U2luv
The Fly
diamond said:Bush in 2oo4
God help us if that happens
MERGED -- > I love Michael Moore + F*ck Michael Moore
- Thread starter Scarletwine
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
God help us if that happens
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
U2luv-U2luv said:
God help us if that happens
Be advised,
my prediction rate is pretty successful.
I periodically get calls from Jimmy The Greek
thank u
DB9
Last edited:
U2luv
The Fly
Headache in a Suitcase said:
One thing to say. This is my country too. If I have something to say it's my right under the First amendment of the Constitution to do so. If you don't like it, too bad 
And as a US citizen, I give U2 the right to do so as well. 
YellowKite
War Child
Actually Moore didn't make any connection between big tobacco and the gun industry - that was me thinking for myself, thank you.
Don't you think that oil [and more specifically oil barons like uhm say Bush and Cheney] have made a nice profit?
Saddam is a monster. I am positive that I have not heard any rational antiwar stance that says 'hey lets keep him in power.' It is not my opinion that America needs to force feed democracy. Really isn't that the opposite of what we preach as a democratic country - the freedom to choose? Iraq isn't free to rise up and change government? I believe Saddam got in on the tails of forcing his own uncle out of power. Yet, typical behavior of do what we say not as we do. People learn by example. If we demonstrate war as the best option, then we negate all the ideals set forth by a democratic framework.
Saddam needs to be ousted from inside. You can't give something like a country's identity to it's people. They need to find the one that fits them on their own.
Bush has been chomping at the bit to fight a war he can win since 9/11. We can't find Osama for some reason, but hey lets go after someone we can grind into oblivion and who also so happens to be my arch enemy and who tried to kill my dad - revenge.
If Saddam truly had these weapons they are trying to convince me he has, I believe that he would have used more than burning oil trenches as our troops move within hours of taking Baghdad. Our lovely 24 hour news stations even helpfully give maps of where our troops are stationed and the weaponry they have on hand.
If you are convinced that we tried every diplomatic option and war is the decision you make, then great. I choose otherwise and I believe many others will decide in Nov 04 that Bush and his whole administration were wrong.
Plus war is a nice diversion from that fact that Bush has no valid domestic policy. Playing commando in chief is a way to blow a little "america kicks ass' smoke up our collective butt.
Last edited:
Shame on You, Mr. Moore! Shame on You!
The 'Bowling for Columbine' auteur had every qualification to make his antiwar speech at the Oscars. That didn't make it any less stupid
By JAMES PONIEWOZIK
It may not be the most popular thing to say today, but Michael Moore had not only every right but every legitimate qualification to make an antiwar speech ? "Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you!" ? at the 2003 Oscars. The standard reason to discount political speeches from Hollywood celebs, after all, is that we don't give a crap about their political thoughts: their job is to stand up, look pretty, collect their $25 million and give US and People something to write about.
One can hardly say that about Michael Moore. In fact, there is not much reason that anyone cares about Michael Moore except for his political opinions. From "Roger and Me" through his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine", his movie are less documentaries in the usual sense than artfully constructed and often hilariously funny editorials. Agree with him or not, he is, unlike Susan Sarandon, nothing if he is not a professional commentator; and thus it was not inherently stupid for him to make his speech.
No. His speech was stupid for entirely different reasons.
The first is that ? and this is a characteristic flaw of Moore's movies ? it was a shrill harangue that would make a person ashamed even for agreeing with it. By starting off his screed by attacking the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election, he committed the same mistake as too many leaders of the antiwar movement, such as the leaders of ANSWER: he couldn't resist the temptation to lump his antiwar stance in with the rest of his portfolio of grievances. As a result, he made a speech guaranteed to alienate even many people who are also against the war.
If Moore really wants to end the war ? and not just boost the spirits of his Upper West Side neighbors ? then mightn't he also want to win over people who oppose the war and yet don't believe that Bush is an illegimate president swept into office by skullduggery? Is he so insulated that he doesn't realize people like that exist? Or are people like that simply not simon-pure enough for him to want them in his antiwar movement?
That's the really annoying thing about Moore's speech. Moore often casts himself as a populist, and sometimes he's even convincing. He often makes a strong case against other progressives who out of touch with the hoi polloi ? who can't lower themselves to listen to talk radio, can't identify a NASCAR driver or country singer, can't in any sense understand how the mass of America lives and thinks. This kind of liberal attitude, he has rightly argued, has kept the Left from building broad-based movements. But Moore's own clubby, we-all-know-Bush-is-a-liar attitude suggests that he's not interested in a broad-based antiwar movement.
