Post by: J.J. Blair on July 09, 2007, 05:52:16 PM
Post by: mjgreeneaudio on July 09, 2007, 06:50:44 PM
Post by: CCC on July 09, 2007, 07:14:38 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 17:52 |
It's amazing. Tune in if you can. |
On the other hand, if you want to see someone ripping Michael Moore, as he so richly deserves, see if you can rent the film discussed in this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/dissent.html
Michael Moore may love Canada, but Canada doesn't love him.....
Post by: Lee Tyler on July 09, 2007, 07:37:03 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 17:52 |
It's amazing. Tune in if you can. |
LOL! As I write, it continues!
Post by: John Ivan on July 09, 2007, 09:23:14 PM
| JS wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 19:14 | ||
On the other hand, if you want to see someone ripping Michael Moore, as he so richly deserves, see if you can rent the film discussed in this article: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/dissent.html Michael Moore may love Canada, but Canada doesn't love him..... |
Thankfully, however, I've personally learned my lesson when it comes to this kind shit. I don't care how the right wing pigs are defeated in this world. Crime, hate, lies, personal attacks, invasion of privacy, it's all fine with me as long as in the end, the current "thinking" is dead.
I view many of these folks as a real enemy. As I consider all the lives being lost for no good reason, it occurs to me that ALL is fair game. I believe the Democratic party is much to wimpy. It should be a brutal ugly political war now.
So if this Moore cat is partly full of shit but he turns a few people away from these ass wipes on the right, FINE.
I see it as WAR. actual WAR. sooner the better.
Ivan..........................
Post by: garret on July 09, 2007, 09:34:17 PM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56446/
Post by: bblackwood on July 09, 2007, 09:59:29 PM
| garret wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 20:34 |
The video is here... http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56446/ |
Wow, awesome video - thanks!
Post by: rphilbeck on July 09, 2007, 10:39:21 PM
| Quote: |
I don't care how the right wing pigs are defeated in this world. Crime, hate, lies, personal attacks, invasion of privacy, it's all fine with me as long as in the end, the current "thinking" is dead. |
That is because you are an ignorant individual and extremely low on character. Maybe you should run for office. You're just the kind of democrat the republicans are looking for.
Post by: Oldfart on July 09, 2007, 10:41:24 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 21:59 | ||
Wow, awesome video - thanks! |
It made my day !
Oldfart
Post by: PRobb on July 09, 2007, 10:59:49 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 22:39 | ||
John Ivan wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 21:23]
That is because you are an ignorant individual and extremely low on character. Maybe you should run for office. You're just the kind of democrat the republicans are looking for. |
Or perhaps it's because he loves his country for the ideals it should be held to. I'm right there with ya John. We need to take our country back.
Post by: rphilbeck on July 09, 2007, 11:23:10 PM
| PRobb wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 22:59 | ||||
Or perhaps it's because he loves his country for the ideals it should be held to. I'm right there with ya John. We need to take our country back. |
Crime, hate, lies, personal attacks and invasion of privacy? That's the ideal?
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 12:13:07 AM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 23:23 | ||||||
Crime, hate, lies, personal attacks and invasion of privacy? That's the ideal? |
No, I would assume Mr. Ivan is not a fan of the Bush administration.
Post by: mjgreeneaudio on July 10, 2007, 01:13:05 AM
I would doubt it.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2007, 01:20:36 AM
Republicans in government have lost their way. They are merciless and relentless in their personal attacks (against any any and all critics), law-breaking (Scooter Libby, Gonzales, Abramoff), treason (Cheney and his outing of Valerie Plame) fearmongering (Al-Quiada, Saddam Hussein, the terrorists will follow us home, etc.) and general disgust for everything that has to do with fairness, equality, the health and well-being of others (Cheney). Examples: the rape of education, healthcare, the poor, inadequate armor for our troops, inadequate rest for our troops, disgraceful medical care for our wounded troops, cutback in health benefits for our troops, lower military standards for recruits (which now includes kids who haven't finished high school, criminals and the generally poorly trained soldier), a Presidential opposition to pay raises for our troops,... should I go on? I can.
RPhilbeck, I don't want to make this personal so I am trying not to. On the other hand, I am always amazed at Republican supporters who are not in the army serving in Iraq. This is your war baby! There's no better way for you to keep America free than fighting there. You'll be keeping the enemy away from us. With every terrorist you kill we'll be just that much closer to an enduring peace and democracy in the Middle East. How can you pass this up and still uphold your values?
You know, no matter what excuse you give it is still just a mousy way of not standing true to your own convictions. Sorry to be blunt. But I don't see it any other way.
No amount of Republican self-justification can condone such behavior as we have seen in government these past six years. As it is often said, "the facts tend to have a liberal bias". It is hard to have pity on this country's enemies, isn't it? Seems to me there are a lot of Republicans who should find themselves being waterboarded right now. You might say "but isn't that torture?" The President, Vice-President and Republican members of Congress don't seem to think so. And I always agree with them.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 10, 2007, 01:25:37 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2007, 01:28:00 AM
Of course, he becomes a lightning rod for his efforts. Instead of people proving the points he makes are not accurate or are plainly false, they attack the man.
Why doesn't someone with an opposing view make a film about how good things are in healthcare, then people would have the other side? Seems like a good idea. Oh, I guess they already have. Those films are called commercials.
Post by: CCC on July 10, 2007, 06:57:11 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 01:28 |
Michael Moore is not a saint, but whenever he makes a film real discussion follows. That, in a republic, is worth a lot. Love him or hate him, people begin to examine ideas, circumstances and policies. How can that be bad? |
Well, lets put it this way:
There are people who are predisposed to the MM point of view. They do not need to be persuaded.
Then there are people who will never accept the MM point of view. They cannot be persuaded.
Then, in the middle, sits the undecided. They can be persuaded. The art of persuasion, in my humble opinion, is the art of the truth well told.
Moore tells a good story. But it appears to me that he is fast and loose with the facts. Consequently, although I think I am open minded and able to be persuaded, I remain unpersuaded by him because his work is merely docutainment and lacks credibility. Since he is no better than the people he criticizes I tend to disregard his views. I think this is why he is "bad" - because its too easy to criticize and disregard what he has to say. Much like Ann Coulter.
