I may not know how to pronounce your name, but suffise it to say that here, you show the kind of intelligence I thought did not exist ['cept in sporadic quantities] at AppleInsider. Finally someone who speaks and writes beyond the bounds of what is written and spoken about. A critical worldview which, sorry to scare you, coincides mostly with my own. [I am not kidding].
You're wrong but we still love you anyway. After all, without hte Belgium parliament's unilateral usurping of national soveriegnty with their overreaching international human rights law(s) than we would have one fewer country to poke fun of for gross hypocrisy. We'd have to add a different word in front of Sprouts as well if your country did not exist
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
I have no problem with promoting human rights via international bodies sanctioning it internationally or national bodies sanctioning it nationally. I'm not big on national bodies sanctioning it internationally though which is basically what the Belgians have tried to do.
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
This can only be SJO, hahaha...
In light of your most excellent choice of quote, I have to wonder about your ability for dispassionate consideration. Does only the nation illicit patriotism? The nation, that most convincing illusion, like ideology? And if ideology does the same work and offers much of the same machinery, what should make of either your fervor or your peripheral vision?
One thing about Michael Moore, which should be blindingly obvious:
He is a self made man, who has built his audience throught the strength of his own initiative. He occupies his position on account of merit, chutzpah and talent. That is what being a real American is all about....finding yourself and making the best of what you have.
The person he was criticising, President Bush, is solely in his position on account of his family's wealth, connections and power. His businesses have all failed, despite the huge advantages he had. If he wasn't a "Bush", he would have had zero chance of the presidency. There are 10's of millions of people more qualified for the job of President than Mr Bush. I count Michael Moore amongst them.
Michael Moore, asked by a reporter why he did this, he said..."because I am an American" The reporter then asked: "Is that all", to which Mr Moore said "That is a lot". I agree wholeheartedly.
Mr Moore was exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He happened to use a public forum to do that, and that was his right. Sometimes, freedom of speech comes with the "penalty" of inconvenience, or some folk having their comfort zones inpinged upon. To those who didn't like what Michael Moore said: Would you have preferred him to keep his thoughts to himself because his politics is different to yours? What about someone who publicly congratulates the President on starting this war? Should they keep their thoughts private too? It looks as if there are some people in here who don't like the idea of freedom of speech, unless that freedom generates words that concur with their own opinions.
Michael Moore earned his platform on account of merit and hard work.
George Bush never earned his platform, he is only there on account of nepotism.
Would you have preferred him to keep his thoughts to himself because his politics is different to yours?
I would have preferred that he thanked the Academy and those that helped him with making the film for which he won an award.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Michael Moore earned his platform on account of merit and hard work.
Hard work, maybe. Merit...no.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
George Bush never earned his platform, he is only there on account of nepotism.
And how about we get this thread back on topic, instead of letting you twist it in such a way that you're able to bash the president.
Michael Moore does NOT make documentaries. Whatever it is that he DOES make is usually a bunch of self-serving crap. It's unfortunate that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences couldn't see that.
SJO, when you ask a rhetorical question you need to be more mindful of the answer. Nepotism or merit? The answer should be painfully obvious. hahaha. Oh, how I feel dirty when I'm forced to agree with you! But still...
America is founded by the dreggs, the afterbirth of Europe and a milieu of displaced people, displacing people. Of course the myth making project has supressed that reality with "America" freedom and bravery, but... and you'll find no greater fan of America than me, and no greater potential among nations than America, this remains a nation with traditions to uphold.
Look down the halls of power, every nation will have kings and lieutanants, even America, which has more successfully conflated the two than any other nation, still draws this distinction. Bush is a king, you and I, or Moore, or anyone who rises out of merit, can be a lieutant.
I have the luxury of not giving a shjt, either way, I'm quite happy to be a peasant in a safe province, let the ceasars sort out their business
Cheers to Michael Moore and helping to keep caps out of people's asses and on Pop bottles.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people, with guns. (Because they're so widely available)
And anyone who disagrees either did not see the movie at all, or is SIMPLY holding a contradictory position for the sheer purpose of being of that position:
Reason. Statistics showed the percentages of gun related deaths was far higher in the US than any other 1st world nation.
Therefore the legalisation of guns is a serious problem.