I'm going to get a lot of e-mail from people who believe Bush stole the election in Florida, but before you press "send," at least consider this. A lot of smart people agree with you. But if someone disagrees with you, are they not worth allying with against the war? Would you rather have a war in Iraq than pass up a chance to bring up Florida again?
The remainder of the speech was no improvement. There was the general hectoring and finger-wagging ? and I don't mean finger-wagging figuratively; the man literally thrust his finger at the camera. A man with Moore's sense of history has no excuse not to realize that makes him look like a crackpot dictator shouting a harangue from the balcony. And while his last line about Bush being in trouble because the Pope and the Dixie Chicks are against him was funny, it was funny because most people don't take the opinions of music groups seriously. Kind of like the opinions of Oscar winners.
There's been a lot of piling on against celebrities who speak out against the war. Frankly, I sympathize with the celebs. We spend our entire lives paying inordinate attention to the pronouncements of celebrities on everything from art to family to fashion. Suddenly we're offended because they also care about politics?
But there's a special reason to resent a political speech at the Oscars ? and it's not just bias against Hollywood liberals. (Everyone considers Arnold Schwarzenegger a nitwit for holding forth politically too, and he's conservative.) Call it the Panhandler Syndrome. A speaker like Moore is like a beggar in a New York City subway car. Even people who give to charity and the homeless resent this kind of panhandling, because it takes advantage of a captive audience. It's not like you can just jump out onto the tracks if you don't want to be bothered.
Likewise, a proselytizing celeb like Moore is essentially hijacking our attention, saying that if you want to find out who won Best Director, you're damn well going to sit there and hear me out on world affairs. All the more reason for him to be, if not apolitical, reasonable and respectful of people who disagree with him, or agree with him only, say, 60%.
When I e-mailed an esteemed colleague my thoughts about Moore earlier today, he wrote back with a reasonable defense: Why should a progressive like Moore have to be all gentle and NPR-nuanced when there are so many Limbaughs and O'Reillys out there? The reason: More people in America identify as conservative than liberal, like it or not. So lefties who want to accomplish anything outside Santa Monica and Manhattan need moderate support even more than their righty analogues do.
That's assuming, of course, that Michael Moore actually wants to expand the antiwar movement. Maybe he simply wants to excite his amen corner ? that is, people who might rush out and see, buy or rent his movies. That may be good enough for him. It will certainly be good enough for his career. It should not be good enough for anyone who wants to create an antiwar movement that could actually stop a war.
The 'Bowling for Columbine' auteur had every qualification to make his antiwar speech at the Oscars. That didn't make it any less stupid
By JAMES PONIEWOZIK
It may not be the most popular thing to say today, but Michael Moore had not only every right but every legitimate qualification to make an antiwar speech ? "Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you!" ? at the 2003 Oscars. The standard reason to discount political speeches from Hollywood celebs, after all, is that we don't give a crap about their political thoughts: their job is to stand up, look pretty, collect their $25 million and give US and People something to write about.
One can hardly say that about Michael Moore. In fact, there is not much reason that anyone cares about Michael Moore except for his political opinions. From "Roger and Me" through his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine", his movie are less documentaries in the usual sense than artfully constructed and often hilariously funny editorials. Agree with him or not, he is, unlike Susan Sarandon, nothing if he is not a professional commentator; and thus it was not inherently stupid for him to make his speech.
No. His speech was stupid for entirely different reasons.
The first is that ? and this is a characteristic flaw of Moore's movies ? it was a shrill harangue that would make a person ashamed even for agreeing with it. By starting off his screed by attacking the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election, he committed the same mistake as too many leaders of the antiwar movement, such as the leaders of ANSWER: he couldn't resist the temptation to lump his antiwar stance in with the rest of his portfolio of grievances. As a result, he made a speech guaranteed to alienate even many people who are also against the war.
If Moore really wants to end the war ? and not just boost the spirits of his Upper West Side neighbors ? then mightn't he also want to win over people who oppose the war and yet don't believe that Bush is an illegimate president swept into office by skullduggery? Is he so insulated that he doesn't realize people like that exist? Or are people like that simply not simon-pure enough for him to want them in his antiwar movement?
