No More Moore!

[Brother None]

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.

That's not my point. Idea-throwing is not the issue here.

The issue here is that when you have only two political parties, they have to draw to the center. The center, however, is 40% of the American population, if I have to take a guess, and both Republicans and Democrats want more. So they toss out a line to the other ends, Republicans to the right, Democrats to the left. These "lines", however, are not real ingrained essential differences between Democrats or Republicans, they're just differences of opinion on some often unimportant key points.

This is probably hard to see from the inside, but the American political spectrum is *extremely* narrow, up to the point where people used to insanely diverse systems, like the Rhineland countries, often can't see the difference between the two parties and don't see what the fuss is about.

I think the American people feel much the same, which is why there's such an enormous lack of caring for your democracy and your elections. You should be worried about this, but you're not.

The two parties, of course, know this, and know people could just as well randomnly pick a party than conciously vote (yes, I know that's not true, but I'm getting my point across). For that reason they have to shout and holler at the top of their longs just to pretend there's even a minor bit of difference between the two. Again, that shouting isn't noticeable for you, because it's inherent in the system, but foreignors have to be puzzled at times abotu this stuff.

You so need to drop the electoral college already

There's opinionated then there's hurtful slander/libel. Moore is the second.

No. This seems so to you because you're on the other end of the spectrum, but, unlike Bush, Moore's not simply pointing a finger and saying "he's gay".

And you're not actually going to stand there and say misconstruing facts to make the opponent look bad makes it slander/libel? Do I have to remind you of the whole "political ads" thing of Kerry vs. Bush. "Kerry voted against body armor for our troops" Yeh, nice going on truthful representation there.

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

No, your bias is what makes you rediculous. And you can name up un-biased things you do as much as you like, you're still biased. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hence it must be...

You're describing Democratic Socialism in the English tradition, Socialisim's pretty general.

People mix this up a lot, especially in Europe. "Communism", according to these people, is Marx system of dictatorship of the people and equal spread of wealth, "Socialism" is the whole Fabian deal, somewhat equal spread of wealth inside the democratic system.

Meh, it's just wrongful use of terms, but it is confusing, just like how Americans use the word liberal as a synonym for the Democratic party, which is also wrong, as liberals are just "whoever doesn't agree with the current system" and generally, in the Rhineland countries, the term "liberal" denotes the right-wing parties.

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.

Mussolini is a fascist, that's pretty much it. He ran Italy in a pretty right-wing fashion, very anti-social democrat. Hs economic tendancies were not that dissimilar to that of neo-liberalism.

However, I think Rak is wrong, Mussolini never stated corporatism is the same as fascism, tho' it is an accepted fact that corporatism is one of the systems that combine into fascism (next to anti-communism, nationalism and dictatorship/totalitarianism)

However, Rak is completely wrong in saying Moore fights Corporatism. Corporatism, for the unaware, clasically denotes direct political influence of "corporations" (or, in old times, the merchant class). Today it only has some remnants, like the ILO, but generally doesn't exist. The lobby system of the US could only demagogically be described as corporatism. In reality, it is no such thing.

And even if you would argue that the American democratic system allows for the highly undemocratic Corporatism, you have to understand that the Corporatism of Mussolini is a far shite awy from the lobby-system, and comparing the two is idiotic at best.

 

[welsh]

www.michaelmoore.com


See. Moore and Bush are lovers. WTF. What that goat is doing there?

Silly boy. DOn't you realize that the goat is often a symbol of the Devil.

Not only is Moore a commie pinko trying to subvert our healthy republican god loving country by betraying that us to the Muslim fundamentalists who would reduce us to the traditional stone age, but he's in league with the devil.

I mean Bush and Moore holding hands?

What's next, Cats and dogs living together?

And Paladin Solo- the reason we moderates sit back and watch the extremes kill each other is that usually the extremes are killing us. In every revolution it's usually the middle that gets whacked or polarized. This way, both sets of lunacies can clean the gene pool without us having to worry about it.

