Iraq war
d) Profits shamelessly from endangering innocent lives

Originally Posted by Yoda
You're taking tiny bits of data and spinning elaborate conclusions based on them.
That's what you and Caitlyn do all the time. And no, that is definitely not what I am doing.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Anything's possible, but seeing as how you have no evidence of this happening whatsoever, it's pretty out of place. This thread, I'd have thought, was about reality, and the facts. Instead, it's quickly become a place for you to detail elaborate, paranoid suspicions that you ultimately have no evidence of.
The evidence is all out there. Your blinkered approach in no way contradicts the mountain of factual evidence available to one and all.

r3port3r66 02-20-04 06:32 PM
God Django, you act as though you're better than everyone. I'm NO BUSH SUPPORTER, but at least he served his country (perhaps not fully), but he did. I have too. Have you? No? Why not? Is it because you don't believe in the war in Iraq? Why don't you enlist? Trust me, if the draft were still in place your ASS would be over there in a heartbeat--then what would you do?Or are you just better than every soldier over there now because you're so well educated, wealthy and handsome.

Golgot 02-20-04 07:04 PM
...side-stepping the ever-spinning django-dance...
 
Originally Posted by Yoda
If you're going to claim that he "ran away" from it, you've got to demonstrate that the National Guard was, in fact, a refuge for those deliberately avoiding battle. It's an accusation serious enough that simply repeating something read in an article about what is allegedly "common knowledge" is not sufficient.

As for a "war he supported" -- I've read many a quote from Bush saying that it was a "political war." I'm not saying you're wrong, but what leads you to believe Bush supported the war in Vietnam?
Well, training in the use of a basically obsolete plane (i.e. never going to see service abroad) does reinforce this idea that many people claim - that the NG at the time was a way of avoiding the draft. I haven't seen enough anecdotal evidence to "prove" it certainly, but the implication is that if you wanted to avoid fighting, that was one way of doing it. (and i just have a low opinion of the Bush clan, so i'm totally ready to believe they'd take that course ;). Not that they had any influence on him skipping past the queue and getting in with low entrance score etc. No no :rolleyes: ;))

(EDIT: Even Colin Powell believes this idea about NG-action-dodging it seems ;)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-col

- like i say, many people suggest that i could be used in that way. And there are reasons to believe that's how Bush used it. Like the way it seems he ..."enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard 12 days before he was to lose his student deferment in 1968"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb14.html
...and mysteriously jumped passed that big queue)


I must admit i assumed Bush would have supported the war from his political orientation, and because those who were against it were normally pretty vocal. If he was vocally against it we would have heard about it by now you'd imagine (and he wouldn't be using bland terminology like "political" ;), unless he was refusing to talk about his past again ;) :rolleyes: )

EDIT: Guess stuff like this snuck into my subconscious when i read it ;):

"he said he had backed the government and would have gone if his unit was called up."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3477833.stm

Which is marvellous - only, again, the plane he was trained in was never going to be "called up". It had a role already apparently - defending the US from enemy bombers (damn those vietnamese bombing runs), and was basically phased out of offensive duties.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I wouldn't even know where to begin. Simple physics make his confrontation with Charlton Heston dubious to the point at which one could reasonably call it dishonest...the shot cuts back and forth in a narrow walkway, but both angles (one showing Moore, one showing Heston) could not have been shot simultaneously, seeing as how no camera is shown in either.

There's a fine line between stretching the truth and lying, a line which the "Wonderful World" montage straddles far more than any self-proclaimed "documentary" ought to. Moore believes that because his overall message is correct, his skewing is justified to make a point. I would hope that more sensible folks like yourself, Gol, would refrain from defending him for what I presume are similar reasons.
I defend Moore (to an extent) on two counts: One is that he's been accused of lying in multiple ways that have proved to be false. The other is that he does occasionally turn up interesting little "facts" - the point is, in this spin-seeped world we live in, it's everyone's duty to judge the bias in everything we watch and take it all with a big pinch of salt. (and believe me, i chew over Moore's "facts" a lot, until they're a more swallowable shape ;))

My memories of the Heston interview are that he makes Heston look uncomfortable, and contextually - bad (aren't the directing tricks you're talking about standard practice in near every single doc-interview?? - tho i agree how they're used is important). Moore is childish for doing this, yes. Negatively-spinning one man's life is bad yes - But within the spectrum of Moore's "achievements" (one of which is provoking debate), i'm willing to let it go.

