Michael Moore: Why I Made That Speech - Page 2 - 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 04-02-2003, 04:21 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
One of the primary ethos' behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." This is where the American flag as well as servicemen and women are brought into church and "baptized," so to speak. This is the ethos that justifies killing in the name of protecting our country, a protection "ordained by God."
I guess it helps your argument when you create your own definition for the group you are attacking.....
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 09:02 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 04:41 PM
I, like Moore believe that starting a pre-emptive war is the antithesis of the Bible's message. That is where Michael, more or less stands on this issue.

Killing thousands of Arabs without being physically provoked is anti-Christian. Especially when our leader mentions the almighty God in virtually every war speech. And no, you can't blame Iraq for 9/11. I haven't seen one drop of evidence that would hold up in one of our courts of law that would materialize this bogus inaccuracy.

P.S. I also want to know what a prograndist is?
__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 10:38 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Big Grin

propagandist

- pro·pa·gan·dist /-dist/ noun or adjective

=Michael Moore



Mr and Mrs SpellCheck=
Dano and Diemen

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 01:22 AM   #19
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I guess it helps your argument when you create your own definition for the group you are attacking.....
Hmmm, well, once again, according to the Times article I quoted, 71% of white evangelical Protestants polled said they think the U.S. has “special divine protection.” Since the author also asserts that these white evangelical Protestants make up “a core constituency for the Republican party,” I’m going to assume that most of them are Republicans. I am further assuming that they are part of the conservative evangelical church, not the moderate or liberal evangelical church, to the extent such churches exist.

Who is going to deny that themes and slogans such as “God and Country,” “Support Your Troops,” “God Bless America” are important themes within the conservative evangelical church? My complaint is that the subject of war and the object of the flag do not belong in the Christian church. The church is supposed to be where we gather in the name of Jesus Christ. The church is supposed to be the house of God. Nowhere in the Bible is the Christian church described as the place where we exult the United States as the greatest power on earth, or the most benevolent nation on earth. Nowhere in the Bible is there any discussion of honoring the star spangled banner or blessing the outcome of our wars. The biblical church is supposed to be about God and compassion, not about destruction and, no, not even about patriotism (which is a term that can be and is defined according to one's political persuasion).

Yet the conservative evangelical church so often seems to be built upon a foundation of patriotism and flag waving. Again from the Times article I quoted:

“In 1992, for example, eight liberal evangelical scholars published a book, "No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age." In it, one author lamented that "many American evangelicals have been truly more American than Christian, more dependent on historical myths than spiritual realities, more shaped by the flag than the cross."

I couldn’t agree more with this scholar.

In my previous post in this thread, I stated that “One of the primary ethos behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." I made that statement based on my experience as a former member of a conservative evangelical church, as well as an evangelical “para-church” organization. I’m not claiming the “God and Country ethos” is exclusive to the conservative evangelical church, but I am saying that the theme of “God and Country” is a major driving force within said church, and I believe it is a misguided, a terribly misguided interpretation of biblical Christianity.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 09:09 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
In my previous post in this thread, I stated that “One of the primary ethos behind Conservative evangelical tradition is the idea of "God and Country." I made that statement based on my experience as a former member of a conservative evangelical church, as well as an evangelical “para-church” organization. I’m not claiming the “God and Country ethos” is exclusive to the conservative evangelical church, but I am saying that the theme of “God and Country” is a major driving force within said church, and I believe it is a misguided, a terribly misguided interpretation of biblical Christianity.
I am also a member of a congregation and para-church orgnaization that would be described as conservative and evangelical. I've never heard such hogwash as God giving the US "divine protection" or a God and Country ethos. I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a terribly misguided interpretation of Scripture.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 11:15 AM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Pub Crawler, I couldn't agree with you more. This is one more reason why organized religion has always left a bad taste in my mouth. It's bugged me ever since I was child. They always spoke about God coming first and not to worship false idols, yet they never lived up to their words. When it came down to it, in times like these they were Americans before anything else.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-03-2003, 04:44 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Killing thousands of Arabs without being physically provoked is anti-Christian. Especially when our leader mentions the almighty God in virtually every war speech.
Who is to say that those behind the scenes of this war are Christian.

Furthermore, who is to say that Bush is leading anything?

Also- what does a para-church organization do?








parachuting and religion do not mix.