 

[John Uskglass]

No. This seems so to you because you're on the other end of the spectrum, but, unlike Bush, Moore's not simply pointing a finger and saying "he's gay".

Cute comic.

However, that's not really true at all. Bush never said Kerry woke up and only thought about the Chicoms, not the Americans.

And you're not actually going to stand there and say misconstruing facts to make the opponent look bad makes it slander/libel? Do I have to remind you of the whole "political ads" thing of Kerry vs. Bush. "Kerry voted against body armor for our troops" Yeh, nice going on truthful representation there.

It's beyond that, Kharn. It's essentially like suggesting that Kerry did'nt buy armor for the troops cause he wanted them dead because of his political (and made up) ties to Europe and China.....very frankly, that's what it's like.

It's not really misconstruings facts, alot of it is just lies and rascism.

No, your bias is what makes you rediculous. And you can name up un-biased things you do as much as you like, you're still biased. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hence it must be...

So......because I'm "biased" (I actually read about as much Liberal proporganda as conservative), I can't comment on it without sounding rediculous?

Frankly, you're making it sound like pornography, stuff that's only used to make one feel good, not to infrom or be a peice of art.

People mix this up a lot, especially in Europe. "Communism", according to these people, is Marx system of dictatorship of the people and equal spread of wealth, "Socialism" is the whole Fabian deal, somewhat equal spread of wealth inside the democratic system.

No offence, but alot of this is tripe. Communism is a branch of Socialism, which includes Nazism, the Demsocs, the Greens and such....

Mussolini is a fascist, that's pretty much it. He ran Italy in a pretty right-wing fashion, very anti-social democrat. Hs economic tendancies were not that dissimilar to that of neo-liberalism.

My, that's a powerfully ignorant statement. Mussolini was a dedicated Social-Communist. He turned when serving in WW1, and came back....well.....kind of like the heroes of the Mandalorian wars in KOTOR.

Economically, it's extremely anti-capitalist, as capitalism is viewed as decedant, and usually goes hand in hand with democracy. Under Mousillini industries where nationalized and the trains (contrary to popular belief), stopped running on time, and the Italain economy continued to be useless.

Nazism was slightly diffirent. Nazism is much more about a race, as opposed to Fascism, which is much more about culture and national identity....Mousillini, for all his problems, was not an anti-semite, atleast not in the same way Hitler was.

Nazism also had the same Socialist elements, at least until later in the war when, to help industry, Capitalist elements where introduced, though industry was still largely nationalized.

 

[Wooz]

CC, nazism didn't have Socialist "elements", it was mostly composed of Socialism mixed to a totalitarian, semi-autarchic, welfare state, hence the "National-Sozialist" name.

And putting nazis, commies, greens and demosocs into a single "Socialist" bucket is a severe case of pigeonholing.

Anyways, I haven't seen this movie. I wonder, who decided to distribute it after Disney pulled out?

 

[Malky]

Dog Eat Dog, a subdivision of Miramax.

 

[Brother None]

However, that's not really true at all. Bush never said Kerry woke up and only thought about the Chicoms, not the Americans.

I wasn't talking about Kerry.

It's not really misconstruings facts, alot of it is just lies and rascism.

Look, if there was a slander-case here, don't you think it would've been made? It hasn't, so assume there's not one.

Oh, plus: Republicans compare Democrats to nazis

So......because I'm "biased" (I actually read about as much Liberal proporganda as conservative), I can't comment on it without sounding rediculous?

What you read has nothing to do with how biased you are. A communist could read a right-wing article, but he would read it only with the intent to find fault with it. A bias, indeed, prevent you from neutrally listening to the other side, not from listening to the other side whole.

You've been told before your bias makes you very hard to take seriously, so don't act so shocked. It's like your well-informed, but choose to see only those facts that agree with you.

Frankly, you're making it sound like pornography, stuff that's only used to make one feel good, not to infrom or be a peice of art.