Which bits/facts/arrangements of the "wonderful world" segment do you particularly object to?
(i agree on this one to an extent - but again, the pinch of salt comes in. Just as it should when a newscaster or official claims everything's hunky-dorey in Iraq ;))

You seem to think there's a big list of these "lies". Can you bring out some more concrete examples?

Django 02-20-04 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by r3port3r66
God Django, you act as though you're better than everyone. I'm NO BUSH SUPPORTER, but at least he served his country (perhaps not fully), but he did. I have too. Have you? No? Why not? Is it because you don't believe in the war in Iraq? Why don't you enlist? Trust me, if the draft were still in place your ASS would be over there in a heartbeat--then what would you do?Or are you just better than every soldier over there now because you're so well educated, wealthy and handsome.
I don't think I'm better than everyone. Bush did not serve his country, in real terms... what he did was take a shortcut out of the Vietnam war thanks to the money and influence of his family. About me... no, I don't support the Iraq war... never did. And I have voiced my position on this time and again in here. At least I'm not the hypocrite that Bush is... pretending to support the war and ducking out of it. Secondly, as I am currently in the process of becoming a permanent resident, I would not be eligible for the draft in any case. But if I was drafted, I wouldn't shirk from doing my duty. If it meant going into combat, and risking my life, I'd do it, if my country called me into action. Like I said, I don't claim to be better than anyone. The interests I am voicing in here happen to be the interests of the common man on the street... the average guy who doesn't have his parent's money or influence or privilege to duck behind when he gets drafted into a war that he does not support or believe in. I'm just calling attention to Bush's obvious lies and hypocrisy--the fact that he comes from a long line of war-mongers and lacks the courage to place his own life on the line for his country when called upon to do so.

The Silver Bullet 02-20-04 09:48 PM
I can't believe you people.
You've completely fallen apart.

The failure of the Mass Ignore says something so very, very sad about this place.

It's dying.

Yoda 02-20-04 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Django
Caitlyn's post is a well-researched eyewash. Some things are so obvious that they stare you in the face and all the technical jargon in the world cannot whitewash them out of existence.
This isn't a retort. You're dismissing her post without even attempting any justification, beyond some vague allusion to "technical jargon." Meanwhile, her points remain unanswered.


Originally Posted by Django
All I'm offering is the layman's perspective. The facts are staring you in the face, but your standard response is to dig up obscure nonsense in an attempt to confuse the issue.
The problem is that you offer a layman's perspective without a laymen's humility. You come charging into a subject you don't know much about, but become MORE -- not less -- opinionated when people who have some familiarity with the subject weigh in. That's childish and ignorant.


Originally Posted by Django
I don't have to prove it. The facts are out there. There are no attendance records for months on end. What does that tell you?
Given that one can clearly see that the National Guard was more than a little disorganized at the time, and that several officers claim to have seen him there, it tells me that they're not very good at handling paperwork. He got paid for that time period and given an honorable discharge: what does that tell you? The answer is that it only tells you whatever lines up with what you already think of the man. Period.

We have blanks, and you're filling them in with what you want. Fine...you're perfectly welcome to disbelieve Bush when he says he did his duty. But seeing as how we lack conclusive proof in either direction, you're in no position whatsoever to treat your personal beliefs on the matter as established fact.