That's the really annoying thing about Moore's speech. Moore often casts himself as a populist, and sometimes he's even convincing. He often makes a strong case against other progressives who out of touch with the hoi polloi ? who can't lower themselves to listen to talk radio, can't identify a NASCAR driver or country singer, can't in any sense understand how the mass of America lives and thinks. This kind of liberal attitude, he has rightly argued, has kept the Left from building broad-based movements. But Moore's own clubby, we-all-know-Bush-is-a-liar attitude suggests that he's not interested in a broad-based antiwar movement.
I'm going to get a lot of e-mail from people who believe Bush stole the election in Florida, but before you press "send," at least consider this. A lot of smart people agree with you. But if someone disagrees with you, are they not worth allying with against the war? Would you rather have a war in Iraq than pass up a chance to bring up Florida again?
The remainder of the speech was no improvement. There was the general hectoring and finger-wagging ? and I don't mean finger-wagging figuratively; the man literally thrust his finger at the camera. A man with Moore's sense of history has no excuse not to realize that makes him look like a crackpot dictator shouting a harangue from the balcony. And while his last line about Bush being in trouble because the Pope and the Dixie Chicks are against him was funny, it was funny because most people don't take the opinions of music groups seriously. Kind of like the opinions of Oscar winners.
There's been a lot of piling on against celebrities who speak out against the war. Frankly, I sympathize with the celebs. We spend our entire lives paying inordinate attention to the pronouncements of celebrities on everything from art to family to fashion. Suddenly we're offended because they also care about politics?
But there's a special reason to resent a political speech at the Oscars ? and it's not just bias against Hollywood liberals. (Everyone considers Arnold Schwarzenegger a nitwit for holding forth politically too, and he's conservative.) Call it the Panhandler Syndrome. A speaker like Moore is like a beggar in a New York City subway car. Even people who give to charity and the homeless resent this kind of panhandling, because it takes advantage of a captive audience. It's not like you can just jump out onto the tracks if you don't want to be bothered.
Likewise, a proselytizing celeb like Moore is essentially hijacking our attention, saying that if you want to find out who won Best Director, you're damn well going to sit there and hear me out on world affairs. All the more reason for him to be, if not apolitical, reasonable and respectful of people who disagree with him, or agree with him only, say, 60%.
When I e-mailed an esteemed colleague my thoughts about Moore earlier today, he wrote back with a reasonable defense: Why should a progressive like Moore have to be all gentle and NPR-nuanced when there are so many Limbaughs and O'Reillys out there? The reason: More people in America identify as conservative than liberal, like it or not. So lefties who want to accomplish anything outside Santa Monica and Manhattan need moderate support even more than their righty analogues do.
That's assuming, of course, that Michael Moore actually wants to expand the antiwar movement. Maybe he simply wants to excite his amen corner ? that is, people who might rush out and see, buy or rent his movies. That may be good enough for him. It will certainly be good enough for his career. It should not be good enough for anyone who wants to create an antiwar movement that could actually stop a war.
WildHoneyAlways
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
arw9797 said:
Okay, if you are making a commment about the service men who have been KIA you are a sick S.O.B. That is not funny or witty.
As for Mr. Moore, I thought he made an ass of himself. He was honored for his work and chose to bring up the election of 2000 instead of thanking the people who made his project possible. I just don't understand.
As for the war in Iraq, I fully support president Bush and our troops. I admittedly did not know much about the situation in Iraq until I took the time to educate myself this weekend. Sadaam and his two sons are sick individuals who have no regard for life. They need to be removed from power. End of story. My best friend, who has a college degree and was working full time, enlisted in the army after September 11 to fight terrorism and evil men such as Sadaam. He continues to make me proud every day.
As for anti-war protesters out there...I'd like for them to take the advice of one of the father's of a fallen serviceman, Spend your time helping the needy or picking up litter, not protesting.
Mrs. Edge
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
I loved Bowling for Columbine, and think Michael Moore is hilarious most of the time, albeit rather over the top! I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed in the overall desperateness of his tone....I would have preferred him to say something bitingly sarcastic or witty....but it would have been a huge letdown if he had said nothing at all. I mean, come on! It's Michael Moore!