Making what sound like pornography? Moore? Moore's as much just fun as Rush Limbaugh, deal with it. Yes, the oscar was stupid, but it was just an oscar. The Palm d'Or doesn't count the same way, because it doesn't really recognise it as a documentary

No offence, but alot of this is tripe. Communism is a branch of Socialism, which includes Nazism, the Demsocs, the Greens and such....

I was explaining to you where this misunderstanding stems from, and the misconception a lot of people have in this term. I wasn't saying it was so.

My, that's a powerfully ignorant statement. Mussolini was a dedicated Social-Communist. He turned when serving in WW1, and came back....well.....kind of like the heroes of the Mandalorian wars in KOTOR.

I never played KoTOR

From the Doctrine of Fascism, written by Giovanni Gentile but undersigned and claimed by Mussolini:

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

When in the now distant March of 1919, speaking through the columns of the Popolo d'Italia I summoned to Milan the surviving interventionists who had intervened, and who had followed me ever since the foundation of the Fasci of revolutionary action in January 1915, I had in mind no specific doctrinal program. The only doctrine of which I had practical experience was that of socialism, from 1903-04 until the winter of 1914 - nearly a decade. My experience was that both of a follower and a leader - but it was not doctrinal experience. My doctrine during that period had been the doctrine of action. A uniform, universally accepted doctrine of Socialism had not existed since 1905, when the revisionist movement, headed by Bernstein, arose in Germany, countered by the formation, in the see-saw of tendencies, of a left revolutionary movement which in Italy never quitted the field of phrases, whereas, in the case of Russian so­cialism, it became the prelude to Bolshevism.

Reformism, revolutionism, centrism, the very echo of that terminology is dead, while in the great river of Fascism one can trace currents which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, Lagardelle of the Movement Socialists, and in the cohort of Italian syndicalist who from 1904 to 1914 brought a new note into the Italian socialist environment - previously emasculated and chloroformed by fornicating with Giolitti's party - a note sounded in Olivetti's Pagine Libere, Orano's Lupa, Enrico Leone's Divenirs Socials.

When the war ended in 1919 Socialism, as a doctrine, was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge, especially in Italy where its only chance lay in inciting to reprisals against the men who had willed the war and who were to be made to pay for it.

Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.

That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to the economists of the mid-eighteenth century. This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.

After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant. This explains why Fascism - although, for contingent reasons, it was republican in tendency prior to 1922 - abandoned that stand before the March on Rome, convinced that the form of government is no longer a matter of preeminent importance, and because the study of past and present monarchies and past and present republics shows that neither monarchy nor republic can be judged sub specie aeternitatis, but that each stands for a form of government expressing the political evolution, the history, the traditions, and the psychology of a given country.

The doctrine of Fascism - full English translation

As you can clearly see, Mussolini full and well rejects communism and marxism as political ideologies. Yes, he picked up and tasted socialism during WW 1, but he rejects it as an outdated, dead and simply wrong doctrine as he introduces fascism. I suggest you check your sources.

Economically, it's extremely anti-capitalist, as capitalism is viewed as decedant, and usually goes hand in hand with democracy. Under Mousillini industries where nationalized and the trains (contrary to popular belief), stopped running on time, and the Italain economy continued to be useless.

Yes. I know.

Nazism was slightly diffirent. Nazism is much more about a race, as opposed to Fascism, which is much more about culture and national identity....Mousillini, for all his problems, was not an anti-semite, atleast not in the same way Hitler was.

Yes, I know. In fact, everyone knows that.

Nazism also had the same Socialist elements, at least until later in the war when, to help industry, Capitalist elements where introduced, though industry was still largely nationalized.

Yes, that's right, National Socialism had "communist" (though most people just refer to them as socialist) elements in their economic system. Does that make them communists? No. Does that make Mussolini, who clearly rejected communism and whose system of governance only resembles it in the fact that industries were state-owned, a communist? No.

 

[John Uskglass]

I wasn't talking about Kerry.

I was talking about Bush. He does'nt say the same kind of stuff about Kerry that Kerry says about him.

