|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Michael Moore Bashing Thread | from shikaka - Sunday, June 27, 2004
accessed 2570 times Please join me in expressing your intense dislike and disgust for Michael Moore. What a travesty that he should win best film at Cannes...He claims to be objective and seeking truth, yet is so obviously predjudiced and opinionated that all of his "findings" are suspect. What a load of crap. His new Fahrenheit 911 film should be especially rich. I will believe that Bush is in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden the day my shit turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert. I would very much like to assasinate him. Please advise. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from xolox
Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 22:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
I suggest you continue to taste your own shit, just in case it DOES begin to taste like rainbow sherbet, and then proceed to fuck off!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From Ne Oublie
Friday, May 06, 2005, 02:14
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Michael Moore is an ignorant, prejudiced, anarchistic individual - just because he's prejudiced against white males doesn't make him any less of a bigot. Next time anyone feels the urge to defend the guy why don't you consider the support you would give to a book entitled 'Stupid Black Women', and THEN try to tell me the guy isn't both racist and sexist! (And yes, the content of his book is just as bad as the title!)(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Friday, May 06, 2005, 12:26
 (Agree/Disagree?)
The fact that Michael Moore is a white male allows him to bash other white males with impunity. I just love how the very people who wrap themselves in the flag all the while screaming "freedom" at the top of their lungs are the first to criticize anyone for actually using that freedom. You can't call it freedom if it's only freedom for people who look, think, and act just like you. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From xolox
Friday, May 06, 2005, 09:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, Micheal Moore is definitely biased. Though you gotta love how these right wing, Bush voting, I love Jebus conservatives habitually throw out the baby with the bath water. I'm not surprised that these uptight conservative bigots completely miss the satirical undercurrents prevalent in Michel Moore's presetation style. Just run along and buy yourself another gun!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ErikMagnusLehnsher
Saturday, May 07, 2005, 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am moderate to left-leaning on most political issues but on gun control I start getting real conservative. I am not saying that people should be permited to have howitzers in their backyards, etc. but I do support the right for citizens to bear arms.
I think national gun control would actually increase domestic crime and violence. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't have guns, but criminals (as always) would find a way to get them and be acutely aware of the fact that their victims likely won't be armed.
If a criminal breaks into my house and tries to rape or kill my wife or kids or threatens us with violence, I am going to shoot him (at least once) without reservation. Violent crime in the U.S. is obviously a problem and I will concede that weapons are getting more and more destructive and therefore some are far beyond what's required for protecting your home. However, I am strong supporter of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to own guns.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ErikMagnusLehnsher
Saturday, May 07, 2005, 13:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I remember having a good debate with you regarding foreign policy and Iraq a year or so ago. It sounds like we agree on the gun issue.
I think it's also worth mentioning that the fact that many Americans have been armed over the last century has made the prospect of a land invasion and ocupation very challenging because of the alibilty of individuals to resist ocupation. If I recall correctly, I remember reading that Japan noted this in WW2 and surmised that even if they could pull of an invasion militarily, the Americans would be too well armed at an individual level to permit successfully occupation of an area.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, May 08, 2005, 02:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah yes, one of my many political debates :D In the case of gun control, it is not only the threat of foreign invasion that widespread gun ownership prevents, but even domestic threats to individual freedoms. Removing privately owned weapons is typically a priority of dictatorships, as they can't impose their will if the people can shoot back at their enforcers.
What I think we should also remember is that by entrusting the police, army, or any other governmental institution to carry weapons, we are still entrusting them to the hands of the individuals within those forces - individuals who are just as likely to misuse their power as the average person. Giving someone a title or uniform doesn't make them a superior person, it just gives them the responsibility to act on behalf of the state, and even then it's no guarantee that they will.
As has been said before, the criminals will always have access to weapons and ammunition, all the gun controls will address are the law-abiding citizens.
On a broader political note, it is this same lack of implicit trust in governments that fuels my right-wing views. In the same way that I don't care to trust them with all the weaponry, I don't care to entrust them with public services, healthcare, social security, etc.