Now here is the thing (I am probably going to regret posting this in the morning...). I know someone has probably said this a million times already, but what I really, genuinely don't understand (and maybe this is just my Canadian perspective or something) is this attitude that in times of war EVERYONE has to stand behind the President, no matter what, whether you agree or not for the sake of appearances. What exactly is achieved by this? If all the Iraqis stood behind Saddam in times of war no matter what wouldn't everyone accuse them of being brain washed?
Also, with this "united we stand divided we fall" it seems to me that even if 100% of Americans disagreed with the war, if the President decides to send the army and the army wins, there is no fall. And having everyone stand behind the President does not in fact guarantee a win.
What is the problem if people in the country disagree with the motives? That's the whole point of being an American, isn't it?
I am sure that EVERYONE supports the troops and wishes they were home safe. No one blames them for the war or wishes them ill. But going to an anti war protest (if done for the right reasons and not to behave like an idiot) does not make you unpatriotic! If anything, you are standing for the safe return of the troops, right? I think it makes you MORE patriotic! And who knows, maybe after the peace rally, many of these people ARE spending their time helping the needy, picking up litter etc.
And about these people who boycott various artists because they don't agree with the war. What do they think that will actually accomplish other than making themselves feel better? Do they really think the artist is actually going to say "oh, they aren't going to my movie or buying my record...I'd better change my tune and agree with the war!" How is armtwisting someone into agreeing with you satisfying? I genuinely don't understand it.
I just think, that as long as you love and are genuinely concerned about your country, are expressing what you truly believe, and you aren't hurting anyone, you as patriotic as the person next to you who disagrees with your opinion.
My 0/02.
Goodnight!
Now here is the thing (I am probably going to regret posting this in the morning...). I know someone has probably said this a million times already, but what I really, genuinely don't understand (and maybe this is just my Canadian perspective or something) is this attitude that in times of war EVERYONE has to stand behind the President, no matter what, whether you agree or not for the sake of appearances. What exactly is achieved by this? If all the Iraqis stood behind Saddam in times of war no matter what wouldn't everyone accuse them of being brain washed?
Also, with this "united we stand divided we fall" it seems to me that even if 100% of Americans disagreed with the war, if the President decides to send the army and the army wins, there is no fall. And having everyone stand behind the President does not in fact guarantee a win.
What is the problem if people in the country disagree with the motives? That's the whole point of being an American, isn't it?
I am sure that EVERYONE supports the troops and wishes they were home safe. No one blames them for the war or wishes them ill. But going to an anti war protest (if done for the right reasons and not to behave like an idiot) does not make you unpatriotic! If anything, you are standing for the safe return of the troops, right? I think it makes you MORE patriotic! And who knows, maybe after the peace rally, many of these people ARE spending their time helping the needy, picking up litter etc.
And about these people who boycott various artists because they don't agree with the war. What do they think that will actually accomplish other than making themselves feel better? Do they really think the artist is actually going to say "oh, they aren't going to my movie or buying my record...I'd better change my tune and agree with the war!" How is armtwisting someone into agreeing with you satisfying? I genuinely don't understand it.
I just think, that as long as you love and are genuinely concerned about your country, are expressing what you truly believe, and you aren't hurting anyone, you as patriotic as the person next to you who disagrees with your opinion.
My 0/02.
Goodnight!
OP
OP
Scarletwine
New Yorker
I LOOOVVVEEE Michael Moore.
edited to say
It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Sorry ya'll can't take the heat.
Shame on you.
edited to say
It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Sorry ya'll can't take the heat.
Shame on you.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
its how it was said.
BAW
The Flower
diamond said:
...and where it was said and when it was said. I don't give a rats ass about what he said but he was rude and innapropriate and came off looking liking a buffoon. His big moment backfired and instead of shutting up and walking away, he got carried away by the moment and looked even dumber and out of control.
Wrong place, wrong time.
pub crawler
New Yorker
Mrs. Edge - well stated. I agree with you 100%.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
pub-
3 beers
a gentle diamond-slap
and u will b reprogramed
when im finished w you.
diamond
3 beers
a gentle diamond-slap
and u will b reprogramed
when im finished w you.
diamond
pub crawler
New Yorker
lol
diamond
diamond 
The_Sweetest_Thing
MacPhisto's serving wench
I just feel, despite it being Michael Moore or not, is that there is a time and a place for political outbursts. the Oscars is traditionally not one of those times nor places. If he wants to rant politically he should make a doumentary. That's his job. I and the rest of the world, do not need to hear anyone's political opinions at a Hollywood event. I do not need to be lectured at an Award show by a man in the film industry. It's equivalent to going to a sporting event and having a hockey player tell me ow to dance ballet. it doesn't make sense. Just because he is an athlete doesn't mean he knows dance. Just because Moore is a doumentarists (?) doesn't mean he knows politics or the issues any more than anyone at the Kodak Theatre.