Look, if there was a slander-case here, don't you think it would've been made? It hasn't, so assume there's not one.

Oh, plus: Republicans compare Democrats to nazis

That clip was from a Moveondot.org add that compared Bush to Hitler. It was just showing the irony that they compare Bush to hitler when alot of thier rhetoric this election is so hateful.

What you read has nothing to do with how biased you are. A communist could read a right-wing article, but he would read it only with the intent to find fault with it. A bias, indeed, prevent you from neutrally listening to the other side, not from listening to the other side whole.

Okay, I get that. It did some things right- I thought the Wolfowitz thing was funny, and the manipulation of the cuts was actually fairly funny (though, I do think it was a fairly good drive).

I used to not hate Moore. I actually have Roger and Me on DVD. I always knew he was extreme, but he goes off the deepend here.

Making what sound like pornography? Moore? Moore's as much just fun as Rush Limbaugh, deal with it. Yes, the oscar was stupid, but it was just an oscar. The Palm d'Or doesn't count the same way, because it doesn't really recognise it as a documentary

F-9/11's only purpose is to make people angry-weather at Moore or Bush, it's stupid.

As you can clearly see, Mussolini full and well rejects communism and marxism as political ideologies. Yes, he picked up and tasted socialism during WW 1, but he rejects it as an outdated, dead and simply wrong doctrine as he introduces fascism. I suggest you check your sources.

Sounds fairly socialistic to me. It's diffirent (no class struggle, no unionization), but even some brands of Socail Democrats have done away with that. You're branding him a "Neo-Liberal" (I fucking hate that term, we invented it as Libertarian, that's what it should be called), yet his economic policies where adverse to Capitalist economies.

Yes, that's right, National Socialism had "communist" (though most people just refer to them as socialist) elements in their economic system. Does that make them communists? No. Does that make Mussolini, who clearly rejected communism and whose system of governance only resembles it in the fact that industries were state-owned, a communist? No.

I called him a Socialist in terms of economics. He used to be a Communist.

 

[Brother None]

That clip was from a Moveondot.org add that compared Bush to Hitler. It was just showing the irony that they compare Bush to hitler when alot of thier rhetoric this election is so hateful.

Dude, the article is about footage comparing Democrats to Hitler, from Bush. What are you talking about?

Sounds fairly socialistic to me. It's diffirent (no class struggle, no unionization), but even some brands of Socail Democrats have done away with that. You're branding him a "Neo-Liberal" (I fucking hate that term, we invented it as Libertarian, that's what it should be called), yet his economic policies where adverse to Capitalist economies.

We're not arguing whether or not his economic policies have socialist tendencies.

My, that's a powerfully ignorant statement. Mussolini was a dedicated Social-Communist. He turned when serving in WW1, and came back....well.....kind of like the heroes of the Mandalorian wars in KOTOR.

Obviously, Mussolini was not a dedicated Social-Communist. As much as you'd like to push Fascism to the left, it was a right-wing movement. His economic policies resembling (if only vaguely, there's quite a difference between the fascists nationalisation of the industry and that of the communists) that of the communists doesn't make him a communist, nor does it make the fascist movement a left-wing movement. It's policies were may have been anti-capitalist, but they were as rightwing as you can get.

For all clarity. Anti-capitalist does not denote socialist, especially not if you feel the need to draw democratic socialism into the comparison, any more than capitalism denotes that you're right-wing.

I called him a Socialist in terms of economics. He used to be a Communist.

Yeh, used to be.

 

[John Uskglass]

Dude, the article is about footage comparing Democrats to Hitler, from Bush. What are you talking about?

A) It's internet only
B) That footage is from a Moveon.org commercial that compared Bush to Hitler a few months back
C) Thus it's about the radical, insane politics of people like Dean who run on hatred of Bush more then anything

We're not arguing whether or not his economic policies have socialist tendencies.

That's what I was.

