VS-
I suppose I just saw 'Red' J
Its a fun but dumb movie, I liked it.
My point was more along the lines of a Doug Stanhope quote :
"Complaining that a comic is drunk is like going to a titty bar and complaining because your lapdancer is a communist"
The parallel being drawn because the man IS A GREAT MAN.He champions true democracy and open-mindedness.
Does he? And that also begs the question, why Is True Democracy a worthy goal? Keep in mind that not all of us here even agree on that.
Dismissing his lifelong achievements simply because 'He says he's not a communist but I think he is' is complete buffoonery.
I didn’t dismiss his life’s work, I noted his own Biases. That said, we aren’t discussing the complete works of Noam Chomsky, and I am still offended that you think I believed he was a Communist because his last name ends in SKY ( even though I know numerous Russians or those of Russian decent whom I don’t make that claim to, and listen to Tykovsky a good deal, and like reading Russian Philosophers from time to time. I even dated a Russian Girl once.) By the way Chomsky doesn’t really disclaim being a Communist, however, his Social Democracy is not the same as Stalinism, or that of the whole Soviet project. That places him in roughly the same political camp as Bertrand Russell. (No I do not think Chomsky shares all the same views as Lord Russell.)
This is more about the fact that he believes in wealth redistribution and a “Peoples” control of the means of manufacture, as well as his general rejection of the idea of property rights.
Irony come on in…
I think you presume too much.
A) What difference does his political stance make when the man arguably possesses one of the brightest minds of the 20-21st centuries and has a very balanced viewpoint regardless of political reservations.(Even though he isn't a communist as we established earlier by your quoting his own words)
Being a Libertarian Socialist doesn’t mean your not a Communist, and being bright doesn’t mean you are right.
Again, we have to examine everyone perspective.
B) Not understanding or relating to another's political viewpoint DOES NOT MAKE THEM A COMMUNIST.
Somebody needed to say that...Are you from the US by any chance ?
I never said it did, and I am English.
Why do you assume I am calling him a Communist simply because I do not relate to his political viewpoints? I am calling him a Communist because he believes in Wealth redistribution and Social Democracy which is the Heart of Communism.
C) If it wasn't for our communist allies of China and Russia we'd all be speaking German now.
(I deeply loathe that expression but it's nice to see it used for once in the correct context)
China? I know you’r referign to WW2 but, China did not really enter the war in massive effort other than to preserve itself from Japanese Invasion. China did not help on the Western Front at all.
As for Russia, why do Americans always seem oblivious to the fact that it was the
Soviet Union, not “Russia”? Its as bloody annoying as when Americans say they broke from “England” or refer to the Queen of England, even though England ceased to be an independent Nation-State in 1701, and now it’s the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Soviet Union included Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, and several other States, all of whom also contributed to WW2.
Further, the Soviets didn’t exactly help in WW2 because Communism teaches them dictatorship is bad, they helped because we all had a Mutual enemy, so the argument here is rather moot.
Somebody needed to say that too.The Russians alone lost MILLIONS in defeating the Nazis and we should honour and respect them for their courage and for their country's huge sacrifice during WW2 alone.
Which doesn’t really relate to this discussion nor does it really render the political philosophy they held to better.
They suffered horrifically.They were so desperate that cannibalism became widespread due to famine, obviously.I've read accounts of families swapping dead infants to avoid eating ones own.
Yeah and they did this also when Lenin and Stalin engineered famines… By the way, did you know that the White Guard who attempted to turn back the Revolution also suffered? The last of them, lead by General Baron Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sternberg had to hole up in Mongolia, but did manage to restore the Boghda Khan temporarily until the Reds took them over.
For that matter, the Tzarists suffered incredibly under the Soviet Russia (No I am not contradicting myself, the Union did not exist till 1926) ansd fought valiantly for their Tzar.
Jeez, to have to go through that as a nation and then be abused for having been born into communism seems like a double shot of Feck-You Daniels.
...Certainly 'less than Christian' behaviour.
I never condemned anyone for being born into Communism though, I condemned Communism as a Political Theory and said it was unworkable. Its disingenuous to turn this into me condemning all Russians who ever lived, or those who lived after 1917 anyway.
Britain and Russia, as allies, go back a good 100 to 200 years .The Cold War was more nonsense to promote the massive arms industry and spread FEAR and thus control the masses and more importantly provide PROTECTION to a nation's fearful citizens.
