MERGED -- > I love Michael Moore + F*ck Michael Moore - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-24-2003, 10:00 PM   #91
The Fly
 
U2luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: in front of my computer :-)
Posts: 203
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Bush in 2oo4
God help us if that happens
__________________

__________________
U2luv is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:07 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by U2luv


God help us if that happens
U2luv-
Be advised,
my prediction rate is pretty successful.
I periodically get calls from Jimmy The Greek

thank u

DB9
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:13 PM   #93
The Fly
 
U2luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: in front of my computer :-)
Posts: 203
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
get the god damn the hell out of my country. that goes for citizens of america like moore, and guests like u2.
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.
__________________
U2luv is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:26 PM   #94
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: adrift on a breeze in Tennessee
Posts: 692
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
I'm so glad you posted this because Michael Moore's analogy is a nice arguement for the use of force in Iraq.

You say war is the problem - not the solution. The sad fact is that Saddam has made war the only solution. And if you're talking about the death of over 100,000 Iraqi citizens every year under Saddam's rule, then in fact the lack of war is the problem.

So Moore uses the analogy of tobacco companies and gun companies. I say this, we know that Saddam, WMD's and UN sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq, but countries like France and Russia sure get a nice little profit for not getting rid of Saddam.
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.
__________________
YellowKite is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:36 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:32 PM
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:44 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arw9797

Maybe you should enlist and fight instead of running your mouth so much. I'm sure the military could use someone like you. I heard they have openings. Until then I don't think you have anything to say.
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.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:40 PM   #97
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 12:32 AM
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!
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:48 PM   #98
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:32 PM
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.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:56 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:32 PM
its how it was said.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:06 AM   #100
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
its how it was 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.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:11 AM   #101
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:32 PM
Mrs. Edge - well stated. I agree with you 100%.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:19 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:32 PM
pub-
3 beers
a gentle diamond-slap
and u will b reprogramed
when im finished w you.

diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:30 AM   #103
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:32 PM
lol

diamond
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:58 AM   #104
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 11:32 PM
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.
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 05:05 AM   #105
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 336
Local Time: 04:32 AM
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?
__________________

__________________
U2FReAk is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com