__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 05:28 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy
parachuting and religion do not mix.
Yes they do. You must have faith to jump out of a perfectly good working airplane.....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-08-2003, 06:19 AM   #24
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:41 PM
An interesting article in the NYT

April 6, 2003
The New York Times


Bowling for Kennebunkport

By FRANK RICH

POLITICS abhors a vacuum. Entertainers love center stage. And so it was only too predictable that once the Democratic party's marquee names proved M.I.A. during the White House march to war, show business's stars would answer the call, whether anyone wanted them to or not.

The ensuing cavalcade has been entertaining in its way, if not exactly edifying. "I keep asking myself where all this personal enmity between George Bush and Saddam Hussein came from," said Richard Gere in February. (Maybe it was time for him to start asking someone else.) "I just really hope we all are in agreeance [sic] that this war should go away," announced Fred Durst, the lead singer of Limp Bizkit, at the Grammys. Sean Penn toured prewar Baghdad, then purported to be victimized by a resurgence of "the dark era of Hollywood blacklisting" once he was dumped from a movie project in a contract dispute. (Never mind that the producer who "blacklisted" him, Steve Bing, is a major donor to the Democrats.) Martin Sheen was last seen at a Los Angeles vigil with duct tape emblazoned "Peace" over his mouth. Alas, we shall not see Madonna's long-awaited "American Life" video, whose premiere she abruptly canceled on Monday. According to an MTV News report, "the first and most obvious" statement the star had wanted to make about American life was "that regardless of whether or not she supports Bush, war is a cosmic bummer."

It is times like these that have prompted John McCain to observe, "If Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people, Hollywood is a Washington for the simple-minded." The ubiquitous comedian Janeane Garofalo complains that the media are deliberately focusing on antiwar actors to brand the entire antiwar movement as silly. Everywhere you turn there are sightings of a nationwide backlash against celebrities, with Exhibit A being Natalie Maines, the Dixie Chicks head chick who was driven by radio-station boycotts to apologize for dissing George W. Bush at a London concert.

Exhibit B in this supposed backlash is the morality tale of the Oscars. In its unvaried retelling, this was a pristinely decorous night until Michael Moore came along. Not content to keep with the down-low program of political activism typified by Susan Sarandon flashing a pro forma peace sign and Barbra Streisand congratulating the nation for having the First Amendment, he crashed and burned with his shouts of "Shame on you, Mr. Bush!"

Well, there were boos. But the filmmaker was not hearing them. "When you look at the tape, no one is booing on the main floor," Mr. Moore said when I caught up with him nearly a week later in New York. He attributes the ruckus largely to a shouting match that broke out between scattered booers and his own partisans. But he is not only unrepentant about calling Mr. Bush a fictitious president, he is busy toting up his subsequent good fortune. Box office for "Bowling for Columbine," already the longest-running commercial movie in current release and the highest-grossing documentary in history, was up by more than 100 percent on the Monday after Oscar night. His book "Stupid White Men," already the largest nonfiction best seller of 2002, is reclaiming the No. 1 slot on the Times best-seller list today.

"I don't think there's a backlash or a blacklist or anything like that going on," he said, "and I'd be the first to point it out if I thought it was." He has a point. If Mr. Sheen is encountering turbulence with network executives, it is probably not because of his views about the war, as he has insinuated, but because of the slippage in "West Wing" ratings. For all the tumult about the Dixie Chicks, their sales remain strong, with "Home" actually moving up the pop-sales chart, from No. 6 to No. 4 during last month's ruckus, according to Entertainment Weekly. The group's spring tour is virtually sold out, as I discovered by trying to find a seat for such venues as Greenville, S.C., and Tampa, Fla., through Ticketmaster. "If there's one thing I've learned, it's that if you tell a free people they can't hear something, read something or see something, they are going to want to see, read and hear it all the more," said Mr. Moore. "So please, boycott the Dixie Chicks, try to start a boycott of Michael Moore, and watch what happens."

Bush loyalists, of course, take a different view. Having bought into the myth that the Dixie Chicks are as easy to defeat as Saddam Hussein's troops, they are now busily consigning Mr. Moore to oblivion. "He'll probably be doing industrial training films in a couple of years and nobody ever will hear of him again," predicted Fred Thompson, whose own agreeable career as a character actor, whether as a Republican pitchman in his Senate salad days or more recently on "Law and Order," has yet to earn him an Oscar, Emmy or presidential nomination. The Fox News ticker on Sixth Avenue recently flashed the "news" headline: "Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."