Post by: bblackwood on July 10, 2007, 08:28:28 AM
| JS wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 05:57 |
Moore tells a good story. But it appears to me that he is fast and loose with the facts. Consequently, although I think I am open minded and able to be persuaded, I remain unpersuaded by him because his work is merely docutainment and lacks credibility. Since he is no better than the people he criticizes I tend to disregard his views. I think this is why he is "bad" - because its too easy to criticize and disregard what he has to say. Much like Ann Coulter. |
Hey, I've never seen a MM film and doubt I will - I can't stand the guy - so I'm no MM defender. But I have to ask, how does it appear he's "fast and loose with the facts"? Are you getting that from the media or from your own research?
Post by: danickstr on July 10, 2007, 09:07:22 AM
He simply chooses to put the "good" facts together in a way that makes it appear that they are a complete set of facts. This is the art of creative omission.
I have been moved by his films, not due to his testimony but rather that he found pathetic individuals that had been victimized in some way that was tragic.
I personally feel that his motives for making these films are split down the middle. He is an advocate for the "truth" and a self-aggrandizer.
But I think that is an easy trap into which to fall. The minute we do a good thing for whatever reason, the ego gets a boost, and then we sort of have to balance that against our original reason for doing the good thing, which (hopefully) was to be altruistic.
Post by: maxdimario on July 10, 2007, 09:21:06 AM
I also hope that the internet remains free from the influence of the people who now control the media...
like moore said, if it wasn't for the aid of tv and newspapers the war wouldn't have happened..
if news was based on REALITY instead of convenience that would save a lot of grief for a lot of people..
BTW, If you want to see how lowly and vulgar news media can be come to Italy..
Italian newspapers are financed by the government.
Italian TV is aimed solely at reducing the cultural level of viewers and confusing them into submissive stupor..
I read that Italy is ranked 70th or 80th as far as quality of news in the world. basically the media does what the government and corporate world wants... who'se gonna stop them when the average person is too ignorant to know different?
...but the USA is not far behind..
Post by: CCC on July 10, 2007, 09:44:01 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 08:28 | ||
Hey, I've never seen a MM film and doubt I will - I can't stand the guy - so I'm no MM defender. But I have to ask, how does it appear he's "fast and loose with the facts"? Are you getting that from the media or from your own research? |
Depends what you mean by "research". I haven't followed him around and check his facts personally. Some people have, however, done some digging on him and the portrait that they paint is unflattering. For example, check the link I posted earlier on this thread.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2007, 10:48:19 AM
Post by: maxdimario on July 10, 2007, 10:51:54 AM
there's no use in being correct when it doesn't tell the whole truth..
sometimes to get the point across you have to be every bit as vulgar and blow things out of proportion as your 'opposition'
at least this way someone is forced to look into the matter once and for all PUBLICLY.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 10:54:38 AM
| JS wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 06:57 |
Moore tells a good story. But it appears to me that he is fast and loose with the facts. Consequently, although I think I am open minded and able to be persuaded, I remain unpersuaded by him because his work is merely docutainment and lacks credibility. Since he is no better than the people he criticizes I tend to disregard his views. I think this is why he is "bad" - because its too easy to criticize and disregard what he has to say. Much like Ann Coulter. |
One slight problem with that. That was the conventional dismissal of Fahrenheit 9/11. And, in hindsight, he was the one who got it right.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 10:58:45 AM
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 10:51 |
Exactly. there's no use in being correct when it doesn't tell the whole truth.. sometimes to get the point across you have to be every bit as vulgar and blow things out of proportion as your 'opposition' at least this way someone is forced to look into the matter once and for all PUBLICLY. |
It's absurd to accuse Moore of not being impartial. It is absurd to accuse him of trying to make make a point. He never denies it. Of course he's partial, of course he's trying to make a point.
As to the truth, here is his rebuttal to the "fact checkers".
Post by: CCC on July 10, 2007, 11:00:50 AM
| PRobb wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 10:54 |
On slight problem with that. That was the conventional dismissal of Fahrenheit 9/11. And, in hindsight, he was the one who got it right. |
That was the one movie of his I confess I did not see. Tell me, in that 9/11 movie did he indicate that he knew, before the invasion, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and upon what information did he base that conclusion?
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2007, 11:41:46 AM
1. The U.N. inspectors told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
2. That was even beside the point. There was no (and is no, and never was any) link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. I don't think it took Michael Moore, or anyone special, to see that. That's all my friends and I could talk about as we saw one idiotic move after another towards the war.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 10, 2007, 11:44:14 AM
Take this for what it's worth, but I get the feeling sometimes that everyone wants their news anchor of choice to be like Walter Cronkite, someone (maybe) smarter than you who you can trust and sort of rally behind (and maybe I have Walter pinned wrong, since I wasn't actually alive yet when he was on the Evening News).
I never understood this. Maybe because TV news has changed so much since then. I'd rather watch a real debate where noone wins than watch some news anchors pretend like they're not influenced by corporate sponsors. Maybe that works for a lot of people, but it makes me feel like they think everyone is stupid. I don't like that, so I don't watch.
I don't know Michael Moore personally, nor have I ever felt the need to see one of his movies. But at least he seems interested in the idea that not everyone is stupid. Even so, no news anchor or independant filmmaker or politician or anyone is going to do all the work for us.... to think so is naieve. Once people realize that the real work needs to be done on our side of the screen, then change will happen.
I mean, the media is only as useful or useless as we make it, right? That's why audio engineers exist. So how do you make sure the right mind "engineers" the news media? Debate and argument for all to see is the only way I can think of.....
but what do I know?
Jessica
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 10, 2007, 12:19:18 PM
The point that Moore is making to Wolf, was that everybody came out and said he was full of shit in 9/11, when he reported the problems at Walter Reed, the fabrication of evidence about WMDs, etc., an it turned out he was right. And then nobody said, "Wow. We were wrong and MM was right." So, he has a chip on his shoulder for news agencies that immediately come out and challenge his assertions, since they did such a bang up job last time.
Whatever that has to do with being a salesman, is irrelevant.
Post by: PookyNMR on July 10, 2007, 01:47:51 PM
Post by: CCC on July 10, 2007, 02:36:49 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 11:41 |
I know the topic is Michael Moore and I don't want to detract from that. However there are two points to be made: 1. The U.N. inspectors told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. |
I do not think this is quite right. If memory serves, the investigation of the UN inspectors was inconclusive and the documentation that was provided was judged to be incomplete. The Iraqi leadership was, as usual, belligerent and less than cooperative to the last.
If there was a presumption that Iraq was harbouring such weapons such a presumption would be reasonable. The Iraqi leadership used chemical and biological weapons against its own people, and waged war on its neighbors. That Iraq had terrible weapons was well known. That they no longer held that at the time of the recent hostilities was not known.