Originally Posted by Django
A mistake... yeah right! Some mistake! I wonder, if Hitler had said that the Holocaust was a mistake, you'd probably believe him, wouldn't you?
It's a mistake because everyone thought Saddam had weapons. Several other countries, and virtually every major political figure who spoke on the matter, all agreed that he did. The last administration was quite firm in the belief that Saddam was stockpiling banned weapons, as well. And, as I've already stated SEVERAL times (without any attempt at a response on your part), it's positively ludicrous to believe that Bush would knowingly harp on and make a big issue out of something he knew all along to be a lie. It doesn't make any sense, unless you believe he has a political death wish.

If all you have in response is sarcasm and sensationalism, then you've nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you can't answer the issues I've raised, then you shouldn't be participating.


Originally Posted by Django
Oh, please! I have an entire thread devoted to this subject! Halliburton is the merest tip of the iceberg! You have to be tremendously naive to swallow the official line wherever it is presented, when there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the fishiest of circumstances.
Wow, congratulations, you found the "new thread" button. As you might remember, of course, the thread is filled with contentions and arguments against your claims. You need to realize something: just because you say something is so, it doesn't make it an established fact. Least of all when it's repeatedly (and rightfully) challenged.


Originally Posted by Django
Yoda, what can I say? If you believe half of the things you claim in this forum, you would have to be the most naive individual in the world! Otherwise, you're just a slick Republican covering up the embarassing facts with your hollow and extremely unconvincing version of the truth.
If the alternative to my alleged naivete is your extreme paranoia and kneejerk suspicion, I'll take it without hesitation.

Yoda 02-20-04 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by Django
Well, as it happens, there was a certain little war going on at the time, to which the youth of America were routinely being drafted and shipped to the battlefront. It was called the "Vietnam War".
If Bush were AWOL after being called into battle, or had he dodged the draft, you'd have a good point, but neither took place.


Originally Posted by Django
Well, I don't see the relevance of Caitlyn's claims, well researched though they might be. Nothing she has said counters the fact that Bush was AWOL for months on end during wartime, which, in effect, makes him a deserter.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser. You're assuming a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy.


Originally Posted by Django
My God, you are blind! If "Texas" and "Alabama" don't say anything to you, you are completely out of it!
You didn't answer the question: How does serving in one state as opposed to another have any effect on the likelihood of whether or not he'll be called to duty?

Moreover, if Bush were trying to avoid the war, why did he enlist when it was nearly over? You also never answered my question about how unlikely National Guard Air Force units were to be called into Vietnam. Doesn't say much about you that you routinely ignore such straightforward questions.


Originally Posted by Django
Well, the fact of the matter is that Bush was an alcoholic and was engaged in a college lifestyle that, by any standards, qualifies as the college lifestyle of a spoiled rich kid. By contrast, I went to university on a full scholarship and graduated in the top 5% of my class, magna cum laude. I did party, I don't deny that, and still do. But I was certainly not an alcoholic and have never done drugs. Nor do I have a DUI on my record.
Repeat: a DUI and partying in college in no way make someone a spoiled brat. I've met many young people who are not particularly well off, yet use recreational drugs and attend parties on a regular basis in college. These things are in no way an indication of wealth or privilege...they're available to all, and therefore do nothing to support the idea that he was spoiled. Hence, it is your own personal belief on the matter, unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence. It also smacks of personal distaste, rather than objective contention.


Originally Posted by Django
Also, I am a baptized Christian... in the Episcopal church. Bush claims to be a Christian, yet:
a) He was a wartime deserter
b) Has a DUI on record and a history of alcoholism
c) Lied to initiate the Iraq war
d) Profits shamelessly from endangering innocent lives
A, C, and D have all been contended with on this forum, and until you an actually supply something in the way of counterarguments to those contentions, you have no grounds from which to declare them as fact, as you have just done. Also, B in no way conflicts with Christianity, given that those incidents took place before his conversion. Demonstrating that Bush sinned, in other words, does not distinguish him from other Christians.


Originally Posted by Django
That's what you and Caitlyn do all the time. And no, that is definitely not what I am doing.
We provide evidence (and sometimes outright proof) every step of the way. All you're offering are dimissive comments and contradictions. Case in point: the statement above is nothing more than a contradiction, either.