Obviously, Mussolini was not a dedicated Social-Communist. As much as you'd like to push Fascism to the left, it was a right-wing movement. His economic policies resembling (if only vaguely, there's quite a difference between the fascists nationalisation of the industry and that of the communists) that of the communists doesn't make him a communist, nor does it make the fascist movement a left-wing movement. It's policies were may have been anti-capitalist, but they were as rightwing as you can get.

It takes more from the far Left then the far right of the time, but yeah, it's a movement of the right.

For all clarity. Anti-capitalist does not denote socialist, especially not if you feel the need to draw democratic socialism into the comparison, any more than capitalism denotes that you're right-wing.

It was more then anti-capitalist, he nationalized industry...both Hitler and Mousillini did.

 

[RAKTHEUNDEAD]

However, I think Rak is wrong, Mussolini never stated corporatism is the same as fascism, tho' it is an accepted fact that corporatism is one of the systems that combine into fascism (next to anti-communism, nationalism and dictatorship/totalitarianism)

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

Corporatism, for the unaware, clasically denotes direct political influence of "corporations" (or, in old times, the merchant class).

I still think that corporations have direct political influence. We would not hear about it, but the governments probably do take direct political influence from corporations. And let's not forget that in some places, you can be fired for membership of a union. That seem like direct enough political influence.

It was more then anti-capitalist, he nationalized industry...both Hitler and Mousillini did.

Actually, it wasn't anti-capitalist, both supported capitalism, they just nationalised industry to make sure that all the companies were loyal to the regime.

For all clarity. Anti-capitalist does not denote socialist, especially not if you feel the need to draw democratic socialism into the comparison, any more than capitalism denotes that you're right-wing.

In the newer political spectrums, which changes the old system of rating them by how radical they are to a system where left is economic equality, and right is economic oligarchy, capitalism is ALWAYS right-wing. This would place fascism as extreme-rightist. Also, we need to add a second axis, turning our political spectrum into a Nolan Chart, with the top representing totalitarianism and the bottom representing libertarianism. This makes fascism a totalitarian-rightist state.

 

[John Uskglass]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

 

[Malky]

I'm surprised you didn't think that up first, CC, you little fascist.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm surprised you didn't think that up first, CC, you little fascist.

I don't have the money.

 

[Wooz]

 

[Brother None]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Contrary to its title, Michael Moore Hates America isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people, and our way of life.

Yeeaaah

Ok, this'll be pure, clear bullshit.

Bullshit to counter bullshit. Yeah.

 

[John Uskglass]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Contrary to its title, Michael Moore Hates America isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people, and our way of life.

Yeeaaah

Ok, this'll be pure, clear bullshit.

Bullshit to counter bullshit. Yeah.

I know. And I doubt he's going to be as entertaining. He should have just focused on the shit that comes out of Moore's mouth.

 

[Bradylama]

Michael Moore: Documentarian or Poppycock?

Without a doubt, the most influential filmaker in modern America at the present, is Michael Moore. Moore's books and films such as Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine, have received both international and local acclaim. His most recent documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 has broken every record concerning documentaries, and is one of the first documentaries to be shown in theaters nationwide.

Moore's work is also the subject of disdain, however, for his detractors.

What's your opinion of Michael Moore?


Frankly, in my eyes Moore is nothing more than a lying sensationalist, who while claiming to represent the poor and the downtrodden then describes these very people as ignorant simpletons while abroad, simply for the benefit of a cheap applause from an audience.

To support my opinion is an article by liberal author and documentarian, Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Montez]

At base I think Moore is a propagandist and attention-whore, as ready to carve up the truth for his own ends as much as any politician or pundit. He's much more talented and creative than Limbaugh and O'Reilly, for example, but I don't think he's fundamentally any different from them. I do agree with some of his opinions and views, but I really can't stand the way he communicates them.

 

[Fas Ist]

Despite everything(respect,progress,etc...)He looks like a pleased whale .

 

[welsh]

Brady Lama- we have a michael moore discussion elsewhere on this thread.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6542&highlight=michael+moore