The true failure, in my humble opinion, was the lack of foresight by the Texas hatrack and friends. They might have guessed that Iraq, being full of people that hate each other more than they hate Americans, would implode once "liberated".
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 10, 2007, 02:48:40 PM
You do not want leaders that will take a chance on starting a war when they don't have good intelligence about the enemy, especially when there is no direct present threat. Bush went to war to avenge his family name after Hussein plotted to have his father killed. He was looking for the tiniest excuse and 9/11 filled that bill for him. It's the general population that unquestioningly went along that troubles me.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 03:13:12 PM
| JS wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:36 | ||
I do not think this is quite right. If memory serves, the investigation of the UN inspectors was inconclusive and the documentation that was provided was judged to be incomplete. The Iraqi leadership was, as usual, belligerent and less than cooperative to the last. If there was a presumption that Iraq was harbouring such weapons such a presumption would be reasonable. The Iraqi leadership used chemical and biological weapons against its own people, and waged war on its neighbors. That Iraq had terrible weapons was well known. That they no longer held that at the time of the recent hostilities was not known. |
It's impossible to prove a negative. The inspectors said they could find no evidence for the existence of WMD in Iraq. What's relevant to this discussion is that Moore was slammed for producing a "propaganda film" but time has proved him right.
| Quote: |
The true failure, in my humble opinion, was the lack of foresight by the Texas hatrack and friends. They might have guessed that Iraq, being full of people that hate each other more than they hate Americans, would implode once "liberated". |
That was obvious to most of the world, including Twitboy's father.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 10, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
| JS wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 11:36 | ||
I do not think this is quite right. If memory serves, the investigation of the UN inspectors was inconclusive and the documentation that was provided was judged to be incomplete. The Iraqi leadership was, as usual, belligerent and less than cooperative to the last. If there was a presumption that Iraq was harbouring such weapons such a presumption would be reasonable. The Iraqi leadership used chemical and biological weapons against its own people, and waged war on its neighbors. That Iraq had terrible weapons was well known. That they no longer held that at the time of the recent hostilities was not known. |
The problem was that Bush was so hellbent on going to war that they pulled out the inspectors, and they never got to do their job. But it's all irrelevant anyway, because even Wolfowitz himself said that WMDs were simply the only way that everybody in the administration agreed would be the best way to sell going to war. War was a foregone conclusion. The failure was with the Congress aks the press to ask tough questions and get real answers.
Post by: garret on July 10, 2007, 03:27:57 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but he was no islamofascist idealogue. Iraq was basically a secular country before we invaded... funny thing about ruthless dictators... they tend to clamp down on religious extremism rather well.
So far, this war-of-choice has cost the U.S. over 3,500 lives and $450 billion dollars. And don't forget that modern battlefield medicine has saved the lives of tens of thousands more, but left them living with horrific injuries and dependent on a VA system that is in shambles.
Anti-western extremism has exploded as a result, and it's taught many other countries a valuable lesson... Does anyone think we would have invaded Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons? If you have nuclear weapons, you won't get invaded. Iran and North Korea were watching carefully.
Edit... fixed the typo... 2,500 -> 3,500.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 03:34:38 PM
| garret wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 15:27 |
I think fundamentally, this was a stupid war-of-choice, started by a stupid person. Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Saddam's brutality toward his own people, etc., all just the reasons of the month. The real reason we went into Iraq was that Bush and his cadre were (and apparently still are) convinced that they can take over a major oil producer, and install a western-style democracy and capitalist economy. It's a dangerous mixture of neocon fantasy, and oil baron selfishness... Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but he was no islamofascist idealogue. Iraq was basically a secular country before we invaded... funny thing about ruthless dictators... they tend to clamp down on religious extremism rather well. So far, this war-of-choice has cost the U.S. over 2,500 lives and $450 billion dollars. And don't forget that modern battlefield medicine has saved the lives of tens of thousands more, but left them living with horrific injuries and dependent on a VA system that is in shambles. Anti-american extremism has exploded as a result, and it's taught many other countries a valuable lesson... Does anyone think we would have invaded Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons? If you have nuclear weapons, you won't get invaded. Iran and North Korea were watching carefully. |
Most of that is exactly what Moore was castigated for saying in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 10, 2007, 03:43:21 PM
So, Mr. Wolfowitz, how did that theory work out for ya?
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 04:12:21 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 15:43 |
Actually, there were some people, like Cheney presumably, who saw the profitability of the war as motivation: Oil, war profiteering, etc. However, there were some people who bought into the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which goes something like this: Oust Saddam, democracy will fall into place in Iraq, and a domino effect of democracy will spread through the Middle East, vanquishing Islamic theocracies and eventually (and this is the important point that they saw as the end game) resulting in a democratically elected government in Palestine. So, Mr. Wolfowitz, how did that theory work out for ya? |
Well, it looks like they were right about the domino effect. Just not quite what they had in mind.
Post by: Careful Collapse on July 10, 2007, 04:41:18 PM
| Quote: |
I do not think this is quite right. If memory serves, the investigation of the UN inspectors was inconclusive and the documentation that was provided was judged to be incomplete. The Iraqi leadership was, as usual, belligerent and less than cooperative to the last. |
Actually, Hans Blix said he did not believe there were WMDs and that, before the war, Iraq was was being cooperative, even pro-active. Course they were not initially cooperative, but the whole point of the US putting pressure on them was to intimidate them into cooperative. And it worked. And they attacked... anyway?
Post by: rollmottle on July 10, 2007, 05:20:40 PM
| garret wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 12:27 |
So far, this war-of-choice has cost the U.S. over 2,500 lives and $450 billion dollars. And don't forget that modern battlefield medicine has saved the lives of tens of thousands more, but left them living with horrific injuries and dependent on a VA system that is in shambles. |
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days 6 521 29 4 554 3.48 159 5 933 32 20 985 2.39 412 4 715 13 18 746 2.35 318 3 580 25 27 632 2.93 216 2 718 27 59 804 1.9 424 1 140 33 0 173 4.02 43 Total 3607 159 128 3894 2.48 1572
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 10, 2007, 08:51:56 PM
Post by: rphilbeck on July 10, 2007, 09:46:41 PM
John suggests that it is okay to be a liar, thief and cheat if it serves his agenda. I am suggesting that being the above is never acceptable under any circumstance.
Than you go off on some bizarre little rabbit trail about how everyone who agrees this war is appropriate should have to go fight in it? I am not following you.