My ideal government would have a very limited scope - only providing those services which could not be provided by the private sector, thus ensuring their objectivity.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Sunday, May 08, 2005, 10:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
More like your one and ONLY political debate, Ne Oublie. :D For Yet Again you rail against the gummint, and you drone incessantly on about how you don't "trust" them. Get real. You do of course realise that repelling "domestic threats to individual freedoms" in English means shooting at cops, right? And you wonder why the label of "loony-tunes" sticks so persistently to you right-wingers. ;)
As I've said in previous posts, I don't have a problem whatsoever with responsible private firearm ownership. I do, however, have a slight issue with the "right" to bear arms as it is enshrined in the US constitution. As evidenced by the many thousands of needless handgun deaths in the US, ownership-by-right of deadly weapons means that any moron (not just the MENSA guys like yourself) has the power of life and death at the twitch of a finger over everyone they know up until such a time as they fuck up badly enough to have their "right" stripped away. It's bassackwards. There exists no "right" to drive cars, there is no "right" to get in a plane and play pilot, just as there shouldn't be a "right" to own deadly weapons. Being able to bear arms should be a privilege of good citizenship, like just about every other activity that has the potential to cause other people harm &/or death. I think there is some merit to the NRA argument that when guns are outlawed, then only criminals will have guns, though. I just think it's highly ludicrous to assert the necessity of owning firearms whose sole and express purpose is the rapid killing of humans. --Why yessuh, I need me this here emm-sixty seven-point-six-two muhchine-guhn just in case the gummint decides to collec' damn taxes from me, or in case some varmint breaks intuh muh trailer, garnit!)
I also think that it's rather hilarious how you and the grandparent poster seem to think a bunch of ordinary blokes with their glocks and AK47s are going to repel a determined military invasion of anywhere. Yeah, maybe back in the 1800s you'd have had a chance, but nowadays? Get real. Notice how even though Iraq has a huge number of privately owned automatic weapons, they're not doing an outstanding job of kicking the US Army's ass? Oh right, they're just ragheads, I forgot. Silly me. For the third time in this post, get your head out of la-la land and GET REAL! Oh, and the Branch Davidian cult survivor website is thattaway, dude. I'd ask them how well the "domestic threats to individual freedoms" (being as how that's a highly subjective reason to pick up a gun and start defenderin' yourself) fight with the FBI & BATF went. Get back to me, mkay? :) (reply to this comment) |
| | from drluv87
Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 19:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, I'm going to state that I don't care whether or not you like Michael Moore, that is beside the point. He has done some good things as well as bad things (just like every other human being). To my recollection, Michael Moore has never expressly claimed to be objective, after looking into the matter I have found nothing to contradict me on that one.
Next I must ask you, have you ever actually seen anything by Michael Moore, or are you going on what others have told you? In that case, I'd probably go out and rent a copy of Farenheit 9/11. If you are one of those people who justify not seeing it because they don't want to give money to him, you don't need to worry because you are giving your money to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video and I'm sure that they've already paid off the $18 for the dvd, and thus supporting the economy. Try to watch it with an open mind, then go out and watch Farenhype 9/11 if you like or perhaps search for a credible debunking online. After that, make your own opinions.
Using words like "crap" and "load of shit" do nothing to help you, in fact they steal your credibility right away. Try to write with a cool head and you might change some people's opinions.
Finally, your desire to assassinate him almost doesn't deserve rebuttal, but I'll indulge you. If you are, as I suspect, a Republican (and please forgive me for my assumptions) then I am going to presume that you are also a Christian. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist telling people to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and turn the other cheek. Assassination is not only illegal but, according to the tenets of Christianity, morally wrong. While I am not telling you to love Michael Moore, by all means disagree with him, I am asking you to respect his right to free-speech just as I respect your right. And, please, if you have something to say in the future, back it up with facts and don't resort to name-calling; name-calling is childish and strips you of your credibility AND it is counterproductive to the democratic process.
I will remind you that this is only the humble opinion of a 17 year-old, but, after all, Jesus said to look to the little ones.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, May 06, 2005, 02:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've read Stupid White Men, and watched his documentaries (Bowling for Columbine & Farenheit 9/11), and to be honest it was probably the first book I've read that I regretted reading more with every page I turned! Granted, he does have some 'noble' ideals: he'd like to see a world where everyone is happy and prosperous (wouldn't we all?) But his ignorance and prejudice becomes more and more blatant by the page.
His obsession with anarchistic and left-wing politics are both contradictory (no society could sustain both to the degree he promotes simultaneously) and even individually would prove counter to his ideals in the long run.
