No More Moore!

ConstipatedCraprunner said:
The movie was disgusting and a slap in the face to everyone who expected something serious and factional. The guy portrays American soldiers as a bunch of Alex de Larges, while playing at just how innocent these people are. Other highlights include when he describes Iraq as a peacful nation that meant absolutely no harm to the US in any way, shape, or form, and never harmed an American citizen.

On the other hand, that Unfairenheat article is a slap in the face of anyone expecting something serious, unbiased or factional. That article, much like Fairenheit itself, doesn't actually use facts to prove anything. To quote myself from Asshats:

I said:
To fling all that away, I think Moore's film, and the article posted above, is very typical of any democratic institution that doesn't allow a large number of parties to be in power at the same time, like the American rotten electoral college.

Now I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats and the Republicans are really, REALLY fucking similar. They only break off on some key points to draw different groups of voters, but generally it all boils down to the same hogwash. At which point you have a problem, because you have two candidates with no significant differences. So you hammer on the few distances there are, blow them up, spout demagogic verbal diarrhea, and so on and so forth.

This lack of nuance doesn't exactly promote a healthy democratic atmosphere, as is expressed by the incredibly low turnout in American election. I firmly believe, and will express here again, that America would be much better of without the largely undemocratic electoral college.
 
That anti-anti moore link a few pages back provides no real defense for Moore

As a former NRA member, I feel it is my obligation to point out that Moore is an asshat.

The hatchet job he did with Heston's speech in BFC was clearly designed to make the NRA look like uncaring psycopaths, anyone who cannot realize that after comparing the original speech vs Moore's version needs to have their head examined.

As for F9/11, well since one of his main points was shot down, and the other ones are in question (such as if Bush and the Saudi's are involved to the extent Moore implies, why then are we not allowed to base attacks into Iraq from Saudi Arabia?) then why is it getting so much praise??? Why hasn't Moore publically admitted his error?

Moore makes some good points, and says some things that need to be said, but then he rants for 20 minutes about something that is based on a complete falsehood.

This is why most intelligent liberals distance themselves from Moore, the fashionable "look at me I'm smart because I'm a liberal!" people who only take up these political views because it is "in" (many college students, some celebreties) and not because they actually read up the subjects just make actual liberals (like me) look bad.
 
override367 said:
As for F9/11, well since one of his main points was shot down, and the other ones are in question (such as if Bush and the Saudi's are involved to the extent Moore implies, why then are we not allowed to base attacks into Iraq from Saudi Arabia?) then why is it getting so much praise???
Because regardless of the supposed ties between Bush and the house of Saud, the people of Saudi Arabia do not want Americans there. Remember that the ruling family in Saudi Arabia aren't exactly loved by many of its more militant constituents.

override367 said:
Why hasn't Moore publically admitted his error?

For the same reason many in the administration do not admit their errors, they dont' believe that they have to.

override367 said:
This is why most intelligent liberals distance themselves from Moore, the fashionable "look at me I'm smart because I'm a liberal!" people who only take up these political views because it is "in" (many college students, some celebreties) and not because they actually read up the subjects just make actual liberals (like me) look bad.

I agree. I think it is shamful that Moore stoopes to the same level as the White House in order to get his message across, he has lost most of his credibility as a spokesman for the liberal point of view. However, he is useful at least for raising the level of public debate.
 
I agree. I think it is shamful that Moore stoopes to the same level as the White House in order to get his message across, he has lost most of his credibility as a spokesman for the liberal point of view. However, he is useful at least for raising the level of public debate.
:lol:

You have no idea what you are talking about. Limbaugh and the crew might talk about Moore waking up and only caring about Europe, but Bush has never said anything like that. Moore did. He's the very definition of asshat.
 
Now, now, let's not take this to personally.

Back to the discussion-
I rather question if "being liberal" is "in" these days. Rather it seems more like cynical conservative is more fashionable.