You do now that people died in the Cold War right? And that, especially before Khrushev, the Soviet Union promoted worldwide Revolution, and sought to actively subvert Governments, right?
Hell, even Khrushev wanted to actively promote Global Communist Order. He was just less brutal than was Stalin.
The Soviet Union wouldn’t really start to become less militant until the ascendancy of Michael Gorbechav, who took over initially as party coordinator hen as Party Chairman and finally as rh4e First (and Last) president of the Soviet Union.
Britain was not an ally to the Soviet Union (which was not identical to just Russia) after the fall of the Tzars. Part of the reason for the alliance was the Personal connection between the Royal Houses, with Tzar Nicolas’s Wife being directly related to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
Do you not know the History of the region?
That 'divide and conquer' tactic doesn't change from Man's creation of Religion to present day 'Terrorism'.
Why is ir you buy into the nonsense that Religion was created as a mean to control the Masses? What evidence do you have of this?
The Truth is, Religion wasn’t created as a mean to control us, it easn’t even created. Religion really is just a set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of our existence, its what we believe about ourselves as a whole. The Truth is, everyone has a Religion and Religion is an unavoidable aspect of our life, its something we can’t live without.
It wasn’t until the 18th century that we even tried to distinguish between “Religion” and everything else as if its separate, and while the Enlightenments false ideas still make the rounds, the Truth about it is that all it managed to do is to create a competing Religion. So long as we have beliefs about how the world works and a Narrative that explains it all, we will have Religion, and even your idea that Religion was created to control people is a Religious belief, as Ironic as that is.
Also, the Terrorists aren’t really fabricated, they are really there and do want to cause the Evil Empire America to crumble.
The reasons go back to WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Certain governments, my own included, realise what a powerful tool FEAR actually is and are currently exploiting it to remove our basic human rights with OUR OWN CONSENT.
Which is why I dislike modern political beliefs and modernism.
Welcoem to the abyss, Humanism at its finest.
That is a fact my friend.Regardless of opinion.One only needs eyes and a conscience to see it.
Without that FEAR people could love one another BOTH unconditionally AND freely, without the shackles of a god-fearing organised religion.
No, they couldn’t. Saying this only shows you know nothing of Human Nature. If you assume that the only reason we don’t love each other is because the Government and Religion work to keep us in fear, then you have never studied tribal cultures how routinely go to war and kill each other. Humans tend to have selfishness, greed, and envy, jealously, sloth and Tribalism as inherent problems, not problems created by Religion telling us to hate outsiders or Government creating enemies.
If anything all these things can do is exploit ( or in terms or religion be exploited itself) to achieve those ends that already exist.
People wont just love one another feely and unconditionally though without some overarching reason to, and that reason will ultimately be a Religion because even though you think Religion was creates by people to control other people and once upon a time didn’t exist, its not a creation. That’s sort of another flaw to outthinking.
(If that's communism, where do I sign up ?)...But back to FEAR:
It has the same flaw as Communism, that it has no actual understanding of Human Nature and just Follows Rousseau in assuming “Man is born good, but society makes him bad”. Rousseau was horribly mistaken, but at least he lived in he 18th Century, before the carnage of the French Revolution, the Oktober Revolution, the Brutal suppressions of the Soviet Union, and before the terrors of WW1 and WW2. He lived before the Stanford Prison experiments, or the numerous behavioural experiments which show Human Tendency to establish a society around Hierarchy, and which shows how people will in groups tend to follow the masses as opposed to think independently. Before we knew the Utopian promises could not be for Humanity itself is not as perfect and liberal in design as was once thought. He lived before we knew this, or really after if you look at Region, the great perpetrator of lies, for it turns out the lies that Rousseau and other Enlightenment Era thinkers countered that Religion taught were True after all.
-The government controlled/restricted media provides a healthy dose with 24 hour war/terror reports/alerts - 365 days per year, making everyone feel 'at war/threatened CONTINUOUSLY', but not to worry because the nice government wants to protect us from a threat LESS DEADLY THAN FOOKIN PEANUTS.So now there are cameras everywhere, and the police have 'Bat-Belts' with a whole array of goodies to protect you with.Guns, Tasers, Tear Gas, Battons you name it.
As much as I dislike ho the UK has become a Police State, its not entirely True that the threats to security are fully fabricated. Didn’t some School teacher from Pakistan try to kill an MP recently?