IMO his only appeal is as a protest against what he (and others) consider to be an injust situation, but his alternative is far less appealing by pretty much any measure. So, if you want to let this ultimate 'Stupid White Man' influence your opinions then please, be my guest! As far as I'm concerned, his work is only good for a laugh at how ignorant people can be.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Shaka
Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just thought this was interesting...
http://msnvideo.msn.com/video/default.aspx?setcp=b&prepend=dbc7ab12-e581-42f8-9c67-eb8b0dddef81,62378dec-21db-4afa-8f76-d68b6de855d6,919edacc-e319-4e0e-9e3c-fe95ad9901c1&autoStart=0&menu=News&menuItem=NBC%20News>1=4196
(reply to this comment)
| from Samuel
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 17:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Advice on how to ASSASSinate Micheal Moore (because he's a real ASS).
Hack into the Family's MO site and put out an urgent bulletin that all Family women in California should try to Flirty Fish Micheal Moore, and that condoms are not mandatory this time. Be sure to include plenty of "Jesus speaking" and "Dad speaking" prophecies. A man like Moore is apt to take any woman he can get!
Within a few years, Micheal Moore will have died from AIDS or a host of STD's. : o )
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think Moore's original career was hallmarked by an overall sincerity. He certainly was quite entertaining. 'Roger & Me' & ' Bowling for Collumbine' were enjoyable, if nothing else. I think that what destroyed his credibility as an genuine objective filmmaker was the Academy Award. All of a sudden, he stransformed himself into this semi- global political voice of 'right and reason'. He seems to take a lot onto himself, and his support has become a trademark of the mindless 'Stop the War' Campaigners, whom I loathe and despise below all forms of human and animal life. His films and his books have provided fuel for the Army of hysterical cause-seekers who, by accidental providence, found themselve on the far left of the middle. I mean, who does he think he's fooling, now that he's been accepted by corperate hollywood?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 13:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was refering to the Academy Award.
Secondly, while I draw my own conclusions ( and inherently, my own misgivings and delusions) towards the War, my personal experience of interaction with said social group leads me to the belief that the greater number of people who constitute the mass numbers of the Anti-War campaign are not truly motivated by a desire to right the world's wrongs. I have attended anti-war rallies, and I must say I was sickened by what i saw; they mirrored the kind of mindless hysteria so commonplace in TF and other such abominations. These people had little or no genuine understanding of the cause in question, they merely agreed wit hwhat they were told.Their need for belonging superceded their search for objecitive answers in the extreme.
Obviously, this group is NOT reflected by all detractors of the US/ coalition involvement in the Gulf. But these people differ from the mindless mass in that they furnish their own arguments. I despise what I will refer to as the mindless facet of this movement, and indeed all movements, because in my view they detract from the purity of the cause and objective. How, pray tell, does a group of middle-class, mid-life crisis facing housewives stripping in front of Whitehall aid the search for peace? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From jon54
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, but if the intention of their cause is to stop a war which I personally know to be unjust, then their methods and even their naivety is justified. I don't understand why people are so quick to call out those who are unwilling to get behind a war. It should be the other way around. The "liberation" of Iraq was an equally easy (and mindless) flag to rally around. Millions did without question assured by a condoning media. Where is the outrage here?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is not my outrage, this is merely my personal disgust. I do not support the war nor have I ever done so.
These people would be on the other side of the argument if only popular culture was on that side. This is not a conscientious effort to defend a moral argument. This is mindless hysteria, populated mostly by that margin of society that contributes nothing and would find a bone of contention anywhere. Their basic behaviour and attitudes almost mirror those of the far right fanatics; only their professed ideologies differ. They are just as close-minded and myopic as their political foes. (reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Thursday, July 01, 2004, 08:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
As you said all movements have a percentage of mindless followers who are attracted by one or two things but end up supporting much more. I think you were just unfortunate to meet the anti-war equivalent to football hooligans. This is why christianity (and TF) has been so succesful in recruitment! Up for family bowling event monday? sis Julie is coming for a visit.( and go easy on the boy!;)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find the opposite to be true. One of the things Americans do very well is rally together to support a common cause. This is particularly true in times of war, Vietnam being the exception. Popular culture in the US ever since 9/11 has been to stick patriotic anti-Arab bumper stickers, fly flags, and hate all people who aren't good ol' redblooded 'Mericans! This is a perfect description of the mindless herd-mentality you seem to be describing. Until recently those of us unwilling to blindly support a war based on fear and hysteria were in the minority. This shows more critical and analytical thinking than the majority of those blindly supporting a war as long as the President waves a flag and stands on an aircraft carrier.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, July 08, 2004, 13:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Baxter, perhaps you should START supporting the war. After all, your troops are out there fighting with mine (assuming that you are British).