Since I haven't seen the movie yet, I can't comment. I am looking forward to it.

But Kharn, here I have to disagree a bit.

One of the beauties of this system is that people can express opinions, and that people can listen and dismiss them on their own. So far I have yet to hear Moore saying that his documentary isn't biased. In that sense he, like CCR, like myself, have the right to throw out their ideas. Whether people will be led to follow them like sheep or cattle is up to them.

The thing about free speech is that people have the right to speak, but you, as audience, have the right to be discerning and to think about it. That certain folks would rather not have the film out, be it by boycotting theatres, denying tax incentives to movie houses, making web pages, or calling it political advertising and thereby denying media exposure, seems a bit silly to me. Especially as this has done little but raise awareness to the movie and the question of "why are you so scared of what someone thinks?"

Frankly, as much as I would prefer not to be led by the nose like a sheep or cow (and we know how they end up), more I dislike the idea of someone telling me I should be thinking.

Responsibility is core to individuality, and that includes making up your own mind and thinking a bit critically.

Party politics might have much to do with the creation of strategic allies with special interests. THere is a benefit of having two parties that are fairly similar- they reduce instability in the market, reduce risk and keep the economy happy. That said, a lack of politically driven opinions, (your Lyndon Larouche or Ralph Nader's excepted) reduces the discourse. Thus other sources of opinion placed in the market place of ideas is a good thing.

Honestly, I don't mind Moore being a bit extreme. The liberal side needs to get a kick in the ass especially since the conservatives have been pretty extreme as well. One hears that same criticism from Frankin and Bil Mohr.

for more discussion-
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1973994

By the way, Moore was on the Daily Show last night, so you might want to check that clip = again the admission that the documentary is opinionated.
 
BowlingforFallujah-X.gif
 
By the way, Moore was on the Daily Show last night, so you might want to check that clip = again the admission that the documentary is opinionated.
There's opinionated then there's hurtful slander/libel. Moore is the second.

Honestly, just look at the movie. It's surprisingly bad.....heck, it's even rascist with it's OMFG GBUSH SHAKING HANDS WITH.....OMFG ARABS! montage.
 
Exactly how do you 8call this slander/libel?

Bush is a public person, and the standards for commenting on a public person are very laxed in the hopes of maintaining public discourse.

Or is the man not entitled to an opinion.

Don't you think that it's possible that when the Saudi royal family gives a billion plus dollars to Bush and their company affiliates, that there might be a bit of bias on the part of the administration? Isn't this worth discussing?

And why is anyone who voices an opinion that is not pro-bush a commie in your eyes?

CC- as Murdoch has pointed out, isn't it already clear that your views are not being taken seriously because of your obvious and strident bias? Don't you realize that you are beginning to appear ridiculous?
 
Bush is a public person, and the standards for commenting on a public person are very laxed in the hopes of maintaining public discourse.
Actually, I did'nt object to that.

Or is the man not entitled to an opinion.
He is

Don't you think that it's possible that when the Saudi royal family gives a billion plus dollars to Bush and their company affiliates, that there might be a bit of bias on the part of the administration? Isn't this worth discussing?
Bush family is an oil family. Yes, weather or not it's disturbing is up to debate-I personally don't think so, but then again, the enitre oil buisness is done through Saudi Arabia.

And why is anyone who voices an opinion that is not pro-bush a commie in your eyes?
That's shit. You're not a commie. Sander's not a Commie. Wooz is'nt a Commie. Al Franken is'nt. Howard Dean is'nt. Kerry is'nt. Even Kharn is'nt a commie.

Michael Moore, however, is IMHO a dedicated Socialist in the way that not even Kharn can be.

Ever watch IFC? THere's a documentery called "The Big One" on every hour or so now. The guy talks about how free trade is'nt written in the constitution, how "we can write whatever kind of law we want as long as it fits in that constitution", and also talks about getting rid of "coroporate welfare" in favor of other welfare.