I’m sorry but your oversimplified statement here doesn’t fit reality any moreso than those who prefer massive Government intrusion.
Wowzers, Whatever next? ...
-Well that nice Mr Bush says that these 'Trrr-ist evil-doers' are jealous of western freedom so nice Mr Blair agreed and decided to make protest illegal.
Seriously, why ?
Mr. Blair is also called Tony the phoney… but neither of them ar ei office now so…
By the way I do not support Labour.
-Well, *whispered mumble* we don't want to have to check 4 Million cameras for brown guys with beards.It's boring.
Sorry ?
Not all Muslims have beards… its also politically incorrect to be racists and racial profiling is now seen as Racism, so we have o protect you form white Christians not brown Muslims even though they aren’t killing anyone, if you really want to get into how messed up British Society has gotten. All in the name of Tolerance and Equality of course.
Mind you we didn’t have these problems when we had an Empire, only when we went liberal… but hey, Liberalism is the key to success and peace… right? Right?
-AHEM...We don't want more than one person speaking to another...One might be a trrr-ist or worse still they may be both be trrr-ists.
...What with their cameras and their bigs hats and sunglasses.
That's tourists.
-Yeah Mr Bush hates them too.That's why he sends them abroad to speak loudly in quiet old places of little interest.
Right.So we're saved then ?
-Well not completely...yet, your right to deny entry to a 'public servant' without a warrant, we're gonna hang on to that. That's to protect 'you'.
From what now ?
-From the trrr-ist 'sub-nutters' and their rocks and sand that want to break into your sh!tty flat 'specifically' and bomb you and your 'waaay too much freedom and stuff' to hell-bits.
They have guns, 5 year olds get AK-47s, I've seen them on the news.Always wondered how they got those...being in the desert and all... and all poor and stuff
-Oh those.We had to 'give' them something y'know to make 'a-bit-of-a-fist-of-it'
A war needs 2 ARMIES FIGHTING and throwing sand looks a bit, ..erm... well... Baywatchy to be honest and we were all rather looking forward to some big bangy fireworks for all of our viewers to drink beer and wave flags to.
Erm ?... Okay what else ?
Your comments are both outdated (Obama and Cameron now hold power, not Bush and Blair) and oversimplistic drek. The War on Terror was ought to protect Western Democracy from the attics by a ragtag loosely organised network of angry Arabs who feel like the Arabian World is being dominated and eroded Culturally by the West, specifically the Great Satan America.
The Threat is Real, though I myself didn’t think the War on Terror was that good an idea. Just get Bin Laden, and then get out. And , end all the cultural pressure on the Middle East. Simple.
Still, most of this goes back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and rise of sectarian interests in the middle east and how the Western powers carved it up for their own advantage, and has a rather complicated History behind it.
Its not that the West create a war to control us, its that Western ignorance about 90 years ago caused this, and modern western ignorance combined with arrogance will continue it…
-Your right to a phonecall, legal representation, a trial in your own country etc etc etc....Erm…
Excuse me but…Trial in your own country? No one has that Right. If I go to France and commit a Crime, I don’t have a right to a Trial in the UK. If I go to China and commit a Crime they won’t send me to America to Stand Trial. You Stand Trial where the Crime was committed. No one has ever had a Right to a Trial in their own Country.
We're going to hold on to them for you too.You know just in case.I mean, haven't you seen '24', 'The Sum Of All Fears' or 'the unthinkable' ? (brought to you by the same nice people that bring you the lovely news stuff.Funny that.Perhaps not)
Oh Sh!t yeah, they were scary...Okay.
Anything else ?
The reason Bush kept them I Guntanamo without Trial and Legal representation is because he treated them as enemy combatants as opposed to run of the mill criminals. You do to give prisoners of war Trials, you hold them till the War Ends.
What he id was standard and part for the course in War, and only became an issue when his opponents decided they aren’t war criminals to use it as leverage against him.
The issue is a lot more complex than your depicting.
-Oh just a couple of cameras here and there.
Wow, you sure you need 4 MILLION of them ?
That’s the UK, not he US. But hey, I don’t’ like them either, blame Labour. They are a Socialist party by the way,…
-Well sure, latest reports show that about 1 in 15 people living in our country are 'evil doer Trrr-ists' according to nice Mr Bush, don't you watch the News or read a paper, dummy ?
1: Bush is not President now.
2: Can you source his information?
Sure, so we're all going to die ?