Post by: rphilbeck on July 10, 2007, 09:54:45 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 20:51 |
Michael Moore and Sanjay Gupta are appearing together on Larry King. It'll be like Celebrity Death Match, hopefully. |
Don't know anything about Gupta, but in Columbine Moore attempted to show that gunshot deaths in the U.S. were reaching critical mass, and that it was an issue mostly limited to the U.S.
He attempts to prove this by comparing the exact number ( NOT PERCENTAGES BUT NUMBERS) of deaths by gunshot in various countries. Does anyone know why this is flawed and dishonest journalism? Not to mention math and statistics. Most middle schoolers do, and so does Moore.
I knew I could not trust any of his work after that.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2007, 10:04:47 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 21:46 |
Barry, John suggests that it is okay to be a liar, thief and cheat if it serves his agenda. I am suggesting that being the above is never acceptable under any circumstance. Than you go off on some bizarre little rabbit trail about how everyone who agrees this war is appropriate should have to go fight in it? I am not following you. |
It's absolutely not OK to be a "liar, thief and cheat". That's why I oppose Bush. Nice to know you agree.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2007, 11:32:04 PM
I guess you didn't follow because it is sometimes hard to make it through the rabbit hole and into the wonderland that is my head -- complete with Mad Hatters.
What I was attempting to say is that I don't condone evil acts, but that Republicans thrive on them. Then I jumped to the war between Dems and Republicans -- how there is a real fight between two camps. The Dems promote healthcare, improvement in the minimum wage, etc while Republican candidates for president only want to yap on about fearmongering and who can out-torture who.
From that war I jumped to the trumped up Republican war in Iraq, which is one of their more evil acts. At that point I proposed "if a person supports Republicans or is one, then he/she/it should go and fight in the war. My conclusion being that if they don't they too are hypocrites because they are allowing the war to ruin the lives of other Americans but aren't willing to make that sacrifice themselves.
So my attempt has been to establish stepping stones growing from two disparate philosophies -- the Dem's hope/optimism and ethics against Republican fearmongering/warmongering/corruption/moral decline/hypocrisy. My conclusion being that of the two parties only the Dems are promoting anything positive. And as proof of that states like Iowa (which had 75% of its population for the war in Iraq) now has largely turned Democratic with 75% of its population opposed to the war and are making contributions to Dem candidates).
So when someone proposes Dems should lie, cheat, steal to win this ideological war, I understand the temptation because those are Republican tactics and it is often human nature to give people a dose of their own medicine. My point is that Dems don't need to do that because the American people are finally coming to the realization that they have been lied to and bullied by Republicans. And they are finally optimistic enough to throw that political party aside.
I admit the previous posting was a bit of a magical mystery tour. It always is in my head. Hopefully I stated things more clearly this time.
Post by: rollmottle on July 11, 2007, 12:34:24 AM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 17:51 |
Michael Moore and Sanjay Gupta are appearing together on Larry King. It'll be like Celebrity Death Match, hopefully. |
i thought Sanjay Gupta had very level-headed, well-reasoned arguments and clearly had no agenda. Michael Moore was smug and continually atagonistic just trying to further his agenda. he could have had a much more productive conversation if he just stopped trying to be "right" the whole time. it was dumb since Gupta pretty much AGREES with Michael Moore anyways.
why does Michael Moore have to be such a douche?
Post by: maxdimario on July 11, 2007, 04:59:36 AM
both are cops.
Post by: PRobb on July 11, 2007, 10:22:12 AM
| maxdimario wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 04:59 |
I see two party systems as being the equivalent of the good cop bad cop scenario.. both are cops. |
And everbody knows we'd be better off without cops, right?
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 11, 2007, 10:26:08 AM
| PRobb wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 07:22 | ||
And everbody knows we'd be better off without cops, right? |
The problem is that often the wrong type of person is attracted to being a cop.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 11, 2007, 11:16:32 AM
Please... Dr. Gupta had an agenda or he wouldn't have been there. In fact, he admitted errors in his CNN report. All information quoted by Michael Moore comes from President Bush’s Health and Human Services (2007).
In the end both agreed healthcare needs reform. A good place to end.
Post by: rollmottle on July 11, 2007, 01:25:51 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 08:16 |
Rollmottle, Please... Dr. Gupta had an agenda or he wouldn't have been there. In fact, he admitted errors in his CNN report. All information quoted by Michael Moore comes from President Bush’s Health and Human Services (2007). In the end both agreed healthcare needs reform. A good place to end. |
all information quoted by Michael Moore did not come from the President's Health and Human Services report. it came from numerous sources, a point to which Michael Moore wouldn't concede to on the air when Gupta pressed him to admit that he cherry picks data. which he does! there are multiple sources of data cited by Moore on his site. take for example this point from Moore's website: "As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba's per capita health expenditure at $229 per person. We chose to use the UN numbers, a minor difference - and $229 is a lot closer to $251 than $25."
he insisted on air that all his data came from WHO (or the President's Report?). yet in that case they chose to use the UN numbers? plenty more examples here where he's using BBC, the UN, and other news venues for data:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php
this inconsistency is what i found most off-putting about Michael Moore. if he truly was interested in furthering the dialogue about health care, i think he could be much more effective if he could just remove his ego from the equation. his continued insistence that he was right in "Farenheit 9/11" before everybody else bothered to start asking the questions he was asking and that he needs to be apologized to and praised by the media (come on...) really lends nothing to his credibility about having a discussion about health care. strikes me as rather petty.
Post by: organica on July 11, 2007, 02:13:56 PM
lots of suckers out there who like to get their fix of mental junk food/head games . he's a tricky little fellow though ...... gotta give him props for that
certainly all of these so-called " big issues " are more complicated than the producers ( CNN / FOX / MSNBC or whatever alphabet channel that one considers to be a "news source" ) of these broadcasts are able to get into . there's money to make & vacations to take .
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 11, 2007, 02:42:45 PM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56459/
Post by: rollmottle on July 11, 2007, 02:55:23 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 11 July 2007 11:42 |
To long to post: here's a rebuttal to your points. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56459/ |
barry,
this is exactly what's posted on Michael Moore's site. the same link i provided in my post. the same source of what i quoted in my post.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 11, 2007, 03:06:16 PM
Post by: John Ivan on July 12, 2007, 12:51:28 AM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 21:46 |
Barry, John suggests that it is okay to be a liar, thief and cheat if it serves his agenda. I am suggesting that being the above is never acceptable under any circumstance. Than you go off on some bizarre little rabbit trail about how everyone who agrees this war is appropriate should have to go fight in it? I am not following you. |
I do in fact suggest this yes.. There is a reason though. A good reason.... My agenda is that I love my old country and miss her, warts and all.