And by the way, I know quite a few British online that do support the war. And I know quite a few people here in Florida that were against the war, but are now supportive because they want to stand behind our troops. They aren't supporting the war, just the troops that are out there fighting it. I wonder, do you oppose the war because you feel it's wrong, or because that's what BBC is telling you to do? We did the same thing in The Family, you know.
It's kind of interesting how things can change in 13 years. 13 years ago during Desert Storm a much younger me went to MacDill Air Force Base here in Florida to protest the war. Today during Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am in the process of putting together a care package which will be brought to the troops via a friend I have at the same Air Force base. Interesting.
God Bless.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Friday, July 09, 2004, 15:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Am I going to have to explain my political views again?
I am going to say that I am getting marginally sick of having to respond to patronising remarks of people who are so fucking assured of their own intelligence.
Firstly, I NEVER said the entirety of the British population supported either the War or the Anti-war Rallies. I was referring to the mass majority who did. And they DID. The Mass- rallies and every poll taken by every newspaper and/or TV channel. WHAT I WAS COMMENTING ON is the mass support against the war that seemed to me to be more of the result of an induced state of mass-hysteria.
I guess I haven't spoken to you before, so I'll try not to take offense to your patronising assumptions. I was a British soldier at the time of the War, and although I was not deployed to Iraq, having been engaged elsewhere, my heart was wholly with my fellow soldiers who were there. I was a soldier for long enough that I welcomed the possiblity of going to war, regardless of the cause. I frankly don't give a flying fuck if you find this in any way contradictory. I was a professional soldier, and it was my capacity to go where I was told, and do what I was trained to do. For me, I did find a certain conflict in the political ramifications of the war. but I was never going to start throwing the towel in because I didin't like the circumstances.
I am AWARE that some British people do support the war. You would have to be blind not to.
'We did the same thing in the family, you know.'
You condescending prick!
I do not feel the necessity to walk in social groups or find support for my political sentiment in order to formulate my own opinions.
Am I against the war because BBC is telling me it is wrong? could you become anymore condescending?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 14:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Baxter,
It was never my intention to attack you personally. I addressed my reply to you because I saw your comment first, and apparently misunderstood it. I meant to speak to everyone, especially in the U.S. and Britain, and I felt that you were trying to say that Britain in general is against the war in Iraq. I was trying to point out that I know quite a few (very nice) British folks online who do support the war in Iraq, or at least support their troops. The way I see it, it is BBC in general, not Britain in general, that is so set against the war. That is what I am upset about, people who do not at least support their own troops. Maybe this is a very touchy subject for me because I am 24 years old and still registered with the Selective Service here in the States. If these troops were not volunteering to go to Iraq (and some are), the government could be drafting me or some of my friends to go instead. Therefore, I am very grateful to these troops who are out fighting in my place.
The reason why I talk about people having anti-war opinions because that is what they are conditioned to believe (whether by the media, or by a mind controlling cult) is because for almost 23 years of my life I was one of those people. See the story in my previous comment about protesting at an Air Force Base 13 years ago, and now trying to deliver a care package to the troops via the same Air Force Base. I am sorry that that post offended you.
I have been reading on this site for a while, but have just recently begun to read and post comments at the end of articles and such. I had no idea that you were a British soldier. Again, I did not mean to attack you personally, and I am sorry that I offended you.