Bush never said that, he actually encourages us to live our lives as normally we would.
So what your saying is Fantasy not Reality, and outdated Fantasy at that. Didn’t you hear about the Election in 2008?
-Yes but for some of us that isn't the end you see because this big invisible floaty fella is going to see if you've been a good boy or a bad boy.
If you haven't read one of his books or if you do a bunch of bad stuff, you don't even get to die.
You know the whole “Invisible Floaty fella” comment makes this rather impossible to take seriously. People who believe in God do not believe in an invisible floaty fella, and this sort of stupidity really is nothing but childish insult. I mean, your trying to make belief in God sound bad by creating an oversimplified Caricature. But then you do the same for the War on Terror too, or the History of Religion. You haven’t studied the real history of these things, or what they actually do or believe, you’re just repeating a slipshod shallow claim abut them in order to justify a distrust and hatred of them.
Sh!t...How come ?
Given that its not really as you describe the how come can’t be answered. You misrepresented Theism.
-Well Zaro, Some people believe that the big, invisible, all-seeing, all knowing, almighty, un-opposable, floaty fella has a dead helper that can send you down to his evil nemesis 'Satan' where you burn forever.
Forever ?, but what about physics ?
-Physics, Shmysics.
Okay...?
So what you’re saying is that you have no actual Concept of Christian Theology, nor do you understand what Hell is actually understood as.
The “Burn Forever” aspect is actually a description of Pain, not of a material object that is burning. C.S. Lewis thought it was your emotional State, and this idea is hardly unique to him. Augustine explained Hell as where you are in endless Suffering because you must live with the constancy of your own evils.
Hell is also not described solely as Fire burning you, but also as “Outer Darkness”. The idea is that you are cast away or the Light of God.
The common Trait of Hell is that you do not Love God, or truly anything else, and now can’t stand to enter the Light of Love that is God. Your own Sins cause you to burn in shame and reproach, and because you refuse to accept this, or that you have nay faults at all, because you remain defiant and refuse to Truthfully examine yourself, you slink into the Darkness, hiding from the Truth, hiding even from yourself, and have nothing left but that anger, that resentment, that selfish and all consuming pride, which causes you to become far removed from peace and Joy. You wallow instead in anger, fear, ignominy, and Hatred, Ultimately also in Fear, feeling forever terrorised by the burden of your own sins and surrounded by others like you, who will amplify this.
Hell is thus a place of Separation from God and his Love, a place we go because we cannot face or accept our own Sins. The description your using was meant Poetically.
Do you understand Poetry?
Are you that bereft of actual awareness of these Doctrines you Criticise?
To Be Comtinued...
reply
share
ZAROVE
14 years ago
Continued From The Above...
So the Goverment use 4 million cameras, the news and media, the millitary, the police and the law to protect me from 'something less worrying than a lightly salted pub snack' ?
-Yup.
You think Terrorists who have already taken down several Civilian Targets, Including the World Trade Centre, the Tubes in London, and have targeted other locales, anyhow now continue to plan insurgencies in the Middle East, are not Threatening?
Then again I doubt you understand the wars in the Middle East so…
And in THE 'LOTTERY-ESQUE' ODDS of my being killed by terrorists I get to 'burn forever' if I don't please the big, invisible, all-seeing, all-knowing, almighty, un-opposable, magical floaty fella ?
-That's the long and short of it I'm afraid Zaro.
No it dnot. You neither presented an accurate or honest assessment of the War on Terror, or modern Govenrment, nor on Christian beliefs.
Your’ entire presentation is a rather juvenile recapitulation of half digested insults used as if they are fact.
Me too, are you a Communist ? .…
No.
[/IRONY]
To Be Continued…
reply
share
ZAROVE
14 years ago
Continued From Above...
This is coming from a UK citizen.
I gathered.
In the UK the Government are a lot more secretive and subtle about these changes than in the US.Yet it is still totally obvious to pretty much everyone that civil liberties no longer exist if they want to play the trrr-ist card.
I post on Lords Of The Blog, I know full well the Modern UK Government is corrupt and doesn’t car about our Rights. However, I blame the Trend on the Utopian Fantasies of those wanting to promote Equality and Tolerance…
…We need to go back to our old Order, not this idiotic “Democracy” we’ve been trying to run.
I'm not mocking you for being religious.
Good, because your Religious too. Being Religious doesn’t mean you believe in God by the way.