Take a step back and look for a moment: Caitlyn put together what you admit is a well-researched post on the matter, and you dismissed it without any retort. You simply said it was wrong, without even attempting to back your words with any sort of case. Or the issue of Bush's alleged desertion: we have nothing resembling proof in either direction, yet you act as if you've got a smoking gun. This is a completely blatant, undeniable example of the thing you just denied doing.


Originally Posted by Django
The evidence is all out there. Your blinkered approach in no way contradicts the mountain of factual evidence available to one and all.
Mountain of factual evidence? Uh, you mean the fact that we're missing some records? Sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Django 02-21-04 12:55 AM
To quote Ah-nuld... "Ah'll be bahk!" :D :cool:

LordSlaytan 02-21-04 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
I can't believe you people.
You've completely fallen apart.

The failure of the Mass Ignore says something so very, very sad about this place.

It's dying.
I understand what you're saying, and it's my fault (the one who called for it to begin with) because he was gaining speed with his damn conspiracy ranting. I wish I would have just continued with not responding.

r3port3r66 02-21-04 02:44 AM
Consider me not responding anymore.

The Silver Bullet 02-21-04 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
...he was gaining speed with his damn conspiracy ranting.
But the whole idea of the Ignore was that no-one was listening!

I don't care anymore, I really don't. I'm just going to come here, post in the Movie Tab, make a few threads now and then and withdraw from everything else until the sun starts shining again.

This place has moved down a few hundred notches from "country club" to "playground," in my opinion. And while Django was the catalyst, it takes two or more to tango.

Call me when things start looking up.
I'll be in the shower if anybody needs me.

Piddzilla 02-21-04 04:02 AM
Yeah, I'm with Silver...

Piddzilla 02-21-04 04:02 AM
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Yeah, I'm with Silver...
...not in the shower though. :D

LordSlaytan 02-21-04 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
But the whole idea of the Ignore was that no-one was listening!

I don't care anymore, I really don't. I'm just going to come here, post in the Movie Tab, make a few threads now and then and withdraw from everything else until the sun starts shining again.

This place has moved down a few hundred notches from "country club" to "playground," in my opinion. And while Django was the catalyst, it takes two or more to tango.

Call me when things start looking up.
I'll be in the shower if anybody needs me.
I understand that nobody was supposed to be listening. However, there were a couple of people that couldn't resist stirring the coals in order to get the fire rolling again, though that frustrated me, I ignored that too. But then, after all my work to discredit Django and all of his accusations, he started up again trying to make light of my proof. I let my frustration turn to anger and decided that I would slam his accusations in his face with more evidence against his claims. That was a bad idea, and knew that all I was doing was giving him what he wanted; not to be ignored. That also brought in two or three others that had ignored him back into the fray.

I'm sorry that I'm a contributor to the 'playground' mentality that plagues this forum nowadays, it is embarrassing to me. I have tried to make this place a better one by posting lots of reviews and trying to encourage others to do the same. I also did my best to keep some general discussions about movies afloat by resurrecting them and voicing newer insights, but in the end, all I did was sink back into the morass of ego's against ego's. I've put Django back on ignore and will post some new reviews shortly.

One thing I don’t agree with concerning your post, is that you shouldn’t just bail on the forum like you’re claiming to do. If you want MoFo to be like it used to be, then you should contribute more instead of backing off. Maybe joining more discussions and commenting on other peoples reviews (making them want to contribute more of them), we can all lend a hand at bringing this forum back from the brink that it has been teetering on. Just giving up is not a good solution to the problem at all. I’ve always responded to your posts because I find them thought provoking and insightful, perhaps you could do the same for other members as well. I would hate it if you left.

Again, I’m sorry.

Django 02-21-04 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
But the whole idea of the Ignore was that no-one was listening!

I don't care anymore, I really don't. I'm just going to come here, post in the Movie Tab, make a few threads now and then and withdraw from everything else until the sun starts shining again.