God Bless. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find the opposite to be true. One of the things Americans do very well is rally together to support a common cause. This is particularly true in times of war, Vietnam being the exception. Popular culture in the US ever since 9/11 has been to stick patriotic anti-Arab bumper stickers, fly flags, and hate all people who aren't good ol' redblooded 'Mericans! This is a perfect description of the mindless herd-mentality you seem to be describing. Until recently those of us unwilling to blindly support a war based on fear and hysteria were in the minority. This shows more critical and analytical thinking than the majority of those blindly supporting a war as long as the President waves a flag and stands on an aircraft carrier.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from jon54
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I also haven't seen the movie yet. I just think that there is/was enough bias right wing media coverage to justify this war to the American people in the first place. I mean, come on, the American Eagle turning into an F18 flying into the camera graphic they ran at every war update on Fox News. Or howabout when Jessica Lynch "Earned a PhD in Freedom"? That's not news! That's crap, and people seem to eat it right up these days. The whole "he's our president so I respect him" That's what I call "Blind Patriotism" So, while Michael Moore is very bias, I believe that this is an acceptable contrast to the garbage I am constantly inundated with. I liked an interview I saw M.M. in recently where he mentioned that in his next film, he will do an expose on the bias of the media! So basically, while I disagree with some of his methods, his ultimate goal is to remove what he believes to be a tyrant from office. Why not attack the lack of journalistic integrity you can find on any of the major news sources that are guilty of this on a daily basis!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Joe H
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 10:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have mixed feelings about Michael Moore's recent "documentary". It is obviously quite misleading and disingenuous. However, I think it helps to look at the lies that the other side is putting out. Here's a good article about that:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/
I personally despise Michael Moore and I think he's a disgusting little toad, but if his lies lead to Bush being voted out of office, then I guess my love of truth can take a backseat to my desire to see my little brother back home with his wife and daughter.
Another interesting article about Mikey's lies: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
(reply to this comment)
| From exister
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
But you have to admit that it is a sad state of affairs when someone can make the president look like a buffoon by simply rehashing preexisting news footage without filming a single second of original footage of the president.
My favorite scene was the last. The timeless utterance:
"Fool me once. Shame on...
Shame on...
Shame on you. Ain't gon' fool you again."
Come on Georgie Boy! There are two choice here. If you just go for it there is a 50% chance you'll pick the right one.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 08:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
"He claims to be objective and seeking truth"
Do you have a quote in which he makes this claim, or is this just some universal quality that you impute on everyone for the sole purpose of refuting it?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from shikaka
Monday, June 28, 2004 - 18:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, just as I feared, I seem to be a voice crying in the wilderness. More input please!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Vicky
Monday, June 28, 2004 - 14:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I haven't seen fahrenheit 911 so I can't comment on the content
BUT
When it comes right down to it, I think we should all be glad that Michael Moore can say whatever the hell he likes about George W. Bush and his government! In some countries people would be dead for saying much less than he did. Whether one agrees with Moore or not, I think it's good to see every side of a story in order to form an informed opinion. Concerning biased versus objective reporting, I am not sure that it is ever possible for someone to be completely objective as personal opinion will always colour perceptions of a given situation.
(reply to this comment)
| From Cultinvator
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 01:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's true that every report reflects the cultural biases of it's reported, a little deeper thinking will translate the important universal features of the differenting ethical communities to what is the equivalent in terms of harm, such as basic universal rights, such as murder, otherwise, it's ok to say that it's ok for a person who grows up in a culuture that disregards life as preacious and kills people without reason, just for the heck of it, or because they chose to believe a stupid absurdity like racial superiority or segragation. Otherwise, one can say, oh well the nazis were oppressed, by economic sanctions after wwI, so it was ok for Adolf Hitler to wipe out a variety of psychological, social, ethnic or racial groups, like gypsies, gays, Jeohova Witnesses, or Jews. Then it was just up to their culture, to hate these 'different' people, as an act of self esteem as a Nation.
So it seems that if there is at least one universal idea, then one can't say they're really a serious believer of the pure relativist.
If there is one universal value, such as numbers and how they relate to each other, or the human need to respect of innocent people, then one becomes a universalist to some extent.
I liked the movie. I think it's possible to be biased. And I think that all reporting is never totally free of a perspective, but it's possible to make an elephant out of the consensus of all those surrounding it. Truth is possible, with thinking and not ignoring what happens around us, integrating all philosophies and thought patterns that we see around us. In any case we can't be blamed for any more than what is reasonable doubt, so I guess that's the other side of the coin. Conscience is not something one is born with, it is a combination of intuitive knowlege with cultural and collective hollistic meaning that's developped from experiencing society or one's environment.
Sorry if I'm reading into this too much, I just really found this guy's movie to have truth in more sense than just the logistical organization of the film, and the points addressed without feeling like the whole world's two cents have to be included to make it a PC film. He gave a strong debate for his neck of the woods, and bush's aggregation of off center of attention moments gave a more realistic picture of this monkey of a president and what a little baby brat he is in terms of complete denseness and sickening ignorance towards the pain that he's causing and the motives that are being portraid as the foremost reason to go into Iraq.