That said, you are mocking my Religion, with your juvenile claims that “Insisble fella in the Sky” rubbish.
Maybe you should actually address what Christians actually believe?
Each to their own as long as you use religion for the benefit of mankind, have at it.Religion, whether used for good or bad means is a tool and tools are MAN MADE.
Religion wasn’t man made though. Religion is an innate quality. Religion is just a term we invented to describe our Foundational beliefs. Even if we “Got rid of all Religion” we’d still have Religion.
Religion wasn’t something that once didn’t exist till it was created by some bloke a long time ago, its always existed and always will. Even the Narrative you use about a material world in which God doesn’t exist is a Religion, because it addresses the same basic things Religion addresses.
We could however probably use a few more REAL Christians to help out with famine after the vile and senseless wars that we keep fighting absorb all of the wealth of their victims and leave entire cultures, many of them ancient, in tatters.
You do know that Labour and the Lib Dems are boasting that they are lead by Atheists now right? And that Labour is a Socialist Party? And that Blair is only Catholic in Name, not in Reality as he basically wants to dictate to the Pope what to believe and what not to?
Just trying to point out that 'opening your eyes and minding out for the sh!t' isn't such bad advice to receive from a guy that spent $7,000 of his own money providing you with TOTALLY FREE ENTERTAINMENT to freely take, however you want and pass on without FEAR of imprisonment and or a huge fine.
You know, this excuse is repeated so often I’m beginning to think Pete Joseph put it on his website somewhere, so people like you will buy it as a way to avoid the obvious criticism of this film.
It doesn’t matter than he paid $ 7000 of his own money to supply us with this movie, It doesn’t change the fact that the Movie still lies to us. Part 1 is not True, part 2 is not true, and part 3 is not True.
The “Facts” in the film are easily shown to not be True. That means we can’t trust its conclusion, for its conclusion is base don those facts.
Sounds like quite a noble almost religious gesture IMHO.
Except the films information is still wrong…
And provably so…
I reckon Jesus would have done a similar thing if possible warning the masses against the tyranny of organised religion, the Roman Empire, and wealth distribution (from what I remember of R.E. back in school he struck me as being a bit of an activist)
Jesus wouldn’t have condemned Organised Religion. The concept of Organised Religion as an evil force in the world began in the 18th Century. Hell, the idea that Religion was something that someone could lack, and the idea that a Religious belief is not the same thing as our day to day reality, is itself an 18th century idea. Jesus would have made no distinction bet3een a Religious Belief, such as the existence of God, and a secular one, such as belief in allowing Taxation.
To him, and for most of Human History, all beliefs were treated as the same, and all concerned the real world we lived in.
You are projecting a modern bias onto the past, where it doesn’t belong.
In that context it sounds almost like deja-vu.
Hope that was a little more to the point
Peace,
V.S.
its not.
reply
share
VictorianSquid
14 years ago
I didn't mean to come across all preachy and serious.My response wasn't supposed to be dissected and disproved.It was merely a bit of fun which you apparently missed mate.Lighten up fella.The figures are taken from incredibly unreliable sources and rounded up massively for comedic effect.I don't even need to justify my post.It was just a bit of fun posted in the 'Comments section' not the 'essay section' if such a thing exists.
The vague assumption of your being from the US was the knee-jerk 'point and shout communist' reaction.
I'm not up for spending the evening 'kicking water uphill' as arguing opinion on the net is retarded.
Arguing with any opinion is retarded, full-stop.
[/relax]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
'Your’ entire presentation is a rather juvenile recapitulation of half digested insults used as if they are fact'.
Or a jovial, light-hearted 'response' where role reversal was used loosely to highlight ironies not a scientific paper on 'reasons why I present a better argument on all matters'
Which I CONCEDE.You present a more valid argument simply because you're the only one arguing.I'm an *beep* you win.Move along.
Now what's your excuse/agenda ?
And if I choose to believe in every word of this documentary surely as a religious person you should respect my beliefs, right ? , not that I do believe every word, merely the dangers of not thinking for yourself.
I'm not religious AT ALL either, don't presume to think on my behalf.
You also confuse 'person with conscience' with 'Religious'
It's just taken me about 15 seconds to scroll through your response.
Mate, I don't even give that much of a sh!t what 'I THINK' FFS :)
reply
share
sergechamps-1
14 years ago
I agree with VS...