The guy is at least a left-leaining Socialist. In Europe, he'd be a Communist. If he was'nt so obese, I'd expect him to wear overalls.

CC- as Murdoch has pointed out, isn't it already clear that your views are not being taken seriously because of your obvious and strident bias? Don't you realize that you are beginning to appear ridiculous?
Heh. See the damn movie. Then start talking about who's sounding rediculous.
 
welsh said:
CC- as Murdoch has pointed out, isn't it already clear that your views are not being taken seriously because of your obvious and strident bias? Don't you realize that you are beginning to appear ridiculous?

Beginning to appear rediculous?

Don't kid yourself.
 
Malkavian said:
welsh said:
CC- as Murdoch has pointed out, isn't it already clear that your views are not being taken seriously because of your obvious and strident bias? Don't you realize that you are beginning to appear ridiculous?

Beginning to appear rediculous?

Don't kid yourself.
Wait.....so because I'm a Republican, I don't have any kind of right to critiscize F-9/11?

It's not like I just shut down when I figure out that something is written/directed by a leftie. Heck, I'm as big a fan of Al Franken as anybody, and I've read The Nation sense I was'nt even a Rpublican.
 
Sorry, I am going way off topic with this and I will only do this once, but is that how you really spell these words...

Is'nt
Was'nt

I've been told it's spelt

Isn't
Wasn't

Damn Republicans!

Mohrg :twisted:
 
I rather question if "being liberal" is "in" these days. Rather it seems more like cynical conservative is more fashionable.

Well of course that's how you feel, you aren't conservative. Conservatives feel the same way when they see tree huggers, hippies, drug abusers, near-sighted gynecologists, pro-war anti-Bush people, and the likes taking over. Meanwhile, moderates sit back, and watch us destroy eachother, plotting their take over.
 
ConstipatedCraprunner said:
That's more an issue of my accent going into my writing then dyslexia, methinks, so I'll work on that.

Sorry, I have to go off topic once more...

What?!?!

Mohrg :twisted:
 
The guy is at least a left-leaining Socialist. In Europe, he'd be a Communist.

Hell, fucking no. Communism and Socialism are not interchangeable. Communism and Socialism are two different political systems. Communism supports total equal distribution of wealth, and as far as I know, Michael Moore does not support this. Socialism, which is the system I support, supports an economic redistribution of wealth which attempts to give everybody a fair share.

Therefore, by protesting against corporatism(which is actually another word which could be used in place of "fascist", according to Mussolini), Michael Moore establishes himself in the far-leftist category economically, making him a Socialist, not a Communist as you seem to believe.
 
Hell, fucking no. Communism and Socialism are not interchangeable. Communism and Socialism are two different political systems. Communism supports total equal distribution of wealth, and as far as I know, Michael Moore does not support this. Socialism, which is the system I support, supports an economic redistribution of wealth which attempts to give everybody a fair share.
You're describing Democratic Socialism in the English tradition, Socialisim's pretty general.

I don't think he's a democratic socialist. You guys don't want to ban corporations, this guy does (watch The Big One).

I know they're not interchangeable, but I'd say he would fit in quite a few far-left Socialist parties or Communist ones in Europe. Listen closely, he's a fanatic.

Therefore, by protesting against corporatism(which is actually another word which could be used in place of "fascist", according to Mussolini), Michael Moore establishes himself in the far-leftist category economically, making him a Socialist, not a Communist as you seem to believe.
Odd qutote form Moussilini, the former Communist, the Athiest and the son of one......anyhoo......he's really, really far to the left economically. I don't even know what he is.
See. Moore and Bush are lovers
Jesus Christ, that's fucking low. I would'nt even say that about Clinton, or Stalin. Stalin at least was esentially a kasanova in his early years.

I don't really hate Moore...at least not before F-9/11. I liked Roger and Me, at least...
 
Back
Top