He still hasn't come out up front and at least been a tad more frank about the real reasons we're going into iraq and it's simply mostly for the economical and strategic value of control in that region. It its mostly a salad of emotional sound bites with very direct siple facts backing each one up as mostly information, often isolated, but information that stands on its own independant of the many perspectives surrounding it.
You cold feel the pain from the parents of the soldiers at home and the parents of the victims in the field. So really Michael More is not tough on the present system because he hates America, but because he loves the country and knows that keeping a good country from going to hell meaks keeping an open country where people can voice criticizms before we're such an arbitrary corporate driven kingdom of profit for favor, no matter how attrocious or degrading to those involved.
Michael More brought documentaries to a total new level, and it's a good thing that Americans are actually interested in paying to find out what's really going on, instead of doing what we've usually been doing and it's buying wholesale truth from people that often sleep in the same bed much like a prostitute. No ill advice towards the physical prostitution, except those don't have the capability of blowing out whole villages from thier financial decisions.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Haunted
Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shaka - is this you trying to stir up trouble again??
If not, I sincerely appoligize to the anonymous poster.
In any case, whether it was out of mere curiousity or simply an agreeable view, Americans turned out in droves to see the film, myself included.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5310191/
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Regi
Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday and I thought it was terrific. Sure Michael Moore’s ego is easily detected, but that’s just the way he is. I never much liked his abrasive, extremist way of dealing with things, but he probably would not be able to get his ideas out there if he wasn’t that way. Some people complained about the documentary being overly simplified, but I didn’t think it was. It brought out the human side to the war story and commented on the Bush family’s financial ties, etc. with Saudi Arabia and by extension to the Bin Laden family. But I don’t know where you got the idea that Moore said that Bush is “in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden.”
It's funny and depressing at the same time, but a definite "see" if you are open minded at not overly conservative in your political views.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 12:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I KNEW IT!!!
Eventually, someone was gonna bring up the frigging second world war!
Anti-semitism may not be an inherently distinct element of American Fundamentalism, nor the support of colonial imperism (at least not ostensibly), but they do have deifnite precedents in American political History. Berg may have denied his American roots, but he couldn't conceal his recycled prejudices from anyone except himself. Furthermore, I remind you of his reaction to the killing of American soldiers in Somalia: He was all for levelling Mogadishu with HE. He might have denied his true sentiments, but they made themselves apparent when the clinch came.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 13:14
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Like WWII was the one and only time The US has bailed some country out of their mess! We do it constantly whether with money or military force. I've made myself very clear about my views on the Iraq war and as an American I will be the first to critisize my government when and where I see fit. But it pisses me off when other countries look down their stuck up noses at the US while never hesistating to call for our help at the slighest need. If we invade a country we are looked at as aggressors, if we don't get involved we are looked at as ignoring a humanitarian situation. Maybe the rest of the world can grow some balls and take care of their own messes. We have enough domestic issues that need our time and money without having to spend billions of the American taxpayers hard earned money (we do work much harder compared to you siesta takin' europeans) and the lives of our soldiers defending every freakin country that gets its ungrateful ass into trouble! If you dislike American policies, fine, I disagree with a lot of them too, but don't turn around and greedily take our help whenever it suits your purposes!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 13:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, here we go again! While it is not in my usual line of conversation to be patriotic, I remind you that A) your 'help' is often less than productive, and B) you have quite often called upon the aid of other nations to support your own messes.
In Somalia, your involvement only further exacerbated the dangerous conditions there, and you did nothing to better it (I INTEND NO OFFENSE AGAINST THE SOLDIERS WHO DIED THERE); you could have, & should have deployed into Rwanda, where there was absolutely no moral argument preventing you involvement, but WTH, no rewards either.
Obviously, European countries are just as guilty in their mercenary attitude towards involvement, and I concede that.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wholeheartedly agree with you on A as for B give me one example of a country helping us out and I will give you 10 where we have helped other countries. In Somalia we were there for humanitarian reasons and the ungrateful bastards responded by killing the very soldiers sent to help them. Why is it always (or at least mostly) American soldiers dying to save some other country? And what about the responsibility of the Italian military there who had previous knowledge of the incident in question but did nothing to warn the American soldiers of what they were about to walk into? I have this information by a former Italian employee of the UN who was in Somalia at the time working close with the Italian military. I'm just sick of American money and American lives being the ones always put on the line. Other democratic countries need to step up and pull their own weight around this world because quite frankly, as an American taxpayer, I'm getting sick of footing the bill for everyone else's cause.