During the Civil War, we would do what ever was needed to win. During War, you are to do what ever you can to ruin the reputation of the enemy, hurt their business dealings, erode their ability to make war against you and so on. Now, I don't in any way hope or desire that things escalate to violence of any kind over the next years while NORMAL people make an effort to take back their Country. However, all bets are off politically. I want to know where, when, how these Republicans are:
Buying and doing Dope
Buying Hookers
lying on their tax forms
Cheating on their spouses
Engaging in underhanded Business that even MIGHT be suspect.
All these things are fair game until they shut the hell up about "Moral Majority" and "Values Voters" and all the other complete Bull Shit they have shoved down the all to willing throats of the American people. It has to stop and if some trickery and some street smarts can help, I'm all for it.
We should start with a well funded campaign to badly hurt the reputations of the Right Wings' biggest Media punks.
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Rush Limp-balls {the dope addict}
Real News agencies should say DAILY that Fox News is pure garbage.. and so on..
These things are all being thought but not done. It's time to ruin these folks for good. They are destroying the hard work that thousands of Family's have done over many generations and they are leaving the American Ideal behind. If they do not stop, we will be irrelevant.
Americans are good people for the most part but we need to read more. I seriously believe that this one thing alone would have prevented all of this.
Political War? Yes but War none the less...
Ivan..............
Post by: PRobb on July 12, 2007, 02:48:53 AM
Although we could talk about "family values" Sen. Vitter!
Post by: John Ivan on July 12, 2007, 04:52:16 AM
| PRobb wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 02:48 |
John- I feel ya! But do we really need to stoop to Republican slime tactics? Seems to me the good guys should be able to win on issues. We did in '06. Although we could talk about "family values" Sen. Vitter! |
It's not not stooping. They say that this behavior and that behavior will land us in Hell. They say I hate my country. They say they are better Americans because of how they "SEE" God. Others are BAD people. They SAY this.. while they continue worse behavior than me and the people I know.
I say, they sit the fuck down and shut up. I am totally willing to point out to them, in the most painfully personal way possible that they are NOT special. They have nearly brought this Country to her knees with this "Strategery to fite teristststt" bullshit that they don't understand. They are killing our kids for nothing. They have miss-handled EVERY agency. They hate Government and will destroy it from inside whether it's what the American people want or not.. Watch what they do to the FAA this year. These folks are dangerous dangerous people and I think they're "Bad People". As in, They don't love me or you, or your kids, or anyone else. Just Bad..... Hard working bad people.
Now, I think they should be glad we aren't in DC with our Guns. 100 years ago , most of these guys would not be living by now..
This shit isn't funny. They need to go away now.
Ivan..................
Post by: PRobb on July 12, 2007, 10:00:42 AM
| John Ivan wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 04:52 |
I say, they sit the fuck down and shut up. I am totally willing to point out to them, in the most painfully personal way possible that they are NOT special. They have nearly brought this Country to her knees with this "Strategery to fite teristststt" bullshit that they don't understand. They are killing our kids for nothing. They have miss-handled EVERY agency. They hate Government and will destroy it from inside whether it's what the American people want or not.. Watch what they do to the FAA this year. These folks are dangerous dangerous people and I think they're "Bad People". As in, They don't love me or you, or your kids, or anyone else. Just Bad..... Hard working bad people. . |
Can't disagree with a word of that.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2007, 12:19:26 PM
Not that I'm advocating violence mind you.
Post by: organica on July 12, 2007, 12:36:37 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 22:39 | ||
John Ivan wrote on Mon, 09 July 2007 21:23]
That is because you are an ignorant individual and extremely low on character. Maybe you should run for office. You're just the kind of democrat the republicans are looking for. |
Where's the bouncer in this saloon ? These guys are way too drunk ...... and now senator John Ivan just shit his pants and he's pissing all over the place .
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2007, 01:37:06 PM
I think Ivan's posting should tell you, us, the country, exactly how pissed off a lot of people are. People are tired of Republican lies and scandals. The Libby thing was a big slap in the face. Sara Taylor yesterday swung executive privilege like a bat, making statements to Congress when they were in her favor and claiming privilege when they weren't.
People are really sick of a double standard. And they're frustrated there isn't much that can be done at the moment, try as they might because of the bizarre crap Cheny and Bush are pulling, such as not being part of the Executive Branch. How can the heads of the Executive Branch not be part of it? Is there now a Fourth Branch of government not recognized by the Constitution?
I believe you'll see and read a lot more of Ivan's kind of message, throughout Congress, internet bloggers and the people, although not the Main Stream Media which is owned by people such as Rupert Murdoch (who has publicly admitted to trying to slant the news towards conservatism).
The closer it gets to elections the more Republicans are going to abandon the president. It's amazing how many are already saying what "cut and run democrats" have been saying since November.
There's no time like the present for Republicans to have a spiritual (I need to get elected) awakening.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2007, 03:23:26 PM
"This time it's Florida State Rep. Robert Allen of Merritt Island. The 48 year old Republican Representative was arrested today on second degree misdemeanor charges for solicitation for prostitution. And the twist is that he's a married many [sic] and was asking an undercover cop in a men's room if he could pay him [$20.00 - my addition from further down in the article-Barry] to give him a blowjob."
I'm waiting for the next scandal. I'm sure it won't be long!
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 12, 2007, 03:27:52 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 14:23 |
BTW, here is today's Republican Scandal: "This time it's Florida State Rep. Robert Allen of Merritt Island. The 48 year old Republican Representative was arrested today on second degree misdemeanor charges for solicitation for prostitution. And the twist is that he's a married many [sic] and was asking an undercover cop in a men's room if he could pay him [$20.00 my addition from further down in the article -Barry] to give him a blowjob." I'm waiting for the next scandal. I'm sure it won't be long! |
Today's episode of "Republican Scandal" is sponsored by Barry Hufker. And is brought to you by the letters "L", "R", and the number "4".
Jess
Post by: PRobb on July 12, 2007, 03:36:46 PM
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 15:27 | ||
Today's episode of "Republican Scandal" is sponsored by Barry Hufker. And is brought to you by the letters "L", "R", and the number "4". Jess |
Tune in again tomorrow for a brand new, exciting episode.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 12, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
"To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also. - Igor Stravinsky"
Exactly how loud is an "also"?