To Mr. Moore, the "virtual insanity" he has provoked in "the Bill O'Reillys and others" on the right is an indication that he, unlike many of his fellow showbiz antiwar protesters, has actually drawn blood. That's a shock to the conservative system. Liberals have been so lame in battling on the mass media's turf that Democratic fat cats in February ponied up $10 million to finance a talk-show radio network that will field hosts to counter Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Yet Mr. Moore, without a talk show, may be just the lethal heat-seeking show-business weapon they have been looking for. It's telling that conservatives who deride him as a big, fat idiot sound as worried about Mr. Moore as liberals were about Mr. Limbaugh when he began his rise to superstardom.

Like Mr. Limbaugh at his least grandiose best, Mr. Moore's persona is more funny than angry, more everyman than show-biz. He is not, as he puts it, "a didactic, wimpy kind of liberal" ‹ one of those whiners that makes audiences reach for the remote faster than you can say "Phil Donahue." Mr. Moore may not be subtle as a filmmaker or a polemicist, but the grandstanding glee of his broad strokes is precisely what makes him succeed as a showman. "Bowling for Columbine," with its wild (and sometimes dubious) leaps of logic and Kubrickesque juxtapositions of grim content (carnage-filled newsreels) with humorous trappings (Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World") makes a seemingly shopworn liberal gripe (the American culture of violence) seem like a lark. The film has a tone closer to that of the Christopher Guest school of "documentary" ‹ Mr. Moore cites "This Is Spinal Tap" as a favorite ‹ than to the fastidious oeuvre of Frederick Wiseman.

Mr. Moore's boorish Oscar night yelling, far from relegating him to obscurity, seems to have enhanced not only his movie's box office but his own magnitude of stardom. While Hollywood and its acolytes may believe that Mr. Moore was (in that now terminally overused word) "inappropriate," there may well be plenty of other Americans who find it more mischievous than scandalous to break etiquette at a glitzy awards show. Upending a ceremony at which the high priest is Steve Martin is not, after all, an act of sacrilege quite on a par with disrupting high mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

AT a time when polls show that most Americans support the war and the president, Mr. Moore goes so far as to argue that his contrarian position is "reflective of where the majority of Americans are." To support this questionable supposition, he harks back to the prewar polls in which more than half the country opposed a pre-emptive war without the approval of the United Nations and our allies. And so he lies in wait for the postwar President Bush to re-enact his father's post-Gulf War slide in time for the 2004 election. By then, Mr. Moore will have brought out a new book and a projected TV series (likely to land on HBO) and possibly appeared in his own Broadway show.

His next film, titled "Fahrenheit 911," is scheduled for release in the two months before Election Day. It tells "in part the story of twin errant sons of different oilmen," he says, and will stir together the pre-9/11 intersection of Bush and bin Laden family business interests when both had ties to the Carlyle Group. Such connections "may mean nothing," Mr. Moore concedes. But then he recalls Jane Mayer's article in the November 2001 New Yorker about the private Saudi jet that the Bush administration permitted to fly 24 members of the bin Laden family out of the country after 9/11, before they could be questioned in detail by the F.B.I. "Here's one question I want to pose," he says. "What if on the day after Oklahoma City, Bill Clinton, suddenly worried about the safety of the McVeigh family up in Buffalo, allowed a jet to pick them all up and take them out of the country, not to return?" You can already fantasize how Mr. Moore, once he is turned away from the White House, might travel to Kennebunkport to pursue the first President Bush in retirement much as he did Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine."

This may sound unfair, but is it any more so than the rhetorical grenades that right-wing performers like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter lob at liberal targets? In America, at least, all is fair not only in love and war but also in entertainment. If Mr. Moore forgets his pact with the audience and makes a habit of preaching as he did on Oscar night, he might as well seal his own mouth with duct tape. But if he ambushes America with humor 16 months from now, he may be more of a factor in the next election cycle than all the other, more glamorous Oscar attendees now lining up at fund-raisers for Howard Dean.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-08-2003, 08:57 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Mr. Moore's boorish Oscar night yelling, far from relegating him to obscurity, seems to have enhanced not only his movie's box office but his own magnitude of stardom.
In Mr. Moore's line of work, political statements are motivated as much by $$$ as they are his conscience.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-08-2003, 06:00 PM   #26
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 04:41 PM
"booing the booers" is perhaps the silliest thing i've ever heard since "can you explain what you meant by the word 'is'"

in all the sporting events, concerts, speaches, demonstrations, meetings, gathering, marches, parades, assemblies, etc. etc. etc. i have been to in my life... i have never once heard a crowd boooo someone else for boooing. i've heard people louuuuuuuuuuuuu a lou, moooooo a mookie, and bruuuuuuuuce a bruce... but i've never heard anyone booooo a booer.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

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 04:41 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