Americans and the celebrities present at the event were/are aware of the issues. I dodn't feel that anyone needed to be reminded through childish outburts. There are more grown up, classy ways to handle oneself in public. There is a fine line between the freedom of speech and coming off as a desperate, rambling, obnoxious boar.
Americans and the celebrities present at the event were/are aware of the issues. I dodn't feel that anyone needed to be reminded through childish outburts. There are more grown up, classy ways to handle oneself in public. There is a fine line between the freedom of speech and coming off as a desperate, rambling, obnoxious boar.
Anthony: It's ok, it was a mistake, I understand that.
and womanfish, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you're judging me like you do.
To quote myself from the "MERGED -> To protest or not to protest +War protest" thread:
"I'm going to a protest tomorrow in Gothenburg, I think. First of all, it's important to separate the "real" protesters from the troublemakers who only are in 'cause it gives them a chance to fight the police which they have declared their nr. 1 enemy. I can't speak for other countries, but this is how it is in sweden at a lot of protests. Being leftist has come to be popular among young people. These troublemakers are often kids of pretty wealthy families and this just gives them a chance to rebell against their parents. It's a pity and a shame that these people are in 'cause they draw attention from the issue itself. I'm so sick of them."
OK?
and womanfish, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you're judging me like you do.
To quote myself from the "MERGED -> To protest or not to protest +War protest" thread:
"I'm going to a protest tomorrow in Gothenburg, I think. First of all, it's important to separate the "real" protesters from the troublemakers who only are in 'cause it gives them a chance to fight the police which they have declared their nr. 1 enemy. I can't speak for other countries, but this is how it is in sweden at a lot of protests. Being leftist has come to be popular among young people. These troublemakers are often kids of pretty wealthy families and this just gives them a chance to rebell against their parents. It's a pity and a shame that these people are in 'cause they draw attention from the issue itself. I'm so sick of them."
OK?
Last edited:
Anthony
Refugee
Diamond;
He is?
I have been trying to get information on where he stands in all this, but without succes, and I figured since he supported the action taken in Afghanistan (though, granted, so did I) and given his beliefs in protecting New York (he is particularly patriotic about that city that is quite dear to him - notice how 90 % of his movies are always in New York) and the 'homeland', I would have thought he'd be supporting this war.
Just goes to show, you're right Diamond, some people you can't typecast.
Oh, and thanks U2FReAk, I know I would have been a tad annoyed. Just a tad, mind you. By the way, speedracer and U2FReAk and any other person I have wronged with my abhorrent crime of editing instead of replying, I know what is wrong with me now and with the support of my fellow Mods, I shall beat this disease.
Oh, and by the way, just when you thought I couldn't highjack this thread anymore, I would just like to add that Mr. Martin Scorsese ROCKS! I know I was booing when the Academy overlooked him, again. To quote a fellow liberal, shame on you, Academy, SHAME ON YOU!
Ant.
He is?
I have been trying to get information on where he stands in all this, but without succes, and I figured since he supported the action taken in Afghanistan (though, granted, so did I) and given his beliefs in protecting New York (he is particularly patriotic about that city that is quite dear to him - notice how 90 % of his movies are always in New York) and the 'homeland', I would have thought he'd be supporting this war.
Just goes to show, you're right Diamond, some people you can't typecast.
Oh, and thanks U2FReAk, I know I would have been a tad annoyed. Just a tad, mind you. By the way, speedracer and U2FReAk and any other person I have wronged with my abhorrent crime of editing instead of replying, I know what is wrong with me now and with the support of my fellow Mods, I shall beat this disease.
Oh, and by the way, just when you thought I couldn't highjack this thread anymore, I would just like to add that Mr. Martin Scorsese ROCKS! I know I was booing when the Academy overlooked him, again. To quote a fellow liberal, shame on you, Academy, SHAME ON YOU!
Ant.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Ant-
Yeah I heard him say he opposed the Iraq invasion about a month ago
shortly thereafter Bono came out too.