And of course, not talking about the Iraq fiasco!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 13:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Speaking of the second world war, I thought it was pretty funny, during the D-Day commemorations in France recently, when Bush said in his speech that "The second world war, like the war against terrorism, started because of a vicious attack on America...!" (I admit, loosely paraphrased because I've used up all my brain power already this week and I can't recall the exact words)
Did anyone else find the D-Day commemorations particularly moving? It could just be me and my never-ending sentimentality, but I felt hugely proud of the veterans and the exceptional bravery they showed on that day.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 14:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. I was thinking when I watched it, I wonder what all those ex-soldiers are thinking...
The UK government had actually said a while back that they were not planning a commemorative event this year, but they had to change their direction when they realised that the remaining veterans were determined to honour those who fell, with or without official representation from the gov. While I was pleased with the end result in that I felt the whole thing was done beautifully and with real meaning, it was tinged with the annoying reality that Tony Blair and all the rest had just jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of good PR. Disgraceful.(reply to this comment) |
| | From I agree
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 13:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wish I had been able to watch more of the commemorations, but even the few minutes of coverage that I was able to see in the days leading up to it were moving. I have some treasured pictures I took at the American cementery, the significance of which my relatives taught me as I was about to visit the beaches of Normandy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From moon beam
Monday, June 28, 2004, 12:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I might be that cocky if I had had the passion, determination and more importantly impact that he's had because of his desire to see justice done, in the face of big corrporations and multi-national's unlimited and un-supported power. I was most impressed at his expose of pharmacutical companies gaining tax breaks and dumping useless medicine to poor countries. And his attack on the sale of baby milk and other products to countries where the first language isn't English, yet instructions were in English. It isn't out till next week but it's the first on my what do do next week list! The people I've heard critise his movies haven't given any specific points they dis-agree with, just blanket statements. For years this guy has been one of my Hero's. (sorry brad pitt;)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Haunted
Monday, June 28, 2004, 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Absolutely Regi, the film was amazing! I thought it was very informative and patriotic as well, which I think lends to its acceptability to the general public. In my opinion it covered all aspects of the Bush administration's actions (or lack thereof) and reaction to 9/11 as well as the Iraqi war.
Especially upsetting were the additional footage clips of G.W. Bush giggling and attempting to get a grip on a serious face just minutes before announcing the start of the Iraqi initiative.
I think the misconception to this film is that it is simply a criticism of the Republicans and their supposed "agenda", however, I found that it contained a lot of criticism for Democrats as well for supporting the current administration's desire for war and its incursion into the private lives of its citizens as well as the ignorance and lack of care that went into the passing of the Patriot Act.
Sure, it's rather one-sided, but then again, what documentary isn't? As Nick Broomfield said " I think sometimes the most dishonest documentaries are the ones that pretend to be balanced because, what is balanced?”. (reply to this comment) |
| | From lucidchick
Monday, June 28, 2004, 14:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I saw the film yesterday. I was struck with that congressman who is also a psychiatrist (Jim McDermott, D-WA?) saying that you can get people to do anything if they're afraid. He continued to say that the way you make them afraid is to create an aura of constant threat and you reinforce that with a series of mixed messages (threat level upgraded! Keep doing all your normal activities and travel to all America's great destinations). It reminded me of my childhood.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Peter
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 04:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
While perhaps not many will disagree with the assertion that "the folks who gave us the WTC bombings" are "evildoers," I doubt you could get a similar level of agreement for a consistent definition of evil. It is quite understandble that Bush's repetitive use of the term (some examples are at http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Evil-doers ) is disturbing to those who are concerned that Bush is making descisions of vital national importance based on the advice of right-wing fundamentalist Christians with an apocalyptic worldview (here is an article about Bush's associations and advice seeking from the Apostolic Congress, a "radical, far-right millennialist Christian sect." http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html ). Even Marvin Olasky, who is very moderate considering some of Bush's more recent advisers, wrote "The Bible is clear on government's chief role: to wield "the power of the sword" against both external enemies and internal criminals. Government is needed to terrorize terrorists and other evildoers."[ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20020109.shtml ] While religion has undoubtedly always played an important role in American politics, it does not necessarily follow that we want our President interpreting the Bible to determine which "terrorists and other evildoers" the government needs to terrorize.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, June 28, 2004, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Somehow all of this talk about Bush-bashing documentaries reminds me of when Clinton was in power, and the Clinton Chronicles were being circulated - not to mention the media facination with all of his sexual dalliances.
