cultshock

I'm looking forward to it too (mostly for the same reason ). I kinda have to admire someone who can get so many people so worked up.

inVectiVe

AGuyNamedMike - I like yours too.

I wrote some *intentionally* stupid things to demonstrate the utter assclownishness (there's that word again) of using The Pope and The Dixie Chicks to back up an opinion. Granted, when Moore used that at the Oscars, it was just a one-liner - but even by one-liner standards, it's pretty weak. Also, as I've pointed out in just about every Moore thread I've entered recently, it is bogus to pretend you have great respect for The Pope's words only when he agrees with you (war), but to assign them zero relevance when they clash with your own (abortion). For instance, I'm mostly pro-life, but I never use the Vatican to support my position, because I disagree with Rome on countless other hefty issues. Clear?
I'm sorry. You'll have to hold my hand and walk me through this step-by-step. Exactly where in this thread did anyone "go to war and kill"? By all means, if DVDTalkers are resorting to violence, utilize the Report This Post to a Mod feature ASAP! I hear the admins have instituted a new zero-tolerance policy whereby "going to war and killing" a fellow member is grounds for a 1-week suspension!
I can't believe people are still using this ultra-lame argument. Free speech means the government can't lock you up for bitching about your taxes being too high. Similarly, the government can't lock up Moore simply for being an assclown (I'm going to use this word, at least twice, in EVERY one of my posts from now on) - because he has "free speech."

However, free speech also, in the opinions of at least some influential constitutional scholars, protects my right to go on the Internet and criticize Moore. Even to "hate" him, if I so choose.
Can Uncle Sam arrest him for violating the rules of documentary filmmaking? No. Can Internet geeks criticize him for violating the rules of documentary filmmaking? YES!
Funniest thing I've read all week!

Dan Rather calls The New York Times, which hasn't endorsed a Republican Prez candidate in 50 years, a "middle of the road" newspaper, and.......actually, forget the whole Liberal Media thing. Far more troubling, I think, is the stranglehold that far-left college professors have over American higher education. The same folks who preach "diversity" go to great lengths to ensure that their students will be indoctrinated with liberal beliefs in every class they take.

OK, sure, conservatives dominate talk radio. But to suggest that liberals don't have their share of "propaganda" is absurd.
Interesting. I'm of the opinion that refusing to call the President "the President" during a time of war is rather un-American. Which, again, doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it. I just reserve the right to think it's unpatriotic.

At least we can agree that his morbidly obese whale carcass of a body is pretty funny. His attempt at facial hair is also quite humorous, as is his claim that his political views are pretty "mainstream" and that he represents "the regular guy."

Still, for my money, I'm not sure he'll ever be able to top his "Pope / Dixie Chicks" remark......

mmconhea

So far you oknly prove my case. Thanks for being more of and "assclown" than Mr. Moore.

I did not specifically say we are killing on this board, but the anger and name-throwing that is present over this one man and a simple movie he has made is so uncanny, that it truly demonstrates the natural response people have when a nerve is hit. Perhaps the nerve that was touched upon is close to the truth? or are people just naturally angry like this? Now, can you stop and think about both sides, or will you just start with the name calling?


As far as your New York Times argument. So what? What you don't understand about the press is that most of the time, they are indirectly democratic (through capatalist demand) rather than political. Perhaps that is what the people want (or want to buy in a Newspaper- afterall it's the NEW YORK times)- if not, wouldn't it have trouble selling papers?

Um... what history books and newspapers are you reading? It's patiotic to follow the constitution, not be a peon of the President. He's not the whole government. This is not a monarchy. Political cartoon, editorials and investigative reporting throughout history have criticized all aspects of the goverment during war or not. The reason we have the first several ammendments in the constitution is to allow the people the right to be critical of the government. Unfortunately some people don't understand why it's important and become spiteful towards those that do. It's enforced by law, but unfortunately, as proven by your words, it's not understood by everyone.

yecul

Since you reference college, I assume that you've gone.

Are you a leftist? Were you one entering college?

If you were conservative and still are, then your concern about the media and professors is rather baseless. Apparantly that stranglehold didn't change your opinions... Besides, I sure didn't see it and I spent plenty of time in a Vermont college's (ie liberal state) Business and Political Science departments. They all had their own views, but it didn't effect their teachings nor subject choices.

Anyway........ Enough of that.

inVectiVe

I'm not even sure there's a real disagreement here.....I'll just run through my argument, briefly, once more:

1) Using The Pope and The Dixie Chicks to lend credibility to one's opinions is lame.
2) When Moore did this at the Oscars, it was lame.
3) When I did it to praise a movie I haven't seen and an album I haven't heard, it was lame. On purpose.
4) Putting The Pope on a pedestal as a spiritually insightful ethical philosopher cannot logically be done on a case-by-case basis. Either John Paul's status as head of the Catholic church adds weight to his teachings on *all* issues involving the sanctity of human life (war, abortion, death penalty...) - or his ideas are never of more importance than those of the average Internet geek.
So far, so good.
I haven't actually seen "Bowling for Columbine," as the gun control issue doesn't particularly interest me. All I know is that plenty of people are angry over BFC, and that there's an article floating around which purports to obliterate the film's take on the topic.