DB9
Yeah I heard him say he opposed the Iraq invasion about a month ago
shortly thereafter Bono came out too.
DB9
YellowKite
War Child
Interesting personal observation: On Saturday they had antiwar protestors on the busy corner near the mall and pro-war supporters at the other corner. Later that day when I was coming back from running errands I noticed that there was trash near the pro-war area and none near the antiwar area.
This means there was trash in both areas and the protestors picked their area up.
OR there was no trash in either area and only the supporters left their trash behind.
OR there was no trash near the protestors and they didn't create any and there WAS trash near the supporters and they didn't notice or didn't care enough to pick it up.
Guess that means the protestors are able to be both antiwar and environmentalists.
let me rephrase once again to try to calm the bitterness...
my suggestion to mr. moore was that if he has such a problem with a nation that allows him to runneth his over-run yapper, perhaps he should try a nice chateu' on the river seine... or maybe a nice abode in downtown baghdad, so he can learn to appreciate what he has more. in my anger over the situation, that comment boiled over into "get the fuck out."
i have no tolerance for people who blaim everything on the government. talk to an iraqi-american about what it was like living under saddam's government. talk to my friend edin about what it was like living under milosevic.
the thing with supporting bush as commander-in-chief has nothing to do with supporting his policies. the united states military are the defenders of our freedom, and the head of that military is the commander-in-chief... the president. in my opinion, it's like rooting for a sports team. i'm a huge new york knicks fan. i think the player decisions they've made are horrendous, and the coach and general manager need to go. but when it's game time, i put that aside and i root for my team. if you don't want to support your team, well maybe you shouldn't be a fan of that team then. the troops are our team and the commander-in-cheif is our coach. we're at war, and wether you agree with the policies or the decision making, all americans should support their team. supporting the president as commander-in-cheif in no says that you support his policies, domestic or foreign. it says that you support him to make sure the right decisions militarily to insure the quick and safe return of our troops.
i fully support the right of the anti-war protesters to protest... but i believe them to be extremely selfish. huge protests like the one held here in new york the other day are a massive security risk. it diverts police attention away from other more neccesary projects, it causes extreme traffic problems, and presents a very attractive "soft-target" to someone who might want to take out a few thousand americans quite quickly.
i appologize for presenting my opinions in a less than civil manner... i tend to rant uncontrolably for a few days after being set off by idiotic blowhards like michael moore.
my suggestion to mr. moore was that if he has such a problem with a nation that allows him to runneth his over-run yapper, perhaps he should try a nice chateu' on the river seine... or maybe a nice abode in downtown baghdad, so he can learn to appreciate what he has more. in my anger over the situation, that comment boiled over into "get the fuck out."
i have no tolerance for people who blaim everything on the government. talk to an iraqi-american about what it was like living under saddam's government. talk to my friend edin about what it was like living under milosevic.
the thing with supporting bush as commander-in-chief has nothing to do with supporting his policies. the united states military are the defenders of our freedom, and the head of that military is the commander-in-chief... the president. in my opinion, it's like rooting for a sports team. i'm a huge new york knicks fan. i think the player decisions they've made are horrendous, and the coach and general manager need to go. but when it's game time, i put that aside and i root for my team. if you don't want to support your team, well maybe you shouldn't be a fan of that team then. the troops are our team and the commander-in-cheif is our coach. we're at war, and wether you agree with the policies or the decision making, all americans should support their team. supporting the president as commander-in-cheif in no says that you support his policies, domestic or foreign. it says that you support him to make sure the right decisions militarily to insure the quick and safe return of our troops.
i fully support the right of the anti-war protesters to protest... but i believe them to be extremely selfish. huge protests like the one held here in new york the other day are a massive security risk. it diverts police attention away from other more neccesary projects, it causes extreme traffic problems, and presents a very attractive "soft-target" to someone who might want to take out a few thousand americans quite quickly.
i appologize for presenting my opinions in a less than civil manner... i tend to rant uncontrolably for a few days after being set off by idiotic blowhards like michael moore.
Mrs. Edge
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
Headache, thank you for your calm and carefully articulated response, but I have a couple of comments/questions.
This sentence summons up in a nutshell what this argument is all about imo. Michael Moore does not have a problem with the nation....he has a problem with the WAR! He wants to stay in his own nation, while expressing his displeasure with what its leader is doing.