Those who believed those documentaries would have had just as negative an impression fo Clinton, as those who now believe Michael Moore - the only difference is that Moore has managed to tap into a larger audience for his work.
I don't for a second doubt that every single politician in the world has their own agenda - and likely one which they aren't telling the world about. But at the end of the day, I'll always side with the Right, because that is IMO the most sensible and feasible political structure - whether the respective politicians are as noble as some would want them to be or not.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 05:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
These so called "Bush bashing documentaries" come nowhere close to the magnitude of attacks that were leveled against the Clintons. At least Micheal Moore is using his own money to furthur his politcal interests. The Republicans went all out and spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to try to stick something to Clinton. In the end they couldn't get him for a god damned thing except lying about an extra marital affair. I think it was the most disgusting display of"sour grapes" from losing an election (a legitimate one, by the way) I've ever seen. It makes my blood boil to think of the BS Bush has gotten away with from the very beggining. Every American should be outraged!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's because the Democrats aren't wasting hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to do so. They don't have to...the whole world knows about the lies and deception used by the Bush administration in order to furthur their own politcal agenda as well as pad the coffers of Haliburton and Bectel. Give this administration enough rope and it is slowly hanging itself thanks to their greed and arrogance!
Another thought: Do you right-wingers ever stop to think why it is that the two companies benefiting the most from this war happen to be the two companies with ties to Cheny and Rumsfeld? In the instance of Bected (Rumsfelds company) they have been awarded billions in no bid contracts to repair water lines and build schools. Did the the Iraqi's not have water pipes and schools before the war? Are there no Iraqi companies that could've built a water pipeline or rebuilt a school? Just doesn't seem right to me!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, June 28, 2004, 23:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
It would appear that you haven't watched the Clinton Chronicles - which far from focused on his chequered sexual past! Rather they 'proved' (in the same way as Moore does of Bush) that he had links to organised crime and drug dealing. And that he was following a dark political agenda, beginning back in Arkansas. I guess it's not quite so shocking the second time around!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 09:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you're going to make a comment regarding the attributes of Right-wing politicians then I would expect that a definition of their policies would interest you. But then again, you could just be someone who is adding another anonymous comment.
As for my comment that I will always side with the Right, that is because I do not support individual politicians - as I said already I know that ALL of them have ulterior motives - therefore I have chosen a political ideology to support, in my case it is the Right.(reply to this comment) |
| | From arguing is fun
Friday, July 02, 2004, 19:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I neither have or intend to make a comment about the “attributes of Right wing politicians” my sarcastic jibe was made in respect to the specific Right wing leaders I mentioned in the post itself.
And to clarify the intention of my post was to illustrate the stupidity of the generalisation you made in an otherwise intelligent argument. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Father David
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 07:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well of course he knows everything! Until recently he was one of my faithful sons who benefited from my vast knowledge and my picking and choosing what was important for him to know about world history, politics and everything! Maybe if you had, you would know everything too! Ha! Are you a holy know it all?? Start knowing it all for Jesus TODAY!! It's later thank you think! (tongues and weeping) PTL! Endless is the wisdom of David and his sons are like my little Ws! Who needs a brain when you have Daddy?? Amen! Hallelujah.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From I beg to differ
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 09:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie…..political conservatism is far closer to Berg’s views.
To name a few:
Anti-gay
Anti-choice
Pro-capital punishment
Pro-punishment in general (including children)
Narrow minded
The closest political semblance to TF is the Christian Right who incidentally are well near hi-jacking this administration.
Btw, GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”…..just kidding(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 11:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
And yet he supported Communism and Left-wing political leaders - while criticising just about every Right-wing politician I can think of. You'll almost never hear a good word from him about the Right - apparently they didn't measure up to his degree of fascism! As with Hitler, Mussolini and the others, he borrowed from both sides.
Also, the resemblances which you have listed are not foundation Right-wing politics, but rather the views held by some who consider themselves Right-wing.
Perhaps you American political history buffs would care to recall who the first Republican president was?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Abe
Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
It was abe lincoln...except the parties are soooo drastically different now than they were then, that I don't see your point.
I clearly remember the 88 election when George H. W. Bush was running against his democrat opponent, Dukakis. Berg prayed for Bush’s victory calling him “the lesser of two evils.” I don’t recall the publication, but I remember quite vividly praying for Bush’s victory at devotions time.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]