Maggie has some nerve

Oh get a grip. Last time I checked she was an American citizen with the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. If you don't like her opinions, fine. But don't get all uppity just because she isn't blinded by the lies your President and Congress like to spin. Maggie clearly isn't the type of person to be placated by whatever excuse Bush comes up with next (Mmmm, non-existent weapons of mass destruction) and there has been evidence circulating that Bush may have known an incident of terror was about to occur. I highly suspect that's what Maggie was referring to.

And you know what, America has done some awful things. WAR IN IRAQ ANYONE?

You cannot force anyone to apologise. Your country is not a dictatorship, everybody is allowed to express their own opinion, including yourself. Maggie herself has since aplogised recognising that her comments may have hurt people of a certain mind. And good for her for standing up like that. But that was her own decision to do that, nobody forced her.

well, osama bin laden did say that the attack was due to our association with israel.

>>> For the first time in my life there was humanity again in NY, compassion. A sense of community

I love it when people wax poetically about some "brotherhood of man", or some great community of shared humanity, but possess such high levels of intolerance themselves. Unless you can respect opionions different from yours, regardless of whether you agree with them, it's not some great "brotherhood" or "shared humanity" you cherish (indeed, you have little real concept of these things), the only thing you really cherish are people who think like you.

Gyllenhaal later said she regretted what she said and "that neither the red carpet nor an interview about a movie is the right place to talk about my politics."[3] Gyllenhaal later met with Port Authority officer Will Jimeno and his wife, Allison, who Gyllenhaal depicted in the 2006 film World Trade Center. Gyllenhaal said she would have left the project if they wanted her to, but Allison Jimeno said they felt comfortable with her and "had no problem with her in this movie."[4] Gyllenhaal also said she had "nothing but gratitude and admiration" for firefighters and that she wished she "had been more gentle and more thoughtful" with her comments.[5]

There ya go. I think it is important that we have these discussions. I think that she chose the wrong words and the wrong platform to discuss her feelings...however, its imprtant that we start a dialogue about these things instead attacking each other when we are all trying to work out what we are feeling.

I agree with her. And I'm free to say so.

Yes, it would be nice if more people were willing to stand by their guns with the statements they make, rather then caving in to public pressure. Regardless, of whether or not you agree with them. I'd rather know where they really stand, rather then getting a p.c driven, public apology from them. Thank-god for the Dixie Chicks.

As we know,
There are known knowns,
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don‘t know we don‘t know.

Alright, I think we've gone into every aspect of both sides of this argument. Honestly, I'm not sure why people are willing to argue it so long. Each side knows that they are right and that the other side is wrong, so there is no sense in arguing beyond the point of articulating your position. Personally, I've used this philosophy to save a lot of time in countless black-and-white conversations. Good example:

I was talking with a coworker about a few standard social issues just to pass the time. When we came to gay marriage, he was very adamantly against it. Now I'm not gay, but I argue that we have absolutely no right to take away the rights of others. He then ranted about how long it took "his people" (he's black) to get their rights. And so I asked why he didn't think it would be more just to give gays rights faster than "his people." And of course, as a Christian, he felt that they just plain didn't deserve the rights. My argument was that he had the right to think homosexuality was wrong but that he did NOT have the right to hold his perseonal opinions against anyone else and nullify their rights. Then he argued that without his religion there wouldn't be any laws at all. (?!) Surely he didn't think that there was no law prior to 2,000 years ago. Then he cited the Ten Commandments. I reminded him that those weren't laws, and even so, historically speaking there were laws and codes of conduct that date further back than that. He then asked me to think back to the TRUE beginning of time: "Adam and Eve."

That's when I stopped him. I realized our conversation was like trying to knock down each other's brick walls with eggs. It just wasn't happening.

Now I know that was a long--and probably boring--story (though I'm willing to bet most of you have had the exact same conversation with someone) but I wanted to illustrate the basic structure of the argument, because this board is following the same blueprints. At some point you guys have to realize that even if you're right, you're not going to convince the other side of it, so there's no use in regurgitating the same bits over and over and over and over on this board.

And uhhhhh if you respond to this post, make sure you take into account a sort of open-mindedness and don't just spit out your "conservative" OR "leftist" viewpoint. Seriously, if you want to argue make sure you've actually thought about what I've said. I only say this because I don't want to fall into one of the stupid arguments I'm criticizing.