I liked your analogy with the team, but what would you say if your commander in chief got you in a war over something else that you ABSOLUTELY did not agree with...suppose he wanted to use nuclear weapons or invade another country, or who knows what...something you abhorred. Can you honestly say you would still pretend to agree with it for the sake of appearances? Supporting a coach that has runined everything you loved about the team in the first place?
Here is my analogy...The National Ballet's artistic director decides to do a season of nothing but really crappy modern ballets. I would always love the Ballet company, and would continue to support it financially and defend its artistic director (the commander in chief)'s freedom to program his artistic vision. But there is no way in hell I am buying a ticket to see something I don't want to see, and I will definitely express my displeasure at this programming. Because I am a supporter and have a strong stake in the company's future, I have a vested interest to express my displeasure with how it is being run, but that doesn't mean I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I don't want to attend another company in another city, I want to express my opinion to the Director how I feel, regardless of whether I will be listened to or not.
That probably doesn't make any sense to you guys out there (except maybe Sweetest Thing LOL!)....just rambling.
This sentence summons up in a nutshell what this argument is all about imo. Michael Moore does not have a problem with the nation....he has a problem with the WAR! He wants to stay in his own nation, while expressing his displeasure with what its leader is doing.
I liked your analogy with the team, but what would you say if your commander in chief got you in a war over something else that you ABSOLUTELY did not agree with...suppose he wanted to use nuclear weapons or invade another country, or who knows what...something you abhorred. Can you honestly say you would still pretend to agree with it for the sake of appearances? Supporting a coach that has runined everything you loved about the team in the first place?
Here is my analogy...The National Ballet's artistic director decides to do a season of nothing but really crappy modern ballets. I would always love the Ballet company, and would continue to support it financially and defend its artistic director (the commander in chief)'s freedom to program his artistic vision. But there is no way in hell I am buying a ticket to see something I don't want to see, and I will definitely express my displeasure at this programming. Because I am a supporter and have a strong stake in the company's future, I have a vested interest to express my displeasure with how it is being run, but that doesn't mean I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I don't want to attend another company in another city, I want to express my opinion to the Director how I feel, regardless of whether I will be listened to or not.
That probably doesn't make any sense to you guys out there (except maybe Sweetest Thing LOL!)....just rambling.
Last edited:
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Really quick everyone - we're heading back into civility, which is great
Let's try to keep everything in the remainder of this thread civil, otherwise this thread is going to be closed.
Just a bit of forewarning there.
Let's try to keep everything in the remainder of this thread civil, otherwise this thread is going to be closed.
Just a bit of forewarning there.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Michael Moore and civility?? OK, I'll play nice.
arw
Blue Crack Addict
WildHoneyAlways said:
I just want to clarify this cause I guess I missed it yesterday and it is directed at me. I'm not trying to stir anything up by commenting on this....
I was absolutely not commenting on that. I was referring to the comment made that France has openings for people who don't like what's going on. If you read the couple of posts before this I think you will see that I was paraphrasing what someone else said.
Mrs. Edge said:Headache, thank you for your calm and carefully articulated response, but I have a couple of comments/questions.
This sentence summons up in a nutshell what this argument is all about imo. Michael Moore does not have a problem with the nation....he has a problem with the WAR! He wants to stay in his own nation, while expressing his displeasure with what its leader is doing.
I liked your analogy with the team, but what would you say if your commander in chief got you in a war over something else that you ABSOLUTELY did not agree with...suppose he wanted to use nuclear weapons or invade another country, or who knows what...something you abhorred. Can you honestly say you would still pretend to agree with it for the sake of appearances? Supporting a coach that has runined everything you loved about the team in the first place?
Here is my analogy...The National Ballet's artistic director decides to do a season of nothing but really crappy modern ballets. I would always love the Ballet company, and would continue to support it financially and defend its artistic director (the commander in chief)'s freedom to program his artistic vision. But there is no way in hell I am buying a ticket to see something I don't want to see, and I will definitely express my displeasure at this programming. Because I am a supporter and have a strong stake in the company's future, I have a vested interest to express my displeasure with how it is being run, but that doesn't mean I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I don't want to attend another company in another city, I want to express my opinion to the Director how I feel, regardless of whether I will be listened to or not.
That probably doesn't make any sense to you guys out there (except maybe Sweetest Thing LOL!)....just rambling.