And as for Moore's next effort, it's tough to get a good read on whether it's "close to the truth" before the project is even complete. However, I suspect Moore's hatred for Bush is so intense that he will do everything in his power to make Bush's family look as bad as possible.

As far as thinking about both sides, well, the Other forum and the War forum would be pretty dull if everybody there thought exactly as I do on all the issues. I enjoy reading the posts of goop, Surf Monkey, and all the other liberals even though I disagree with them roughly 100% of the time.

But Moore is different. There was a thread recently concerning the Ignore User feature, and I argued that disregarding someone's posts just because they don't mesh with your own beliefs is bad policy. In that thread, though, I made a point to distinguish between people I simply don't agree with (like goop and Surf Monkey) and those I find obscenely obnoxious (like Moore). Even the liberals on that forum try to distance themselves from at least *some* of MM's more outlandish statements.
To review the facts, you said: "But what's so unique about him [Moore] is that he's making it for the side [the left, I assume] that usually has no popaganda."

If people want to like Moore, fine. I just have a problem when his fans babble on and on about his "courage" - as if being a liberal in an industry dominated by liberals requires anything resembling a spine. News flash: Though he is singularly revolting even by leftist standards, he's NOT the only guy out there "fighting the good fight." There are plenty of other celebs who share the not-so-original view that "Bush = Bad." There are plenty of other avenues through which the left forces its propaganda down my throat: the media (excluding Fox News), higher education, pop culture, etc.
Fox News is growing by leaps and bounds by catering to a more conservative demographic. Do I have a problem with this? No. They're selling a product for which, their ratings testify, there's a sizable demand.

Now, if I were to say that FNC has zero tilt to the right, or that conservatives still have no representation in the media, a liberal would dispute that. And rightly so.
I dunno, but evidently I'm not reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which is yet *another* vehicle for left-wing indoctrination, and was even plugged in the movie "Good Will Hunting." Oops, I forgot, the left "has no propaganda." Disregard.
I'll award you some points for mostly avoiding a condescending, smarter-than-thou tone for the majority of your post, though it seems that, by the end, you couldn't resist the urge to insult my intelligence. Oh well.

When it comes to free speech, I'm pretty absolute. I support the right of NAMBLA to say "We should legally be allowed to have sex with boys as young as 6." I support the right of neo-Nazis to say, "Hitler was a great man [and The Holocaust, which never happened by the way, would have been a good idea]." I support the right of Moore to say pretty much anything he wants about Bush, but I also support my right to point out where I disagree. When Moore chooses to forget the FACT that Bush won the election and calls him a "fictitious President," I believe he's being unAmerican. Sorry. Not gonna convince me otherwise.

For consistency's sake, I'll add that if, say, Joe Lieberman becomes President in 2004, I will spend most of my waking hours telling the world how much I hate him. What I will not do, however, is say his administration is "illegitimate" or that he's a "fictitious President." He'll be an atrociously awful President, in my opinion, but he'll still be the (and my) President.

inVectiVe

Yes. I attended (but did not graduate from ) a highly selective science / engineering school.
I became vaguely aware that I had "conservative" leanings while still in high school. As I've grown older, I have only moved further and further to the right.
I couldn't disagree more. I've already addressed this, but I mentioned the Dan Rathers and Noam Chomskys of the world to refute the (laughable, IMO) charge that the left "has no propaganda."
That's only because I'm *so* conservative that listening to liberals explain their ideology only makes me more suspicious of them. I grew up reading the very liberal Boston Globe, for instance, and my typical reaction to one of its op-ed pieces was, "Sweet Christ! I can't believe there are people out there who think like this!" [For those one or two readers who might be familiar with the Globe, I'm referring to columnists like Derrick Z. Jackson and Ellen Goodman.]
As I stated, my school was heavily math- and science-oriented. Humanities classes were required, naturally, but were considered a joke, for the most part. Nevertheless, even at this relatively apolitical campus, I remember being force-fed liberal beliefs on a few occasions. One professor implied that Reagan was the worst President of this century, which I consider a pretty far-left belief given that Reagan was insanely popular with average Americans (I believe in 1984 he won the biggest landslide EVER). Also, when "Greatest President" polls are conducted and typical citizens give their choices, Reagan is usually at or near the top from what I understand (along with Washington and Lincoln).

I could cite other examples, like one prof who often called Bush a "F***-wit" (?!), but I won't bother. If you're really interested in some supplemental reading, go to www.academia.org or http://frontpagemag.com (under the heading Bias in the Academy). They have all kinds of horror stories, like colleges where Democratic profs outnumber Republican ones by ratios like twenty-to-one.

In closing, I'll just pass along what a certain Otter said a few days ago. He said that in his experience, which included a stint as a college professor, the left has a stronger presence than the right among college faculty.......by a wide margin.

yecul

Actually, it's not about gun control. It's about violence in America. He brings up many possibilities, guns themselves, race, fear, etc. Doesn't say this is the reason or that is the reason, just raises questions -- though obviously you can assume and can get a sense for his opinion.

As for the article, you can check out the BfC thread, but it's fairly weak. The author is extremely biased against Moore and it shows, causing him to draw conclusions without evidence -- ironically, what he accuses Moore of doing.

Ok, seriously, enough of this.

I'm looking forward to the new movie. If you don't like Moore or don't like the topic, don't watch. Simple as that.

ChrisKnudsen

You conservos are just angry because you guys are wrong! HAHA, take that you bastards!

Pants

You libos ( ) are just upset because you know the movie stinks, but since it regurgitates all the BS you believe in you love it.

HistoryProf

upset? I'm not upset, i'm elated that he is undertaking this project. And i understand Pants, that since your disdain from the movie is completely non-partisan and not effected at all by your own beliefs, how you could dismiss any thing else Moore might do so eloquently as "BS." You know, since it just lays out an argument that solidly questions much of what you believe in so you hate it.....how refreshing..... Good show ole chap!

Pants

brizz-

I'm just satirizing ChrisKnudsen's post above mine.

I object to most of the politics in BFC, but what I object most to is the implosion of a once promising documentarian and original American voice.

I disagreed w/ many things in Roger and Me and yet I openly admit that it is a triumph. A truelly great film. But Moore's ego has gotten so big in the years since that film, that it has truely hurt his work.

BFC isn't so much about America's preocupation w/ fear and guns as it is about MICAEL MOORE in big capital letters w/ stars around it and trumpeting music when he enters the room. His shennanigan's in Roger were brilliant and cutting edge in 1988. His shennanigan's in BFC (15 YEARS LATTER!!! and still the same tactics?!) devolved into tenth rate, Leno quality, man on the street gag interviews. And couldn't he have shot on film?

jfoobar

Moore's track record for unethical filmmaking began long before BFC hit the screen, so a certain amount of skepticism about his future project being anything more but another dishonest pulpit for his populist beliefs is probably in order.

That being said, I am certainly going to wait until I see it before I pass judgment (well, mostly ). One thing I can say about Moore: he never fails to entertain.

More than a little truth to that. On the other hand, someone who has achieved the very rare gift of relative objectivity would still find much to criticize in Moore's previous work.

inVectiVe

Without even seeing the flick, I'd tend to believe this.

After all, his speech at the Oscars was certainly not about convincing ordinary, fence-sitting Americans that the war was a bad idea. It came across (IMO) as a shameless display of self-righteous, self-important self-promotion.

Actually, maybe I'd like to see Moore tackle the issue of the Florida election. Since he appears positive that Gore, in fact, won the state, it might be interesting to see what kind of case he can build to justify calling our Commander in Chief "Governor Bush." I'm supremely confident he could come up with something more compelling than tales of voters who were understandably baffled by rocket-science-type concepts like arrows pointing to holes.

jfoobar

Do you know what the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy is?

You have yet to offer one shred of compelling evidence to support your "fairly weak" characterization.

yecul

Not here, no, I didn't. However, I did in the other thread which was referenced.

TheAllPurposeNothing

Stop by your local library, pick up his book and read the first chapter. He makes a pretty impressive case, IMHO. And unlike most commentators, provides reference info for his facts so you can check his sources.

puddytay

I cant wait I hope it reveals bush for the bastard he is. Let him burn in hell.

inVectiVe

Believe it or not, the last time the "Did Bush steal the election?" question was raised in the Other Forum, I mentioned that I'd *considered* doing just that. However, the "Yep, he did" crowd turned in a miserably pathetic performance in said thread, which suggested to me that the "Bush the Thief" posse doesn't have any solid arguments - just bitterness that Al Gore lost (Thank you, Jesus!).

Plus, I believe the last time I saw Moore touch on the subject (might have been in his post-Oscar letter to some newspaper), the "ace up his sleeve" amounted to bitching that Pat Buchanan had an impossibly strong showing in......whatever county it was (Palm Beach?). Yeah. The "butterfly ballots" deal again.

I'm sorry, and maybe it's my obvious bias shining through here, but if election results are "fictitious" merely because some voters were "disenfranchised" by their own mind-blowing stupidity, I'm having a hard time forcing myself to "get outraged."

And not to beat a dead horse, but to me, "fiction" factored most prominently in the networks' election night coverage, when they incorrectly awarded Florida to Gore while polls were still open in the conservative Florida panhandle.

Anyhoo, I'll be convinced that Gore won when I see analyses of all the ballots cast in Florida that prove he truly got more votes. To my knowledge, though, the media's recounts failed to demonstrate this.

Finally, I'll end by thanking you for instructing me to borrow the book from a library instead of actually buying it. Is my hatred for Moore THAT apparent, that you could tell I'd refuse as a matter of principle to financially support him in any way? Probably.