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 12, 2007, 09:56:29 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 12 July 2007 18:09 |
The number 4! Ah - ah - ah! (the Count) "To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also. - Igor Stravinsky" Exactly how loud is an "also"? |
It varies from duck to duck.
Jessica
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 13, 2007, 12:13:05 AM
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 13, 2007, 03:41:14 PM
Geeze.
They sound auditorily challenged to me.
Jess
Post by: phantom309 on July 13, 2007, 09:02:17 PM
Here's my experience.....for Dr. Gupta or anyone else that cares to hear it from an AMERICAN living and a landed immigrant in Canada.
I've been here 7 years. I am self employed. I am 50 years old. I pay 230.00 CN every 3 months for an extended Blue Cross plan that makes my daily medication cost 15.00 per month and gives me some other smaller benefits. In California, this same medication was 85.00 per month.
In 2003 I suffered a rather nasty motorcycle accident that shattered my tibia and tibial plateau into 14 pieces, ripped all of the ligaments out of my knee. I was hospitalized for 9 days, 2 surgeries and 4 months of rehab. The orthopedic surgeon trained in the US. I am COMPLETELY recovered with 90% of my previous flexion and extension...in short the surgeon was a genius and the care I received was amazing. The surgeon did his internships in the US and estimates that the bill for all of this would have been between 65 and 80,000.00 Here, it cost me NOTHING. All of this in a city that has grown more in the last 10 years than any city in Canadian history. 200,000 in 6 years and is short on hospital beds. NO WAITING for this accident, NO WAITING for the follow ups. The only waiting I have done was for a semi elective concern with allergies...that was 3 weeks. If you NEED to see someone now, you will.
My taxes in the US were in the 35% range. Here, my income tax runs 40%. In the states, my health insurance (after I turned 40) was 385.00 per month.
I get a physical every year....NO CHARGE. NO charge for ANY GP visit...only for the meds that she may prescribe...which, again, are cheap.
In my opinion, this whole anti Canadian health care line is a complete crock and the AMA knows it....all the way to the bank, along with their drug company buddies.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 16, 2007, 03:48:39 AM
Post by: PookyNMR on November 21, 2007, 12:02:10 PM
I think that it should cause many Americans to raise some serious questions.
One of the best parts of the movie, I think, are the interviews with Tony Benn in the special features section. He makes some excellent points about the individualistic world view of North American society.
Also interesting in the special features was the exposition on Norway...
Sad fact is that America has become a capitalist society in exchange for it's democracy. There's no excuse for the kind of behavior that we're seeing. It's injustice.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 21, 2007, 12:32:23 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 16 July 2007 08:48 |
BTW, I just got back from seeing Sicko. Honestly, the majority of the film is anecdotal. It's not a dissertation about numbers or statistics. It's about the differences between our system and other systems that do have universal healthcare, and trying to get us to question why we don't have it. Anybody who criticizes this movie has a real problem, or works for an HMO. |
The dishonest way Michael Moore has edited his films make them polemics, not documentaries, and therefore what is perhaps valuable becomes hard to trust.
It is literally a case of the boy who cried wolf.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 21, 2007, 12:35:24 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 17:02 |
I also saw the movie last night. I think that it should cause many Americans to raise some serious questions. One of the best parts of the movie, I think, are the interviews with Tony Benn in the special features section. He makes some excellent points about the individualistic world view of North American society. Also interesting in the special features was the exposition on Norway... Sad fact is that America has become a capitalist society in exchange for it's democracy. There's no excuse for the kind of behavior that we're seeing. It's injustice. |
Nathan, apparently they do not teach this in Canadian schools but America has ALWAYS been a capitalist society, for better or worse.
BTW, what is your opinion on how well/poorly the Canadian health care system works? I hear very contradictory things from Canadians who have moved to L.A.
Post by: mgod on November 21, 2007, 01:03:26 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 09:32 |
The dishonest way Michael Moore has edited his films make them polemics, not documentaries, and therefore what is perhaps valuable becomes hard to trust. It is literally a case of the boy who cried wolf. |
So you've seen this one then?
The boy who cried wolf? Have you ever been sick in America ?
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on November 21, 2007, 01:07:50 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 10:35 |
Nathan, apparently they do not teach this in Canadian schools but America has ALWAYS been a capitalist society, for better or worse. |
Well, America has claimed, however, that they are a democracy. While Capitalism and democracy can vaguely co-exist, they are forces that are often opposed to one another.
The sad truth is that democracy often looses to Capitalism. While I have no trouble agreeing with the definition that the USA is a capitalist society, I'm not sure that many folks see how much democracy they are sacrificing in doing so.
quote title=Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 10:35]BTW, what is your opinion on how well/poorly the Canadian health care system works? I hear very contradictory things from Canadians who have moved to L.A.[/quote]
There was a rough spot during the funding cuts and hideous mismanagement of the Liberal government. But things have really turned around.
I can say this with all honesty - most of the right wing propaganda that you hear about our medical system down there is pure BS. We're not a perfect utopia, but the stuff that they are spreading down there is pure lies.
I can also say that in terms of creating a just society, we have that. Everyone gets the same high quality medical care regardless of their economic status. No BS with private insurance companies limiting coverage so they can increase profit.
The places where you see the the most problems are in very remote, isolated northern populations. Ever been to Tuktoyaktuk? (http://www.tuk.ca/) You can probably imagine why most doctors don't want to live there.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 21, 2007, 02:21:34 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 18:07 | ||
Well, America has claimed, however, that they are a democracy. While Capitalism and democracy can vaguely co-exist, they are forces that are often opposed to one another. The sad truth is that democracy often looses to Capitalism. While I have no trouble agreeing with the definition that the USA is a capitalist society, I'm not sure that many folks see how much democracy they are sacrificing in doing so. quote title=Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 10:35]BTW, what is your opinion on how well/poorly the Canadian health care system works? I hear very contradictory things from Canadians who have moved to L.A. |
There was a rough spot during the funding cuts and hideous mismanagement of the Liberal government. But things have really turned around.
I can say this with all honesty - most of the right wing propaganda that you hear about our medical system down there is pure BS. We're not a perfect utopia, but the stuff that they are spreading down there is pure lies.
I can also say that in terms of creating a just society, we have that. Everyone gets the same high quality medical care regardless of their economic status. No BS with private insurance companies limiting coverage so they can increase profit.
The places where you see the the most problems are in very remote, isolated northern populations. Ever been to Tuktoyaktuk? (http://www.tuk.ca/) You can probably imagine why most doctors don't want to live there.
[/quote]
First of all we are a Representative Democracy, not a pure democracy and there is a difference.
Capitalism sucks until you compare it to Socialism, Communism, and Fascism at which point it starts to look pretty good IMHO.
It takes individual profit to motivate people. Until the nature of mankind itself changes, and I do not see that happening, it will be so.
Some of the negative comments I have heard about the Canadian health system have come to me from people who moved from Canada to LA. They say it works fine unless you need first rate emergency surgery/treatment in a hurry and then they end up having to come to the U.S.
You disagree, I take it?
Post by: jwhynot on November 21, 2007, 03:38:17 PM
JW
Post by: PookyNMR on November 21, 2007, 04:32:41 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 12:21 |
Capitalism sucks until you compare it to Socialism, Communism, and Fascism at which point it starts to look pretty good IMHO. |
I don't know about that. If your very wealthy I might agree, because capitalism is set up to benefit the wealthy. If you're not wealthy, your carrying a heavy load, or if you're the working poor, you're totally screwed. But for everyone who is average or less, some forms Socialism look pretty darn good. The folks in Northern Europe seem to be doing very, very well with it. Much better that 90% of us are doing over here.
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 12:21 |
It takes individual profit to motivate people. Until the nature of mankind itself changes, and I do not see that happening, it will be so. |
There's no lack of profit motive in most current forms of Socialism.
What there is is an additional system of social support and social justice for those who need help which is shamefully under-developed on our side of the globe.
The working poor should not die in the richest country in the world because they could not afford health insurance or because their private for profit insurance company decided to let them die that day to raise the bottom line.
Completely unacceptable in a just society.
If we want to talk profit motive, look at how productive places are that take care of their people.
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 12:21 |
Some of the negative comments I have heard about the Canadian health system have come to me from people who moved from Canada to LA. They say it works fine unless you need first rate emergency surgery/treatment in a hurry and then they end up having to come to the U.S. You disagree, I take it? |
I do disagree.
How long ago did they come down to the US? Probably during the Liberal Govt cuts.
My father and some friends have needed emergency care within the past few years. They all received excellent, timely care. A few years ago there may have been more of a wait, but now things are clearing up.
Maybe not utopia, but no one gets left behind.
Did you see the movie?
Post by: PookyNMR on November 21, 2007, 04:34:36 PM
| jwhynot wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 13:38 |
Hands up everyone who thinks Canada has socialized medicine. |
Hand down.
Post by: mgod on November 21, 2007, 06:07:14 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 11:21 |
Some of the negative comments I have heard about the Canadian health system have come to me from people who moved from Canada to LA. They say it works fine unless you need first rate emergency surgery/treatment in a hurry and then they end up having to come to the U.S. |
They come to the US for emergency care? Huh? You mean they fly from Canada to LA in an emergency? Why, that's - illogical.
That's a strange thing to wonder about for someone living in LA where we have emergency rooms closing all the time because they aren't funded and don't generate profit; and because lacking insurance, emergency rooms have become for first line of medical care for the working poor. But heaven forbid we provide care for people who can't generate profits for private insurers and private medical facilities. Oh - wait...that's just capitalism, right? Providing for those people and funding the emergency rooms so they don't have to generate profit - that would be...oh my..that would be...social!!!!
Bombs are better - and more expensive. But they are final. We prefer killing to caring. That's capitalism for ya!
It seems to me that anyone who says "Until the nature of mankind itself changes, and I do not see that happening, it will be so" is simply unwilling to change themselves and uses that idea to justify that lack of action. Better others change first. Its more convenient.
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on November 22, 2007, 03:25:18 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 11:21 |
Bombs are better - and more expensive. But they are final. We prefer killing to caring. That's capitalism for ya! It seems to me that anyone who says "Until the nature of mankind itself changes, and I do not see that happening, it will be so" is simply unwilling to change themselves and uses that idea to justify that lack of action. Better others change first. Its more convenient. DS |
That is pure hyperbole.
I am for caring where it is the appropriate response like Darfur, the Sudan, etc. We need to do much more and I am proud of former president Clinton for his efforts.
i am for killing where it is the appropriate response like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 22, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 18:03 | ||
So you've seen this one then? The boy who cried wolf? Have you ever been sick in America ? DS |
While this film may be different from his past ones, indeed I am told it is, I will only see the movie when it is on free TV. I want to put as little of my money in Moore's pocket as possible because I feel that he has by and large been a dishonest and destructive filmmaker.
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 22, 2007, 06:13:39 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 12:30 |
I want to put as little of my money in Moore's pocket as possible because I feel that he has by and large been a dishonest and destructive filmmaker. |
Post by: Ashermusic on November 22, 2007, 06:30:56 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 23:13 | ||
|
The message is not however more important than the truth and a lot of times Moore deliberately either distorts, misrepresents, or bald facedly lies. I simply will not support him.
Post by: studiojimi on November 22, 2007, 06:50:59 PM
wealthy man....a true capitalist
he doesn't need your support
he is just supplying a demand
it's no worse than someone writing a song that they don't really feel and hoping for it to be a hit.
Post by: studiojimi on November 22, 2007, 06:52:56 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 15:30 |
I simply will not support him. |
does that mean you did not rent or go to his movies?
Post by: Ashermusic on November 22, 2007, 07:01:46 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 22 November 2007 23:52 | ||
does that mean you did not rent or go to his movies? |
Yes. I saw "Roger and Me" and "Bowling For Columbine" on TV. That was enough.
Post by: PookyNMR on November 23, 2007, 01:41:54 PM
Post by: Ashermusic on November 23, 2007, 01:52:22 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 23 November 2007 18:41 |
With "Sicko" the best parts IMHO are the interviews on the bonus features of the DVD. Some very qualified, experienced experts weigh in on some of the issues. Some of the information is quite revealing... Somethings that we cannot afford to be ignorant about no matter how comfortable we feel now. |
It seems to me that some kind of health care initiative is going to pass since all the Democratic candidates and the Democrat controlled Congress are onboaard. Even a large group of Republicans believe the status quo is not tenable because with all the Baby Boomers retiring the strain on Medicare has to be addressed.
It won't be pretty but I am confident that by 4 years from now it will be better. And it will not be because of Michael Moore though no doubt he will be very busy taking credit for it.