This place has moved down a few hundred notches from "country club" to "playground," in my opinion. And while Django was the catalyst, it takes two or more to tango.

Call me when things start looking up.
I'll be in the shower if anybody needs me.
SB, you're imagining things! This place was never a country club. It's a movie forum, and that's all it has ever been. If you want to go to a country club, then go to a friggin' country club! On the other hand, if you want to discuss movies and listen to a bunch of adolescents ranting and raving about how so-and-so and such-and-such I am, then welcome to Movie Forums, USA!

Django 02-21-04 06:38 PM
Yoda, I commend you on your lengthy, drawn-out replies addressing every syllable, not to mention punctuation mark, I have posted. Some day, when I find the time, I'll get round to replying to your arguments. Don't wait up on me, though! I have too many better things to be doing till then! ;D :laugh:

Yoda 02-21-04 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Django
SB, you're imagining things! This place was never a country club. It's a movie forum, and that's all it has ever been. If you want to go to a country club, then go to a friggin' country club! On the other hand, if you want to discuss movies and listen to a bunch of adolescents ranting and raving about how so-and-so and such-and-such I am, then welcome to Movie Forums, USA!
Everyone who's been here as long as Silver has knows exactly what he's referring to; a time when discourse here was insightful, high-minded, and focused on cinema. In what I'm sure is a total coincidence, this time period took place before you showed up.


Originally Posted by Django
Yoda, I commend you on your lengthy, drawn-out replies addressing every syllable, not to mention punctuation mark, I have posted. Some day, when I find the time, I'll get round to replying to your arguments. Don't wait up on me, though! I have too many better things to be doing till then! ;D :laugh:
:laugh: Funny how one moment you feel compelled to stay in the midst of rampant unpopularity so that you can fight for the truth (or in the name of some other dramatic cliche), but when faced with incontrovertible evidence you suddenly have better things to do.

All in a day's work for the community punching bag.

Django 02-21-04 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda
Everyone who's been here as long as Silver has knows exactly what he's referring to; a time when discourse here was insightful, high-minded, and focused on cinema. In what I'm sure is a total coincidence, this time period took place before you showed up.
Now this is incontrovertible evidence that you are a racist. The fact that you allege that I am responsible for lowering the standards in this forum says it all. As it happens, most of the material I have posted in here happens to be way more insightful and high-minded than what most others have posted. And reading back on earlier posts in the forum, none of that material looks to me to be any more insightful or high-minded than anything posted in here now. The only difference is that way back when, it was a bunch of Anglo-Saxons posting a bunch of juvenile crap, whereas now, it's a multi-ethnic group of people posting a bunch of juvenile crap, whereas I, on the other hand, have consistently made an effort to post intelligent, insightful material, only to have everything I post systematically attacked and criticized by you and your gang of deliquents, Yoda. That says it all. I think a better way of describing it would be, once upon a time, MoFo was a clique of like-minded jerks, and now, it's a place in which fresh, interesting voices have entered into the equation, only to meet stubborn resistance to change from the old gang.

Originally Posted by Yoda
:laugh: Funny how one moment you feel compelled to stay in the midst of rampant unpopularity so that you can fight for the truth (or in the name of some other dramatic cliche), but when faced with incontrovertible evidence you suddenly have better things to do.
Believe me, it has nothing to do with your so-called "incontrovertible evidence"--a blanket label that you habitually apply to any insubstantial garbage you might spout. Believe me, if I thought that anything you have said in any way threatened my position, I would be the first to refute your words. As it happens, I am turned off by your monotonous droning and your endless deconstructionism, which, it seems to me, is nothing more than a ploy on your part to endlessly get in the last word without having to go through the effort of carrying out an intelligent conversation. Basically, I find your debating style tedious, dull and extremely off-putting, which is why I feel compelled to make an exit.

Originally Posted by Yoda
All in a day's work for the community punching bag.
That's just you deluding yourself yet again, Mr. Hannibal Lecter! :laugh:

Yoda 02-21-04 07:13 PM
Wow. Talk about "lengthy, drawn-out replies."