With all do respect, Mr. Moore ALWAYS seems to have some sort of problem with the government... I suppose that's his right, but perhaps if he spent some time living under a different type of government he wouldn't be quite as upset all the time with our government. Allow me to present some quotes made by Mr. Moore himself...
Michael Moore on 9/11
"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
Michael Moore on why Elian Gonzalez is better off in Cuba than he would be in the United States
"of receiving free health ?an excellent education in one of the few countries that has 100% literacy, and a better chance of your baby sister being born and making it to her first birthday than if she had been born in Washington, D.C."
Moore claims that the majority of this nation's prison population is made up of "peaceful, harmless people who were caught using drugs or who were victims of California?s awful ?Three Strikes? laws or some other despicable act of legal injustice."
In Chapter 11 of "Stupid White Men," Moore writes that he wishes all members of Congress would "suddenly develop incurable cancer, have a son/daughter come out of the closet, or suffer some type of personal misfortune."
He is an avid supporter of such readigns as Lenin?s ?State and the Revolution,? Che Guevera?s ?Guerilla Warfare,? and Karl Marx?s ?Capital, Volume One.'
This is clearly a man who is not happy as an American... and I suggest he try to find himself a new place to live that might be more suited to his particular political ideals. Perhaps a nice shanty with Elian in Havana.
As for the Bush thing... he isn't using nuclear weapons... and yes, we technicaly are invading Iraq... even though it is justified by multiple UN sanctions and resolutions, all of which were violated by Saddam and called for "serious consequences" if they were violated. If he were to use nukes, yes my thoughts on the matter would change considerably. But anyone who follows this campaign, and doesn't believe Saddam's Iraqi State Television, knows that the United States is taking every precaution possiable to avoid civillian casualties, as well as supplying humanitarian aide. If they were to change this practice and committ war crimes, then I'd be right there with you in my protest. But it is clear that is not happening.
YellowKite
War Child
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I would say that Michael Moore is a man trying to make the country he loves a better place and that he is forcing Americans to think about stuff in a different light. I would lay odds that he is a man who is highly conscious of how fortunate he is to live in America.
I also believe Elian should have been on the first boat back to Cuba to be with his only surviving parent. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with family and human decency.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
YellowKite said:
Trying to make this a better place?!?
Michael Moore is a man who knows how to make $$$ by spewing his liberal diatribes in his books and movies. His acceptance speech at the Oscars was nothing more than a 30-second infomecial.
When one is conscious of how fortunate they are, it is typically shown in their humility.
i felt the same way about elian gonzalez... he should be with his father and let the father make the decision... that's not the issue. moore's view had nothing to do with family and human decency, it had to do with the fact that he thought cuba was a better place for a child to grow up than america.
and i'm sorry... his comments on 9/11 and his wish of cancer upon all members of congress are inexcusable and indefensable.
and i'm sorry... his comments on 9/11 and his wish of cancer upon all members of congress are inexcusable and indefensable.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Michael Moore is a troll.
A troll who indulges on way too many Twinkies
thank u
DB9
A troll who indulges on way too many Twinkies
thank u
DB9
Mrs. Edge
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that he *is* doing those things, I was just trying to come up with examples of things that might make you disagree with the war just for argument's sake....you might have realised that already but I just wanted to make sure.
nbcrusader, judging by Mr. Moore's clothes, I don't think he is all that into making $$$! He just doesn't seem like the type at all.
I think he is genuinely worried about the state the US is in, and although one might not agree with what he says, and he may not always go about saying it in the most appropriate way, I get the impression that he is genuine.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
With all due respect, it seems that you aren't familiar with the "government" that Mr. Moore has made a career out of deriding. The documentary that got Michael Moore famous, "Roger and Me" (1989), was about the closure General Motors' plant at Flint, Michigan (where Moore is from), which resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs. Being from Michigan, I can tell you that Flint, to this day, has never recovered from that and may never recover at all. And where was "government" that entire time? Deregulating industry and repealing labor laws. As a nation, our wages are *still* not as good as they were before Reagan's reign of terror, when adjusted for inflation.
Moore never may be the most eloquent of individuals, but I fathom that he may have a greater handle of what this "government" is about than you wish to give him credit for. And why the hell should he or any of us settle for crap for government? Just because Dubya told us to? It is unfortunate that so many years have passed now that people think that this is the way our country has always been.
Melon
Last edited:
