What he has turned himself into is a Democrat-in-disguise, pulling for the jack-ass party and thereby sacrificing all claims to being a real liberal.
The "left" in America isn't "left" at all, it's just a tiny bit scooted over from the American "right". They're essentially the same but they have different platitudes. Moore has decided to make himself Rush Limbaugh's counterpart so the things he says now in attempts to be "independent" are hollow and without weight. <hr></blockquote>
Groverat - I agree that there doesn't appear to be great deal of difference of between the Democrat and Republican parties. The same thing has happened in UK politics, albeit much more recently, with both the Conservatives and Labour wrestling for the centre ground and trying to be as much like each other as possible.
But returning to our baseball-capped subject, is Moore's book really so so slavishly pro-Clintonian and party political? What about the bit where he says: "...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"? He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him". He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.
What is going on here is reality you crack head...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A point of view and reality aren?t necessarily the same thing.
[quote]<strong>... Fallwell blamed innocent people (gays and minorities) for peoples deaths... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.
[quote]<strong>... Moore on the other hand was just pointing out that the policies that most muslims so staunchly disagree with such as complete and unequivocal support for Israel are more conservative ideas while the people who died on september 11 happened to be more liberal. He is in no way saying that anyone deserved to die that day nor that he wished more republicans would have died, he is simply saying that the message Osoma was sending was directed towards the wrong group. It's like if you were mad at the post office so you ended up throwing a brick threw the window of your local UPS station.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? So if his aim had been better and his brick had gone through the post office?s window, who would have died instead? Would it still have been those who didn?t vote for Bush? (Remember, Moore was the one who thought this was relevant, not me.) And you didn?t bother to answer my question. If Moore wasn?t implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didn?t, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?
No kidding, Outsider, I'm wondering why all these quotes are no more than one-liner wisecracks...or strings of such. Could it be that he's just writing entertainment and not being very insightful at all? Hmm?
"...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"?
*rimshot*
He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him".
badump bump ching
He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.
I posted earlier: [quote]However, Rush is/has been the darling of the U.S. media, with syndicated network radio and TV shows here there and everywhere. In contrast, Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth" managed a limited run on a late night slot on "Bravo" (whazzat??), and now he cannot even get an interview with the supposedly "liberal" National Public Radio (definitely showing their true colors there).<hr></blockquote>
Today I could barely believe my own eyes: Michael Moore actually made an appearance on CNN this morning, (April 8) where he was interviewed on "Talkback Live".
His book has been #1 in the bestsellers lists for over a month now, and this is the first appearance on a nationally syndicated TV show (that I am aware of) since the release. It's hard to imagine any other author of that current popularity being so effectively locked out and snubbed. Network and media corporate executives, (who are final arbiters of content) refuse to give the country's currently most popular author airtime and exposure, because his philosophical/political and ideological orientations are 180º removed from theirs. I have been reading his weekly newsletter and his booksigning tour has been sabotaged by all branches of the media, local police forces, and even his publisher! This is America, 21st century.
[quote]No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.<hr></blockquote>
This is Falwell's original comment (verbatim), supported by Pat Robertson:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their
face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are amongst the most influential "Christians" in America, not to forget of course the godfearing Billy Graham together with his anti-Semitic commentary of course. Falwell and Robertson have turned "Christianity" on it's head; I see not a solitary iota of common ground between Jesus' teachings and these mens' bilious rhetoric. As a guess, I would imagine that these two, together with Atty General Ashcroft, had they been Afghanistani, would have become high-ranking Taliban. Kinda suits their authoritarian character and theocratic aims.
It was amazing that Michael Moore wasn't singled out in his targeted list!
Michael Moore is a hypocrite. For example, when he was signing his book in San Diego, he refused to stop at 11PM even though his permit ran out at 11 and the janitors couldn't go home until they had cleaned up after the events.
[quote]So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming ... <hr></blockquote>
And Michael Moore's lame verbal attacks against specific groups and people are any better?
It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've already said more than once now that Falwell was wrong. Solo said that Falwell blamed gays and minorities. His comments were bad enough without claiming that he blamed minorities too. He simply didn't do that.
Now if somebody would bother to answer my question. (I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer.)
Samantha, welcome! (I have yet to see you post, and you seem to be right on.) THANK GOD we have someone who with some sense and perspicacity around here.
[rant]
The issue of content controllers is one that is often overlooked, due to the fact that those who control the media do not particularly like attention being drawn to the fact that they actually exercise control. The case of Moore's book is a very good one, as you stated earlier. The media is not a left-wing bastion which continually sabotages our current [cough] president, nor is it a right-wing conspiracy nagging Hillary (though what has been shown lately in that respect does get rather frightening).
The media, at the very least, is a capitalist tool. And capitalists have certain things that are in their interest: e.g. lobbying, profit, pushing the opiates of the masses on the masses so that the ride does not get bumpy, and they can still summer on the Vineyard. If there was the rumblings of a new student movement, or civil rights movement, one gets the sense that Carson Daily would be in the thick of it, thus altering its purpose, celebritizing it, and inevitably pacifying it.
How can this country, for example, the most wealthy in the world, have such pathetic public education, a birth-mortality rate that ranks us near the middle of third world countries, a deepening racial divide, women still paid 30% less then men for equal work, homophobia as accepted discourse, gun violence rate that is off the map, a slow-motion environmental apocalypse happening in front of us, AND DO NOTHING????
The answer for all these questions is complicated, but right in the middle of things is the fact that the media, which governs our understanding of things, is controlled, for instance,by huge corporations (e.g. by GE (a polluter) and Disney (an Entertainer)).
Facts are not facts without knowledge and examination of the lens with which one examines them.
<strong>If Moore wasn?t implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didn?t, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?</strong><hr></blockquote>I've heard conservatives say several times that Moore said something like: "I wish more Republicans had been killed." Now that I've seen his actual comments in this thread, his comments were dumb, but not what they've been characterized.
To answer your question, the reason he brought up who they voted for was that he was thinking terrorists somehow hate Republicans but not Democrats. Now THAT'S dumb. But he wasn't saying he thought it was good to kill Republicans. He was saying the terrorists probably thought that way.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow - I don't get you. Moore is a political entertainer. How in the world are satirical political books and movies comparable to tanks and suicide bombers? Maybe the difference is that although he's spouting off, he's stopping just a little short of killing people? Maybe political speech is part of a healthy system, unlike tanks and suicide bombers?
BRussell, is he not still inciting clashes between people...for the benefit of his own amusement and piggy bank?
And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.
Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.
<strong>BRussell, is he not still inciting clashes between people...for the benefit of his own amusement and piggy bank?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but those clashes are political in nature. Political clashes are a good thing, IMO.
Maybe this gets into this whole issue of whether partisanship is a good thing or bad. I think it's good - it clarifies positions, makes you think, stays away from that mushy moderation that some people prefer for some reason.
[quote]And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.<hr></blockquote>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.
Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I agree with you on all the points except the blind support of Moore's one-way political attacks. What exactly do you mean by one way? Do you want him to argue both sides? He is simply an entertainer with a view of how the world should be and maybe he has said some dumb things, but not one thing you have mentioned makes me think that he has crossed any line
<strong>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because it looks like he believes most of what he says...unlike other satirical comedians you might see on a public stage.
In honor of CosmoNut, I am officially changing my signature back...anyone with a lick of business sense knows what an assinine theory "OSX on x86" is anyway.
BTW, I was going to buy the book having read a synopsis on the NYT booklist. Good thing I didn't; sounds like partisan drivel at its finest.
[quote]BTW, I was going to buy the book having read a synopsis on the NYT booklist. Good thing I didn't; sounds like partisan drivel at its finest.<hr></blockquote>
It's definitely not traditionally partisan in the 'party political fashion'..although he is a 'liberal' he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'. He emphasises that there is precious little difference between the two, although it doesn't exactly take the proverbial rocket scientist to fathom that one out. Yes of course he takes a shy at the Bush etc...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.
Comments
What he has turned himself into is a Democrat-in-disguise, pulling for the jack-ass party and thereby sacrificing all claims to being a real liberal.
The "left" in America isn't "left" at all, it's just a tiny bit scooted over from the American "right". They're essentially the same but they have different platitudes. Moore has decided to make himself Rush Limbaugh's counterpart so the things he says now in attempts to be "independent" are hollow and without weight. <hr></blockquote>
Groverat - I agree that there doesn't appear to be great deal of difference of between the Democrat and Republican parties. The same thing has happened in UK politics, albeit much more recently, with both the Conservatives and Labour wrestling for the centre ground and trying to be as much like each other as possible.
But returning to our baseball-capped subject, is Moore's book really so so slavishly pro-Clintonian and party political? What about the bit where he says: "...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"? He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him". He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.
<strong>
What is going on here is reality you crack head...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A point of view and reality aren?t necessarily the same thing.
[quote]<strong>... Fallwell blamed innocent people (gays and minorities) for peoples deaths... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.
[quote]<strong>... Moore on the other hand was just pointing out that the policies that most muslims so staunchly disagree with such as complete and unequivocal support for Israel are more conservative ideas while the people who died on september 11 happened to be more liberal. He is in no way saying that anyone deserved to die that day nor that he wished more republicans would have died, he is simply saying that the message Osoma was sending was directed towards the wrong group. It's like if you were mad at the post office so you ended up throwing a brick threw the window of your local UPS station.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? So if his aim had been better and his brick had gone through the post office?s window, who would have died instead? Would it still have been those who didn?t vote for Bush? (Remember, Moore was the one who thought this was relevant, not me.) And you didn?t bother to answer my question. If Moore wasn?t implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didn?t, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?
[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
"...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"?
*rimshot*
He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him".
badump bump ching
He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.
Ooh, is he lying here?
Today I could barely believe my own eyes: Michael Moore actually made an appearance on CNN this morning, (April 8) where he was interviewed on "Talkback Live".
His book has been #1 in the bestsellers lists for over a month now, and this is the first appearance on a nationally syndicated TV show (that I am aware of) since the release. It's hard to imagine any other author of that current popularity being so effectively locked out and snubbed. Network and media corporate executives, (who are final arbiters of content) refuse to give the country's currently most popular author airtime and exposure, because his philosophical/political and ideological orientations are 180º removed from theirs. I have been reading his weekly newsletter and his booksigning tour has been sabotaged by all branches of the media, local police forces, and even his publisher! This is America, 21st century.
Don't we have such an open, liberal media?????
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
good, then you'll have time to finish Mencken's second chrestomathy...
you need it,
cuss
[quote]No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.<hr></blockquote>
This is Falwell's original comment (verbatim), supported by Pat Robertson:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their
face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are amongst the most influential "Christians" in America, not to forget of course the godfearing Billy Graham together with his anti-Semitic commentary of course. Falwell and Robertson have turned "Christianity" on it's head; I see not a solitary iota of common ground between Jesus' teachings and these mens' bilious rhetoric. As a guess, I would imagine that these two, together with Atty General Ashcroft, had they been Afghanistani, would have become high-ranking Taliban. Kinda suits their authoritarian character and theocratic aims.
It was amazing that Michael Moore wasn't singled out in his targeted list!
Even fans of MM are critical of his actions <a href="http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/"; target="_blank">link</a>.
And Michael Moore's lame verbal attacks against specific groups and people are any better?
It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.
[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've already said more than once now that Falwell was wrong. Solo said that Falwell blamed gays and minorities. His comments were bad enough without claiming that he blamed minorities too. He simply didn't do that.
Now if somebody would bother to answer my question. (I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer.)
Don't we have such an open, liberal media?????
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>
Samantha, welcome! (I have yet to see you post, and you seem to be right on.) THANK GOD we have someone who with some sense and perspicacity around here.
[rant]
The issue of content controllers is one that is often overlooked, due to the fact that those who control the media do not particularly like attention being drawn to the fact that they actually exercise control. The case of Moore's book is a very good one, as you stated earlier. The media is not a left-wing bastion which continually sabotages our current [cough] president, nor is it a right-wing conspiracy nagging Hillary (though what has been shown lately in that respect does get rather frightening).
The media, at the very least, is a capitalist tool. And capitalists have certain things that are in their interest: e.g. lobbying, profit, pushing the opiates of the masses on the masses so that the ride does not get bumpy, and they can still summer on the Vineyard. If there was the rumblings of a new student movement, or civil rights movement, one gets the sense that Carson Daily would be in the thick of it, thus altering its purpose, celebritizing it, and inevitably pacifying it.
How can this country, for example, the most wealthy in the world, have such pathetic public education, a birth-mortality rate that ranks us near the middle of third world countries, a deepening racial divide, women still paid 30% less then men for equal work, homophobia as accepted discourse, gun violence rate that is off the map, a slow-motion environmental apocalypse happening in front of us, AND DO NOTHING????
The answer for all these questions is complicated, but right in the middle of things is the fact that the media, which governs our understanding of things, is controlled, for instance,by huge corporations (e.g. by GE (a polluter) and Disney (an Entertainer)).
Facts are not facts without knowledge and examination of the lens with which one examines them.
[/rant]
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
<strong>If Moore wasn?t implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didn?t, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?</strong><hr></blockquote>I've heard conservatives say several times that Moore said something like: "I wish more Republicans had been killed." Now that I've seen his actual comments in this thread, his comments were dumb, but not what they've been characterized.
To answer your question, the reason he brought up who they voted for was that he was thinking terrorists somehow hate Republicans but not Democrats. Now THAT'S dumb. But he wasn't saying he thought it was good to kill Republicans. He was saying the terrorists probably thought that way.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow - I don't get you. Moore is a political entertainer. How in the world are satirical political books and movies comparable to tanks and suicide bombers? Maybe the difference is that although he's spouting off, he's stopping just a little short of killing people? Maybe political speech is part of a healthy system, unlike tanks and suicide bombers?
And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.
Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.
<strong>BRussell, is he not still inciting clashes between people...for the benefit of his own amusement and piggy bank?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but those clashes are political in nature. Political clashes are a good thing, IMO.
Maybe this gets into this whole issue of whether partisanship is a good thing or bad. I think it's good - it clarifies positions, makes you think, stays away from that mushy moderation that some people prefer for some reason.
[quote]And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.<hr></blockquote>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.
<strong>
Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I agree with you on all the points except the blind support of Moore's one-way political attacks. What exactly do you mean by one way? Do you want him to argue both sides? He is simply an entertainer with a view of how the world should be and maybe he has said some dumb things, but not one thing you have mentioned makes me think that he has crossed any line
<strong>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because it looks like he believes most of what he says...unlike other satirical comedians you might see on a public stage.
BTW, I was going to buy the book having read a synopsis on the NYT booklist. Good thing I didn't; sounds like partisan drivel at its finest.
It's definitely not traditionally partisan in the 'party political fashion'..although he is a 'liberal' he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'. He emphasises that there is precious little difference between the two, although it doesn't exactly take the proverbial rocket scientist to fathom that one out. Yes of course he takes a shy at the Bush etc...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.