ZAROVE clearly takes this to an emotional level and feels the need to argue to defend what he thinks, Which is understandable, he is giving us away all his personality on an internet board by telling us how he thinks and the passion he puts to defend what others attack.
By disprove him we are attempting against him as an individual.
The point here is that there always gonna be people who will debunk these movies and people who will defend them. And that's ok, people are different, raised different, their belief system may differ too, and some of them are conditioning to believe and support religion, politics, law, the monetary system and so forth. While others never take anything for granted and like to think by themselves analyzing pretty much everything and questioning everything.
They key is, that whatever conclusion you have come up with: approving what this movie reveals or disapproving what this movie presents, has to come after you have analyzed by yourself all the information given, not mimic and let others put words in your mouth.
reply
share
ZAROVE
14 years ago
Serge-
I agree with VS...
Of course you do, and form the below you improt the usual polemic that I've seen loads of times before. Religiosu peopela re irrational. Religiosu peopela re emotional. Logic and reason is what the Nonreligiosu have... its a rather boring repetition for the supposedly Free thinking.
ZAROVE clearly takes this to an emotional level and feels the need to argue to defend what he thinks, Which is understandable, he is giving us away all his personality on an internet board by telling us how he thinks and the passion he puts to defend what others attack.
Actually I'm nto that Emotionally invested in these debates and often intentionally insrt a comedic error to see if anyoen catches on.
Not onth Zeitgeist Board, btu ZI did ont he Religulous baord for kicks.
I'm simply makign comments on an Internet Message Boar to counter the stupidity, not as a Knee Jerk reaction to an attack on my beleifs.
Hell, I've defended Islam from Christians, and was even Banned from Free Republic for it. I've eeven defended Atheists who were meared.
I do this simply because I find these sorts of routine errors far too common, not out of emotional need.
By disprove him we are attempting against him as an individual.
But, no one has actully disproven anythign I've said, and at this poitn all yoru dpign is attacign me personally wiht no predication, and no real frame of reference.
There is no Logical reason to do so.
The point here is that there always gonna be people who will debunk these movies and people who will defend them. And that's ok, people are different, raised different, their belief system may differ too, and some of them are conditioning to believe and support religion, politics, law, the monetary system and so forth. While others never take anything for granted and like to think by themselves analyzing pretty much everything and questioning everything.
This is what I mean by a Fal Dichotomy. Basiclaly, anyoen who defends Religion, the Political System, the Monetary Ssyem, or anythign else Peter Joseph has taken aim at is merley conditioned to do so, takes it from Granted,and refuses to see things for themselves. They are all just brainwashed. Meanwhile, some peopel are Fre Thinekrs who wuestion everythgin above.
Never mind that oen o the Central complaints agaisnrt Zeitgeist is that it asks you to beleive the claims it makes without really qyestionign them, and how it relies on the fact that few will bother to look up the informaion to verify said claims, somehow those who buy into Zeitgeist and its message are Thinkign for themselves whikst those who point out tis flaws are simply conditioend to accept the world as is.
Do you not see the Irony here?
Zeitgeost fans aren't Free Thinekrs, they just buy into the claims made by Zeitfgeist withotu questjonign these thigns. Meanwhile, th Debunkers arent just midnless sheep trign to preserve he Status Que, either, they simply don't like beign lid to by Propaganda.
You dont' think for yoruself by acceptign a documentary like this as True.
They key is, that whatever conclusion you have come up with: approving what this movie reveals or disapproving what this movie presents, has to come after you have analyzed by yourself all the information given, not mimic and let others put words in your mouth.
But I did that already. I even wrte an essay on the Astrotheology argument which I personally did research. The claims in th4e film do not hold up to scrutiny, and Im nto sayin that as a Knee Jerk reaction, Im sayign that because I have fact checked it.
Why do Zeitgeist Fans not get that?
reply
share
sergechamps-1
14 years ago
ZAROVE,
I agreed on VC about how pointless is to debate on internet boards. Don't try to label me since I'm not interested in debating what I think or believe with people on the internet. I will comment my point of view with those that I know in real life and consider appropriate to have a mature conversation (oh by the way and just in case... don't get offended, I haven't call you immature). Don't dissect my comments as they are not meant to be taken serious in any way (as VC pointed: this is not an essay). So you don't need to show me my error since I was not resolving an equation I was (and I still am) just giving an opinion about a generic topic: debating on internet boards is pointless, get it?
reply
share