Originally Posted by Django
Now this is incontrovertible evidence that you are a racist. The fact that you allege that I am responsible for lowering the standards in this forum says it all.
Explain that logic to me: I say I think you hurt the community, and that makes me a racist...how? I guess I missed the "the only reason you could ever have for not liking someone is their race" memo.


Originally Posted by Django
As it happens, most of the material I have posted in here happens to be way more insightful and high-minded than what most others have posted. And reading back on earlier posts in the forum, none of that material looks to me to be any more insightful or high-minded than anything posted in here now. The only difference is that way back when, it was a bunch of Anglo-Saxons posting a bunch of juvenile crap, whereas now, it's a multi-ethnic group of people posting a bunch of juvenile crap, whereas I, on the other hand, have consistently made an effort to post intelligent, insightful material, only to have everything I post systematically attacked and criticized by you and your gang of deliquents, Yoda. That says it all. I think a better way of describing it would be, once upon a time, MoFo was a clique of like-minded jerks, and now, it's a place in which fresh, interesting voices have entered into the equation, only to meet stubborn resistance to change from the old gang.
Your attempts at insightful posting are short-lived. You'll post some article and ask for feedback and opinions; that's perfectly reasonable. But as soon as dissenting viewpoints rear their head, any civility you had completely breaks down.

Speaking of which, the "like-minded" accusation has been debunked too many times to keep track of. The International Group to Nullify and Oppose Racebaiting Egomaniacs (IGNORE) has many members that span many races, nationalities, political persuasions and spiritual beliefs. You have never, ever, EVER put forth any sort of counterargument to this obvious and demonstrable fact.


Originally Posted by Django
Believe me, it has nothing to do with your so-called "incontrovertible evidence"--a blanket label that you habitually apply to any insubstantial garbage you might spout. Believe me, if I thought that anything you have said in any way threatened my position, I would be the first to refute your words. As it happens, I am turned off by your monotonous droning and your endless deconstructionism, which, it seems to me, is nothing more than a ploy on your part to endlessly get in the last word without having to go through the effort of carrying out an intelligent conversation. Basically, I find your debating style tedious, dull and extremely off-putting, which is why I feel compelled to make an exit.
I don't particularly care what "turns you off." I'm going to continue to challenge your claims with straightforward, point-blank questions. And you're going to continue to "exit" at convenient times to avoid answering them with the same straightforwardness with which they were asked.


Originally Posted by Django
That's just you deluding yourself yet again, Mr. Hannibal Lecter! :laugh:
You know, your numerous laughing emoticons aren't convincing anyone here that you don't care deeply about these sorts of discussions. Your constant presence (and, indeed, your own words) prove otherwise.

The Silver Bullet 02-21-04 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
If you want MoFo to be like it used to be, then you should contribute more instead of backing off.
You can only give so much.
I obviously can't give as much as you can, but so be it.

Golgot 02-21-04 08:09 PM
Enough time wasted on the messiah of me-me-me
 
Unfortunately, Django's always been here while i've been here.

But having seen for the 10billionth time how much his deluded, self-centered imbecilities will never stop forcing themselves into every crack of this wee cyber edifice, I've pressed the ignore button this time.

And to be honest, i wouldn't have a problem with him being banned any more. The little glimmerings of well-meaningness inside him are swamped in a virus-like cloud of obstinate self-idolatry.

Bring on the cyber "country-club" then - any age, creed or race welcome. Preferably no me-me-me messiahs.

Golgot 02-21-04 08:19 PM
Too right.
 
