Re: Celsius 41.11
 

I think that in most cases, 'pure fact', as you state, does not exist, since it is influenced by the subject, as Shopenhauer showed us. I do think that 'pure fact' exists in mathematics: 3+3=6. Is there anyone who thinks 3+3=8?

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

Anyone that thinks that 3+3=8 is wrong and is therefor believeing in a lie. If you changed the definition of three in a way that it equaled four then 3+3=8 would become true. There is a truth that says whoever makes the definition has the power. Definitions in general are what the majority of people think they are. If you educate these people to believe in your definition then you control the definition and therefor you control the people that believe the definition because you are influencing truth. I hope that wasn't too complicated.

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

:confused:
:wtf:


I havent seen it all the way thru, I have just seen clips, and I will never see that "movie". I got fed up with what I was watchng so I just watched Band of Brothers for the 316th time.

And a bit cocky, dont ya think?

Ok well I see no proof that you have offered so go look for some, k? Either prove O'Reilly is the conservitive you think he is *even tho you are automaticially wrong because he is a registered independent*, so go search in a futile effort to save some of your credibility.

And get your personal facts straight Mihial..I dont listen to Limbaugh unless O'Reilly takes the day off, then I listen to a local guy, Rodger Hedgecock, and if hes out them I may listen to Limbaugh.

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

Ah, but - ergo - the definitions 'makes' the truth, and as definitions differ, truth differs. Two different 'truths' could infact be opposites!

I just watched some foxnews stuff - the horror! In the first thing I found, they were talking about Kerry's campaign, and were bashing him. Saying he was a liar, had no evidence, and just got all his criticism from a newspaper. (Not that, even IF this would all be true, a reporter should remain objective, simply stating the facts.)

O'Reilly: "I really don't understand why so many people hate Bush, he has faced more problems than any other American president has ever faced. [...]"
"(About terrorism) Many nations are simply too cowardly [...]"

The next piece I watched was entirely dedicated to bashing the New York Times.

In the mean time, I could watch adds: 'Vets expose Kelly', 'Kerry: "Stop this film.", "Support Bush for another Republican victory." Great...

Now I get where this thing about all media being 'liberal' and 'anti-Bush'. Fox constantly accuses them of these things.

They defend Bush (in 3 different pieces!) from the stolen explosives incident.

"At this point, when there are barbarians at the gate [...]"

I'm gonna stop now.

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

Nearly all News stations are extremely liberal. Fox news saw that the republican market wasn't being satisfied, the perfect opportunity to make money. Even though they are somewhat conservative they are still closer to the middle than the other stations. They normally have a two people in there discussions, a democrat and repbulican. Hannity and Colmes is the opposite, one person to be interviewed and two anchors, one democrat/socialist the other a conservative. Fox news also shows both Kerry and Bush speeches often even when you can find them on the other stations. They make the attempt to be balanced while others do not.

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

Nice spin there, you didnt mention they (who is they 'they' anyhow, u musta been watching some commentators) also critize Bush just as much. They point out what both canidates should and should not do as far as what would help them.

[QUOTE=SpiderGoat]AhSaying he was a liar, had no evidence, and just got all his criticism from a newspaper. (Not that, even IF this would all be true, a reporter should remain objective, simply stating the facts.)
Well if Kerry WAS LIEING, you cant be mad at them for calling him on it.

That is true dude....France wont fight, Canada wont, and many others, because they dont want their own 9/11 attacks.

Im not suprised after the attacks the Times dishes out.

They run ads but they run them equelly.

And they are right.

Because Bush had nothing to do with that! He didnt say 'steal them weapons!'...

So just because they defend the President from wrongfull critizism, they are conservitive?

Last part made no sense.


:clap:

Thats it right there, well said Logic. :bows:

O'Reilly always has a pro & con people in an interview about what ever, and he moderates the discussion.

You people *wrongfully* think hes consevitive because he doesnt follow mainstream media tactics and bash conservitives.

And some of you may kno that O'Reilly interviewed President Bush. He offered an interview to Kerry numerous times, which under Kerry's own fault, refused to happen. I believe if he had come on, he would have gotten a few voters, but he has cut himself off from the media. So O'Reilly went out of his way to get a Kerry interview, and finially interviewed people close to him.

A Conservitive person wouldnt have given a flying sh*t....O'Reilly did.

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

politics today have gotten out of hand im not going to see celsius 41.1 for the same reason why i will not see farenheight 9/11

Re: Celsius 41.11
 

not a bad idea....see movies based on fun and enjoyment, not politics