This is obvious, but you force me to point it out: simply because there is no way to be completely objective in a perfect sense does not excuse a documentarian's ultimate responsibility to capture the truth. If you examine the linked article, or have heard the recent ON THE MEDIA piece on Mr. Moore there is ample evidence of massive bias and systematic deceit. You're using semantics to wish away the fact that unlike other nominees in his category, Mr. Moore lies with frequent vigor.
Sammi Jo, i think this is a forced analogy: Michael Moore and George Bush's life histories have little to do with each other, and it really doesn't matter which is a "better" person in the context of whether that speech was appropriate or inappropriate or just a badly-worded shrill harangue.
And you're lookin' at the guy who gave SJO her new nickname...can't remember the thread....I was being snide though I'm sure. Quite proud she liked it enough to keep it!
Sammi Jo, i think this is a forced analogy: Michael Moore and George Bush's life histories have little to do with each other, and it really doesn't matter which is a "better" person in the context of whether that speech was appropriate or inappropriate or just a badly-worded shrill harangue.
You are correct! I know the object of Mr Moore's wrath was Mr. Bush, but perhaps I was stretching the topic a little. I usually jump on any chance to have a swipe at Bush... isn't that par for the course for politicians? I loved flailing at Mr. Clinton also...and that was/is just fine in here!
There's nothing wrong with having a shy at Bush. He is one of those characters who, when falling into the Potomac, always emerges smelling of cologne.
The case against Moore is clear. His movie is fiction and based on lies (so is his book). End of story. Anyone commited to truth and reason (not SJO!) should not bother with him.
Comments
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
-snip-
I may not know how to pronounce your name, but suffise it to say that here, you show the kind of intelligence I thought did not exist ['cept in sporadic quantities] at AppleInsider. Finally someone who speaks and writes beyond the bounds of what is written and spoken about. A critical worldview which, sorry to scare you, coincides mostly with my own. [I am not kidding].
there's a difference between editing to represent the truth and editiing to misrepresent the truth.
for example the speach editing.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
just don't label it a documentary and i would mind. despite what you may think, there are plenty of objective documentaries.
You're wrong but we still love you anyway. After all, without hte Belgium parliament's unilateral usurping of national soveriegnty with their overreaching international human rights law(s) than we would have one fewer country to poke fun of for gross hypocrisy. We'd have to add a different word in front of Sprouts as well if your country did not exist
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
I have no problem with promoting human rights via international bodies sanctioning it internationally or national bodies sanctioning it nationally. I'm not big on national bodies sanctioning it internationally though which is basically what the Belgians have tried to do.
Originally posted by sammi jo
What's your big problem with promoting human rights?
This can only be SJO, hahaha...
In light of your most excellent choice of quote, I have to wonder about your ability for dispassionate consideration. Does only the nation illicit patriotism? The nation, that most convincing illusion, like ideology? And if ideology does the same work and offers much of the same machinery, what should make of either your fervor or your peripheral vision?
Put away your manifestos.
He is a self made man, who has built his audience throught the strength of his own initiative. He occupies his position on account of merit, chutzpah and talent. That is what being a real American is all about....finding yourself and making the best of what you have.
The person he was criticising, President Bush, is solely in his position on account of his family's wealth, connections and power. His businesses have all failed, despite the huge advantages he had. If he wasn't a "Bush", he would have had zero chance of the presidency. There are 10's of millions of people more qualified for the job of President than Mr Bush. I count Michael Moore amongst them.
Michael Moore, asked by a reporter why he did this, he said..."because I am an American" The reporter then asked: "Is that all", to which Mr Moore said "That is a lot". I agree wholeheartedly.
Mr Moore was exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He happened to use a public forum to do that, and that was his right. Sometimes, freedom of speech comes with the "penalty" of inconvenience, or some folk having their comfort zones inpinged upon. To those who didn't like what Michael Moore said: Would you have preferred him to keep his thoughts to himself because his politics is different to yours? What about someone who publicly congratulates the President on starting this war? Should they keep their thoughts private too? It looks as if there are some people in here who don't like the idea of freedom of speech, unless that freedom generates words that concur with their own opinions.
Michael Moore earned his platform on account of merit and hard work.
George Bush never earned his platform, he is only there on account of nepotism.
Which is the most positive, or American value?
there's a difference between editing to represent the truth and editiing to misrepresent the truth.
What I'm trying to say, Alcimedes, is that I could write a 30 page dissertation on that one sentence.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Would you have preferred him to keep his thoughts to himself because his politics is different to yours?
I would have preferred that he thanked the Academy and those that helped him with making the film for which he won an award.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Michael Moore earned his platform on account of merit and hard work.
Hard work, maybe. Merit...no.
Originally posted by sammi jo
George Bush never earned his platform, he is only there on account of nepotism.
And how about we get this thread back on topic, instead of letting you twist it in such a way that you're able to bash the president.
Michael Moore does NOT make documentaries. Whatever it is that he DOES make is usually a bunch of self-serving crap. It's unfortunate that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences couldn't see that.
America is founded by the dreggs, the afterbirth of Europe and a milieu of displaced people, displacing people. Of course the myth making project has supressed that reality with "America" freedom and bravery, but... and you'll find no greater fan of America than me, and no greater potential among nations than America, this remains a nation with traditions to uphold.
Look down the halls of power, every nation will have kings and lieutanants, even America, which has more successfully conflated the two than any other nation, still draws this distinction. Bush is a king, you and I, or Moore, or anyone who rises out of merit, can be a lieutant.
I have the luxury of not giving a shjt, either way, I'm quite happy to be a peasant in a safe province, let the ceasars sort out their business
Cheers to Michael Moore and helping to keep caps out of people's asses and on Pop bottles.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people, with guns. (Because they're so widely available)
And anyone who disagrees either did not see the movie at all, or is SIMPLY holding a contradictory position for the sheer purpose of being of that position:
Reason. Statistics showed the percentages of gun related deaths was far higher in the US than any other 1st world nation.
Therefore the legalisation of guns is a serious problem.
This is obvious, but you force me to point it out: simply because there is no way to be completely objective in a perfect sense does not excuse a documentarian's ultimate responsibility to capture the truth. If you examine the linked article, or have heard the recent ON THE MEDIA piece on Mr. Moore there is ample evidence of massive bias and systematic deceit. You're using semantics to wish away the fact that unlike other nominees in his category, Mr. Moore lies with frequent vigor.
Sammi Jo, i think this is a forced analogy: Michael Moore and George Bush's life histories have little to do with each other, and it really doesn't matter which is a "better" person in the context of whether that speech was appropriate or inappropriate or just a badly-worded shrill harangue.
nyah, nyah, nyah, NYAH, nyah!!!!
"My guy is better than YOUR guy!"
nyah, nyah, nyah, NYAH, nyah!!!!
puhleeze
And you're lookin' at the guy who gave SJO her new nickname...can't remember the thread....I was being snide though I'm sure. Quite proud she liked it enough to keep it!
Originally posted by mrmister
Sammi Jo, i think this is a forced analogy: Michael Moore and George Bush's life histories have little to do with each other, and it really doesn't matter which is a "better" person in the context of whether that speech was appropriate or inappropriate or just a badly-worded shrill harangue.
You are correct! I know the object of Mr Moore's wrath was Mr. Bush, but perhaps I was stretching the topic a little. I usually jump on any chance to have a swipe at Bush... isn't that par for the course for politicians? I loved flailing at Mr. Clinton also...and that was/is just fine in here!
There's nothing wrong with having a shy at Bush. He is one of those characters who, when falling into the Potomac, always emerges smelling of cologne.
Spinsanity's coverage of Michael Moore
He's the Rush of the left. (Biggest insult I could think of).
Michael Moore earned his platform on account of merit and hard work.
George Bush never earned his platform, he is only there on account of nepotism.
Which is the most positive, or American value?
Well merit and hard work would be the more positive value(s) and nepotism would be the American value.
There's nothing wrong with having a shy at Bush. He is one of those characters who, when falling into the Potomac, always emerges smelling of cologne.
The Potomac smells like a city in Germany?
Originally posted by Scott
He's the Rush of the left. (Biggest insult I could think of).
Ouch. That is low.
Originally posted by Scott
He's the Rush of the left. (Biggest insult I could think of).
I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't quite work that simply.