Post by: mgod on November 23, 2007, 03:06:26 PM
What Moore does consistently is hold a mirror up to the way in which we gleefully hurt each other, and does it in a way which gets the message across by being sort of entertaining. Its quite a skill.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on November 23, 2007, 03:30:03 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 23 November 2007 12:06 |
What Moore does consistently is hold a mirror up to the way in which we gleefully hurt each other, and does it in a way which gets the message across by being sort of entertaining. Its quite a skill. DS |
Amen. Well put . . .and I agree.
i even enjoyed the documentary on him by those canadians who showed a light on him i had not known
asher would dig that i think
have you seen that asher?
Post by: Ashermusic on November 23, 2007, 04:30:41 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 23 November 2007 20:06 |
And for bringing more attention to it, he will deserve some credit. "Roger and Me" showed the destruction of the industrial base in the name of shareholders. "Bowling for Columbine" made a connection between the companies which refuse to take responsibility for the ammo they profit from selling and the people wounded by that product. "Fahrenheit 911" showed the happy greed of companies that could somehow attach themselves to the Iraq War feedbag. You can fault the messenger all you want. I'm sure he doesn't care what you think, and he's doing a public service. That he's smart enough to do a public service while making money may be something to be jealous of, given that most of our society makes money by doing damage, but then again I suppose you prefer to give away your music than be paid for it. That's noble of you, assuming people want to hear it. People obviously choose to consume Moore's products. That they get some real information at the same time isn't too bad a thing. But as someone who won't support his work, you maybe aren't yet qualified to tell us that he isn't telling the truth about the subject. What Moore does consistently is hold a mirror up to the way in which we gleefully hurt each other, and does it in a way which gets the message across by being sort of entertaining. Its quite a skill. DS |
I would have no problem with Moore's profiting and self-aggrandizing if he were honest but he is not and the fact that he distorts, misrepresents, and lies in the service of what may be good causes does not excuse him.
Christopher Hitchings wrote this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
John Stossel wrote this:
http://www.publiuspundit.com/2007/09/exposing_michael_moores _lies_a.php
There is also
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenhe it-911.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_ marrin/article2753620.ece
But you are not open to my point of view you and you are getting rather personal and nasty so at this point I will bid you adieu.
Post by: studiojimi on November 23, 2007, 07:02:29 PM
but certainly no more than jews poles and russians and many other of god's kids
asher i hope you didn't think i was gettting personal or nasty
if so please show me what made you go there
i want a good vibe with you and most of the cats in here and i want to be able to give you a nice slap five at the next tech breakfast so....please...don't go getting thin skinned
we're supposed to be having fun here.
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 23, 2007, 07:04:59 PM
Post by: Ashermusic on November 23, 2007, 07:24:40 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Sat, 24 November 2007 00:02 |
michiganers like myself are at time self grandizing but certainly no more than jews poles and russians and many other of god's kids asher i hope you didn't think i was gettting personal or nasty if so please show me what made you go there i want a good vibe with you and most of the cats in here and i want to be able to give you a nice slap five at the next tech breakfast so....please...don't go getting thin skinned we're supposed to be having fun here. |
Jimi, it wasn't you I was responding to, it was DS (mgod)
Besides I know you a little and I know you are just like me, a guy who likes to tease so we are totally cool.
Actually, I am not mad at DS either, I just see the discussion heading in a direction I do not want to pursue.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 23, 2007, 07:32:56 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 24 November 2007 00:04 |
The disappointing thing about Moore's presentation style is that in order to get any notice you have to be bombastic. If he made straight documentaries no one would watch. This is a major factor in the lack of real discussion in politics and an underlying flaw in the current American political system. Sensationalism has escaped from Hollywood and infected Washington, where theatrics is accepted as a replacement for serious deliberation. |
Jay, respectfully I don't think it is a matter of "presentation style", I think he is unfair and dishonest.
Let me give one concrete example. He made Charlton Heston look like a total whack job by editing together moments of several meetings picking his worst moments making it look like one continuous conversation. Now Mr. Heston is indeed perhaps over the top on the gun issue. But he is also a very decent man who along with his wife goes to the Encino library to read to little kids, like my daughter years ago, and I can tell you he is a gracious and lovely man. It was character assassination.
Who here would like the worst moments over several conversations edited together as a representation of who we are? Believe me, if a film maker did the same thing to Mr. Moore, and it would be EASY to make him look bad, he would be outraged as he does not take any kind of criticism well.
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 23, 2007, 07:49:37 PM
Post by: mgod on November 24, 2007, 07:13:24 PM
DS
Post by: mgod on November 24, 2007, 08:30:35 PM
Post by: mgod on November 25, 2007, 10:39:45 AM
| Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 23 November 2007 13:30 |
But you are not open to my point of view you and you are getting rather personal and nasty |
Nonsense - and so easy to say and do. So far your response to having your ideas challenged is to call me illogical and hyperbolic and tell us that unless we do what you do, we are intellectually lazy. So open-minded and generous of you. Step up - support your ideas. We don't have to swallow them whole just because you want to be agreed with.
DS
Post by: Ashermusic on November 25, 2007, 11:30:23 AM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 25 November 2007 15:39 | ||
Nonsense - and so easy to say and do. So far your response to having your ideas challenged is to call me illogical and hyperbolic and tell us that unless we do what you do, we are intellectually lazy. So open-minded and generous of you. Step up - support your ideas. We don't have to swallow them whole just because you want to be agreed with. DS |
I have made my best arguments. People can read and decide for themselves. I have neither the time nor the inclination for endless debate.
Once again, for a fair and balanced history, I highly recommend "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright.
Post by: mgod on November 25, 2007, 12:35:26 PM
| Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 25 November 2007 08:30 |
Once again, for a fair and balanced history, I highly recommend "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. |
Much better expressed.
DS
Post by: Graham Jordan on November 28, 2007, 04:30:18 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 21 November 2007 09:02 |
I also saw the movie last night. I think that it should cause many Americans to raise some serious questions. One of the best parts of the movie, I think, are the interviews with Tony Benn in the special features section. He makes some excellent points about the individualistic world view of North American society. Also interesting in the special features was the exposition on Norway... |
Actually, I jusst watched Sicko last weekend for the first time. I also saw a few of the features, and was alos going to point out extended interview with Tony Benn. As a Brit now living in US, I am familiar with him, the UK system and the US. Tony Benn is excellent. This is why he was an MP for so long... he makes so much sense!
I highly recommend viewing this. Even if you've seen the movie, get the DVD and see this.
Eduation (including colledge/university) and health care, as fire, police, etc. should be available to ALL, irrespective of income. It's what a wealthy and civilised country/society MUST do. These directly benefit EVERYONE. A healthy, educated, safe population is the bedrock of civilised society.
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on November 28, 2007, 08:07:23 PM