Originally Posted by Yoda
Your attempts at insightful posting are short-lived. You'll post some article and ask for feedback and opinions; that's perfectly reasonable. But as soon as dissenting viewpoints rear their head, any civility you had completely breaks down.
That's the nub of it. That's the frustrating ****ed-up-ness that is Django. Potential to be alright, but in practice, a regular font of ****e. (and dammit i'm still getting caught up in the ****-slinging-river that flows from this. And lo, another thread gets flooded :rolleyes: )

Django 02-21-04 08:51 PM
The fact is that you guys are a bunch of frustrated bourgeois losers looking for someone to blame all your frustrations on. I'm just a happy-go-lucky guy who happens to enjoy my life, and you jerks resent me for it. Hence your unwarranted criticism of me and your taking out all your frustrations on me. Please don't accuse me of being an egomaniac. I am a very humble guy. Sure, on occasion, I give voice to my modest past accomplishments. That doesn't make me egotistical though!

You guys are just ranting and raving for no conceivable reason! The fact of the matter is that you have a fixation on me! Deal with it! I personally couldn't be bothered with your sorry state of affairs and why you feel compelled to launch into these insulting diatribes! Like I said before, from where I stand, you guys come across as a bunch of animals in a zoo, fuming and raving for no conceivable reason!

Here I am laughing at you! :laugh:

Some country club you've got here, Yoda! The very cream of society! Please, tell me when the wiseacre adolescents, the drunken rednecks, the goose-stepping debaters and the just plain old freaked out whackos have left so the rest of us can hit the golf courses and bridge tables! :laugh:

Yoda 02-21-04 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Django
Here I am laughing at you! :laugh:
Here I am banning you. :idea:

LordSlaytan 02-21-04 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Yoda
Here I am banning you. :idea:
YES!!!!!

Golgot 02-21-04 09:50 PM
hopefully the last rant on the subject...
 
Originally Posted by Yoda
Here I am banning you. :idea:
I think it's the right thing to do.

Dang-go has shown he has zero respect for anyone here, so as a cyber-community, everyone's been tolerant in putting up with him for all this time. And plenty of that time has been used fruitlessly trying to reason with him.

Yods, you've been very fair by letting him romp around with his clown-like footprints flattening all the decent discussions. I felt you were right to do so. But eventually enough is enough. Plenty of people have called for his banning, and i can't actually think of anyone that'll miss him ultimately.

For Django - when you inevitably return under another name to shout BS about racism or any of your other rationalisations for why people have a problem with YOU - ponder this. I like some things about you. I think some of the info you present is interesting. I agree with many of your general political stances. I like your job in wave-energy, your leanings towards holism, your idealistic energy. So why do you think i'm one of the many who have called for your banning?

It's because of HOW you approach things. You are -despite what you would like to believe- dogmatic, unwilling to listen, insistant-on-your-own-rightness, regularly offensive when someone contradicts you, and massively in denial about these things. (i could go on, but i figure these won't quite be the last words on these matters. God knows they should be)

As such, your influence is negative.

Ponder.

Golgot 02-21-04 09:53 PM
too many wordy posts
 
Ahhhhhh. No more Django.

A breath of fresh air :)

LordSlaytan 02-21-04 10:04 PM
I think everyone should give Yoda rep points for getting rid of the worst forum member in history.

Spread da' luv guys!

Caitlyn 02-21-04 11:40 PM
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
I think everyone should give Yoda rep points for getting rid of the worst forum member in history.

Spread da' luv guys!

I just did... :D

r3port3r66 02-22-04 02:29 AM
Goodbye Django. I'm glad this site means so little to you. At least I can feel good that you won't have any hard feelings about being BANNED.

blibblobblib 02-23-04 08:43 AM
Can anyone hear that?.....

Silence......

Now that the bad man's gone, less of the conspiracy theories ok guys?

Golgot 02-23-04 03:54 PM
I'm still here. Mwuhahaha. (but i prefer to just call them theories ;))

And when Yoda has time, we've got lots of catching up to do :) (as much as he's gonna whoop mah arse on the economics ;). At least there shouldn't be too many histrionics any more ;) :))

7thson 03-09-04 09:45 PM
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
Can anyone hear that?.....

Silence......

Now that the bad man's gone, less of the conspiracy theories ok guys?
Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson are making a movie called 12 Monkey Disciples starring Bin Laden

Caitlyn 03-09-04 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
bad man's

Man? :skeptical:



;)


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:52 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums