Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I don't any more about what's in Michael Moore's "documentary" than anyone else who hasn't actually seen it. But, I have seen Michael Moore interviewed, and it seems to me that he displays a political bias not unlike the people he is so fond of criticizing. It's just one more case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I went to see the movie Saturday night. It was crazy, I bought tickets for myself and a few friends two hours ahead of time Online, just so we could get in. The theatre was packed, and it seemed like the owners of the theatre decided to conveniently overlook the age of many of the kids who showed up (which I applaud them for, it seems obvious to me that the 'R'-rating was politically motivated, since there was nothing more violent or gruesome in the movie than could be seen by any kid on the evening news or Discovery channel).

Has anyone else gone to see it? What are your thoughts, now that you have?

I personally thought it was an excellent movie and editorial. It is definitely crafted to tug at your emotions, as I was laughing my head off at one point, then on the verge of tears fifteen minutes later (as a full-of-herself ignorant woman goes up to a war protester and the mother of a killed soldier, and has the gall to say that the entire thing is staged -- and the mother walks away in tears after setting the woman in her place).

Even if you are completely for the US actions in Iraq, and for the presidency of Bush, I urge you to go see this movie. It can't hurt you to take a look at the argument of the other side, and see what the human toll of this conflict is. Remember the bias it comes from, but take care to listen to the argument that is made.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Well I thought the movie was some of the worst liberal propaganda I've ever seen...

Bear in mind that Moore never mentioned that it was solely Richard Clarke and the FBI that let the Saudi's flee the country... Bush's hands had nothing to do with it. You should go read the 911commission.org website.

I love how he painted the Iraqi's as completely happy and never mentioned anything of how Saddam was stockpiling the UN's oil for food money instead of helping his starving population out.

I have trouble believing that a woman with the guts to be 'unPC' to go up to protester and say 'that's not true' didn't have the guts to argue beyond that. Personally I think that scene was staged. When I confront an idiotarian I make sure I am ready and with facts. And who is Michael Moore to go chasing after a grieving woman? Moore just has a knack to interview the most ignorant of people on both sides. The grieving woman had a huge problem with elementary reading comprehension skills reading a letter she has most likely read to herself numerous times before. The husband also lacked knowledge of how to properly use the verb "to be". But I guess demo's don't know what the meaning of is is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I just can't believe Moore's idea that Bush and the Saudi's planned 911 in order to generate private money. Believe me there's much easier ways to generate that much money if you're the president. All I know is that not only the US but the whole western economic system lost SOOOO much money over the twin towers it is still staggering that Bush has the economy kicking back in again.

I agree with him that something has to be done about the House of Saud (and Iran's nuclear bid...) but its not the time yet. I for one view all the Islamic states as a wierd sort of religious confederation carrying on a modern day jihad, not too unlike the Mahdi's against the British in the 19th century. Just on a greater scale. Hopefully Iraq will act as a draw for all the skilled workers and educated civilians in the neighboring states crippling the other regimes infrastructure... Only time will tell though....

Please excuse my ramblings... Having only recently seen Bowling for Columbine, (his whole America is powerful because we had slavery is such a joke... its quite easy to see we were still a poor nation till well into the 20th) my disgust for Michael Moore and his unabashed anti-Americanism grows ever time I read some of his publicity related quotes out there...

[ June 28, 2004, 10:45: Message edited by: LonghornXtreme ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Since I most like rambled on I felt I'd offer something with more substance... This is a great article over the current situation by Victor Davis Hanson... I really don't think this is OT...

June 14, 2004, 8:11 a.m.
Feeding the Minotaur
Our strange relationship with the terrorists continues.
As long as the mythical Athenians were willing to send, every nine years, seven maidens and seven young men down to King Minos's monster in the labyrinth, Athens was left alone by the Cretan fleet. The king rightly figured that harvesting just enough Athenians would remind them of their subservience without leading to open rebellion — as long as somebody impetuous like a Theseus didn't show up to wreck the arrangement.
Ever since the storming of the Tehran embassy in November 1979 we Americans have been paying the same sort of human tribute to grotesque Islamofascists. Over the Last 25 years a few hundred of our own were cut down in Lebanon, East Africa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and New York on a semi-annual basis, even as the rules of the tribute to be paid — never spoken, but always understood — were rigorously followed.
In exchange for our not retaliating in any meaningful way against the killers — addressing their sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, or Syria, or severing their financial links in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and their various state-sanctioned kindred operatives agreed to keep the number killed to reasonable levels. They were to reap their lethal harvests abroad and confine them mostly to professional diplomats, soldiers, or bumbling tourists, whose disappearance we distracted Americans would predictably chalk up to the perils of foreign service and exotic travel.
Despite the occasional fiery rhetoric, both sides found the informal Minoan arrangement mutually beneficial. The terrorists believed that they were ever so incrementally, ever so insidiously eroding America's commitment to a pro-Western Middle East. We offered our annual tribute so that over the decades we could go from Dallas to Extreme Makeover and Madonna to Britney without too much distraction or inconvenience.
But then a greedy, over-reaching bin Laden wrecked the agreement on September 11. Or did he?
Murdering 3,000 Americans, destroying a city block in Manhattan, and setting fire to the Pentagon were all pretty tough stuff. And for a while it won fascists and their state sponsors an even tougher response in Afghanistan and Iraq that sent hundreds to caves and thousands more to paradise. And when we have gotten serious in the postbellum reconstruction, thugs like Mr. Sadr have backed down. But before we gloat and think that we've overcome our prior laxity and proclivity for appeasement, let us first make sure we are not still captives to the Minotaur's logic.
True, al Qaeda is now scattered, the Taliban and Saddam gone. But the calculus of a quarter century — threaten, hit, pause, wait; threaten, hit, pause, wait — is now entrenched in the minds of Middle Eastern murderers. Indeed, the modus operandi that cynically plays on Western hopes, liberalism, and fair play is gospel now to all sorts of bin Laden epigones — as we have seen in Madrid, Fallujah, and Najaf.
Much has been written about our problems with this postmodern war and why we find it so difficult to fully mobilize our formidable military and economic clout to crush the terrorists and their patrons. Of course, we have no identifiable conventional enemy such as Hitler's Panzers; we are not battling a fearsome nation that defiantly declared war on us, such as Tojo's Japan; and we are no longer a depression-era, disarmed, impoverished United States at risk for our very survival. But then, neither Hitler nor Mussolini nor Tojo nor Stalin ever reached Manhattan and Washington.
So al Qaeda is both worse and not worse than the German Nazis: It is hardly the identifiable threat of Hitler's Wehrmacht, but in this age of technology and weapons of mass destruction it is more able to kill more Americans inside the United States. Whereas we think our fascist enemies of old were logical and conniving, too many of us deem bin Laden's new fascists unhinged — their fatwas, their mythology about strong and weak horses, and their babble about the Reconquista and the often evoked "holy shrines" are to us dreamlike.
But I beg to differ somewhat.
I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein.
Like Hitler's creed, bin Ladenism trumpets contempt for bourgeois Western society. If once we were a "mongrel" race of "cowboys" who could not take casualties against the supermen of the Third Reich, now we are indolent infidels, channel surfers who eat, screw, and talk too much amid worthless gadgetry, godless skyscrapers, and, of course, once again, the conniving Jews.
Like Hitler, bin Ladenism has an agenda: the end of the liberal West. Its supposedly crackpot vision is actually a petrol-rich Middle East free of Jews, Christians, and Westerners, free to rekindle spiritual purity under Sharia. Bin Laden's al Reich is a vast pan-Arabic, Taliban-like caliphate run out of Mecca by new prophets like him, metering out oil to a greedy West in order to purchase the weapons of its destruction; there is, after all, an Israel to be nuked, a Europe to be out-peopled and cowered, and an America to be bombed and terrorized into isolation. This time we are to lose not through blood and iron, but through terror and intimidation: televised beheadings, mass murders, occasional bombings, the disruption of commerce, travel, and the oil supply.
In and of itself, our enemies' ambitions would lead to failure, given the vast economic and military advantages of the West. So to prevent an all out, terrible response to these predictable cycles of killing Westerners, there had to be some finesse to the terrorists' methods. The trick was in preventing some modern Theseus from going into the heart of the Labyrinth to slay the beast and end the nonsense for good.
It was hard for the Islamic fascists to find ideological support in the West, given their agenda of gender apartheid, homophobia, religious persecution, racial hatred, fundamentalism, polygamy, and primordial barbarism. But they sensed that there has always been a current of self-loathing among the comfortable Western elite, a perennial search for victims of racism, economic oppression, colonialism, and Christianity. Bin Laden's followers weren't white; they were sometimes poor; they inhabited of former British and French colonies; and they weren't exactly followers of the no-nonsense Pope or Jerry Falwell. If anyone doubts the nexus between right-wing Middle Eastern fascism and left-wing academic faddishness, go to booths in the Free Speech area at Berkeley or see what European elites have said and done for Hamas. Middle Eastern fascist killers enshrined as victims alongside our own oppressed? That has been gospel in our universities for the Last three decades.
Like Hitler, bin Ladenism grasped the advantages of hating the Jews. It has been 60 years since the Holocaust; memories dim. Israel is not poor and invaded but strong, prosperous, and unapologetic. It is high time, in other words, to unleash the old anti-Semitic infectious bacillus. Thus Zionists caused the latest Saudi bombings, just as they have poisoned Arab-American relations, just as neo-conservatives hijacked American policy, just as Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz cooked up this war.
Finally, bin Laden understood the importance of splitting the West, just like the sultan of old knew that a Europe trisected into Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism would fight among itself rather than unite against a pan-Islamic foe. Hit the Spanish and bring in an anti-American government. Leave France and Germany alone for a time so they can blame the United States for mobilizing against a "nonexistent" threat, unleashing the age-old envy and jealously of the American upstart.
If after four years of careful planning, al Qaedists hit the Olympics in August, the terrorists know better than we do that most Europeans will do nothing — but quickly point to the U.S. and scream "Iraq!" And they know that the upscale crowds in Athens are far more likely to boo a democratic America than they are a fascist Syria or theocratic Iran. Just watch.
In the European mind, and that of its aping American elite, the terrorists lived, slept, and walked in the upper aether — never the streets of Kabul, the mosques of Damascus, the palaces of Baghdad, the madrassas of Saudi Arabia, or the camps of Iran. To assume that the latter were true would mean a real war, real sacrifice, and a real choice between the liberal bourgeois West and a Dark-Age Islamofascist utopia.
While all Westerners prefer the bounty of capitalism, the delights of personal freedom, and the security of modern technological progress, saying so and not apologizing for it — let alone defending it — is, well, asking a little too much from the hyper sophisticated and cynical. Such retrograde clarity could cost you, after all, a university deanship, a correspondent billet in Paris or London, a good book review, or an invitation to a Georgetown or Malibu A-list party.
Nearly three years after 9/11 we are in the strangest of all paradoxes: a war against fascists that we can easily win but are clearly not ready to fully wage. We have the best 500,000 soldiers in the history of civilization, a resolute president, and an informed citizenry that has already received a terrible preemptive blow that killed thousands.
Yet what a human comedy it has now all become.
The billionaire capitalist George Soros — who grew fabulously wealthy through cold and calculating currency speculation, helping to break many a bank and its poor depositors — now makes the moral equation between 9/11 and Abu Ghraib. For this ethicist and meticulous accountant, 3,000 murdered in a time of peace are the same as some prisoners abused by renegade soldiers in a time of war.
Recently in the New York Times I read two articles about the supposedly new irrational insensitivity toward Muslims and saw an ad for a book detailing how the West "constructed" and exaggerated the Islamic menace — even as the same paper ran a quieter story about a state-sponsored cleric in Saudi Arabia's carefully expounding on the conditions under which Muslims can desecrate the bodies of murdered infidels.
Aristocratic and very wealthy Democrats — Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and John Kerry — employ the language of conspiracy to assure us that we had no reason to fight Saddam Hussein. "Lies," "worst," and " betrayed" are the vocabulary of their daily attacks. A jester in stripes like Michael Moore, who cannot tell the truth, is now an artistic icon — precisely and only because of his own hatred of the president and the inconvenient idea that we are really at war. Our diplomats court the Arab League, which snores when Russians and Sudanese kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims but shrieks when we remove those who kill even more of their own. And a depopulating, entitlement-expanding Europe believes an American president, not bin Laden, is the greatest threat to world peace. Russia, the slayer of tens of thousands of Muslim Chechans and a big-time profiteer from Baathist loot, lectures the United States on its insensitivity to the new democracy in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, in Europe, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, we see the same old bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings, the obligatory pause, the faux negotiations, the lies — and then, of course, the bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings...
No, bin Laden is quite sane — but lately I have grown more worried that we are not.
— Victor Davis Hanson, an NRO contributor, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of The Soul of Battle and Carnage and Culture, among other books. His website is www.victorhanson.com.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To be fair to Moore this fact didn't come to light until just a few weeks ago, after the movie was completed.

Of course, since Moore did interview Clarke extensively for the production of the film, you might have thought it would have been one of the little details that would have come up in conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You try losing a child, then go through and read the Last letter they wrote to you... She kept stopping while reading the letter because of the emotional loss of a dead child, not because of poor reading skills. I really do hope that the http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif at the end of that paragraph was meant for the entire paragraph, lest you seem as ignorant as those Moore interviews (your words).

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

A quick comment:
Several people have said that Moore detractors should go see the film so they can "get the facts." LOL! Why in the world would anyone go to see Moore's film unless they wanted to make a contribution to the causes that Moore believes in? You would indeed have a good point, if Moore were offering free screenings. You would also have a good point, if there were a conservative Bush supporter with a 9/11 "documentary" purporting to tell the truth. Then we could all go see both propaganda films (let's call a spade a spade). But to tell others that they are close-minded because they don't want to give money and respectability to the enemy! Since you are so open-minded, I suggest that everyone who goes to see Moore's political campaign ad should, in the interest of fairness, also give $5 to the Bush re-election fund, so that Bush can make his own propaganda film.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

for the most part i agree with dmm

however on a non intellectual level

the actions and attitudes of micheal moore are personally offensive to me why i dont know he just ticks me off sorta like barbara steisand i love her early movies but by god seeing her in any other context just causes a massive urge to smack some sense into the woman

i have come to the conclusion that
as my father had to do with me as a immature youth
most of the "activist" stars of hollywood need some common sense pounded into their backsides
i suspect most of them of being raised in a environment devoid of corporeal punishment
which means their personal developement is approximatly 30 years behind (once they hit 60 they might finally gain some common sense but i wont make book on it)

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I'd also like to say, without any sarcasm, that I love how this community discusses visceral issues without losing its collective cool. Discussion gets heated, but rarely explodes. A nice change from normality, especially web normality. (You can bet Michael Moore wouldn't Last long here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Uhhh !
Do you mean a child will become a retard if his parents don't use corporeal punishment ?
I hope I did miss some humour here. In my book, I have corporeal punishment as an exception, and a bad one.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Isn't there a ironic smiley missing? If not I would suggest you better not raise children in Germany. Corporeal punishment of humans of any age (0-99 years) is a crime, even for parents, and you WILL get convicted for it (I have first hand knowledge as a co-Judge during my court stage).

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

This view of child-rearing is unfortunately still very prevalent in the US, Mephisto. It might not be the 'majority' view anymore but it's still quite common. The readiness to use raw force in basic family life might have something to do with the over-use of raw force in our international policies, too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I don't think a good spanking is corporal punishment. That's just discipline. Corporal punishment is when the teacher whacks you across the knuckles with a yardstick.

The real discipline problem is with families. A good chunk of the people I know come from divorced or crumbling homes. Kids need good moms and dads who teach with love and a strong hand. There just aren't that many of them anymore.

It's going to suck when they grow up to be presidents and world leaders... oh wait.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Despite my pre-conceived opinion about Moore, I actually would like to go see the movie. I appreciate hearing opinions that conflict with my own, and if nothing else I'm sure it would be good for a few laughs. However, I can't sit through the graphic scenes. I understand he's got scenes of dead and mutilated Iraqi's as well one of the hostage beheadings. While I can understand why he feels the need to show this for shock value or whatever, I don't need proof that war is hell.

Graphic imagary is quite shocking and compelling on an emotional level, but it does nothing to put forward a rational discussion of the issues and events around the descision to go to war.

No sane person loves war. But sane people can come to the conclusion that war is sometimes neccesary. Moore could have made the argument against the neccesity of the war without the graphic images. If he had I probably would have gone to see it.

[ June 29, 2004, 02:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I totally reject that analogy. Spanking a child for disciplinary purpose is a whole world from invading a (not your child even) country for whatever reasons. If so, N Korea and Iran would have been hit a long time ago, instead of Iraq.

We should look for reasons outside of the Freudian world, which is totally ambiguous with its use of extrapolation out of (in this case) a completely unrelated historical incident(s).

Abd.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Freud didn't originate the idea that childhood experience shapes the adult, so trying to associate my 'analogy' with Freud is not going to discredit it.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Fair enough. But argument by analogy is, in every case, a point for contention. And anyone can simply reject such an argument out of hand, philosophically.

Let's reword it to "Freud-esque" if that suits you better. But to link discipline in the family, being on the receiving end as a child, to the child as an adult tending towards military force... Now that's not such a clear-cut case.

Abd.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

i define corporal punishment as the use of spanking in a controlled and fair manner
unfortunatl as a youth i was not the most obedient nor respectful person
my father did not permit a disrespctful attitude in word or deed to him or more importantly my mother 1 warning 3 noncorporeal punishment chances and then corporeal punishment (spankings )

and he never allowed temper to interfere with punishment (better known as he had me stuck in my room until they deciced on what form of punishment and to what level )talk about anticipation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
i mean 8 hours waiting when i truly ticked him off

as far the the ironic smiley ......no its not missing
i have observed in several individuals continued immature behavior and attitudes espially regarding what the world and their family owes them form their early years (11) to now (27) these observations aae of so far 4 girls and 6 boys who are children of family friends whom at least one parent believes that spanking is detrimental to the development of the child in all cases so far i hae seen a pattern of the child remaining in the parents house and usually being supported by the parent with little or no attempts to support themselves with excuses about the unfair treatment they recieve etc

oh and mephisto heres the bad part my father was raised in germany until he was 6 years old his stepfather's name ...keiser http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif a cuban german
my national background a full third german

in america a child or an advocate can sue or remove the children of a parent for just spanking i know of one woman in ohio who has had this happen
i view it as follows
it is my responsibility as a perent to provide my child the best guidance as i can and the knowledge of the consequences of their actions is a part of thaat responsibility no man or woman can take away these responsibilities they can only take my children and if they do so then they are causing they same damage to my children as if i did not provide the guidance in the first place

baron well i suggest you might consider that many parents are just not discussing their attitudes openly any longer as the long term affects of spanking vs not spanking are easily determined by examination of the atitudes and behaviors of a large enough sample of the american population it is easily demonstrated that in the average not spanking tends to slow the maturation of the individual personality into a responsible adult in american society
however in european society this may be different as the cultual differences may provide suffecient alternate forms of instruction

[ June 29, 2004, 07:50: Message edited by: psimancer ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The graphic scenes are fairly brief. Probably the most graphic images is a approximately 10-second sequence depicting Iraqis dragging incinerated bodies (I'm pretty sure they're soldiers hit with a firebomb) through a street, then suspending them from street lights. The beheading scene is from footage that is several years old, and very grainy; I could only tell that it was a beheading from the text on the screen, since it looked more like a person getting hit with a baseball bat. The rest of the bloody scenes are fairly minor (IMHO, this may be from watching surgery/ER documentaries from a fairly young age), and most of it you can pretty much turn your head away from (the exception being the opening sequence, with black screen and audio from the hijackings).

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You know, these lines you said could be copied from the German Constitution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
However, misconduct is still no excuse to punish another human with physical means.
BTW: I have never ever in my entire live been hit by my parents, never ever. And I very well do support myself, support others during my Paramedic job and support some of my relatives which got permanently ill. So much for the spanking theory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Ya, good parenting does not need to include physical punishment. If the child values the parents' approval enough, serious disapproval about serious misbehaviour can teach plenty.

Maybe there are some families where some physical punishment can work well.

However, I know there are cases where physical punishment is used badly... and that can be really bad stuff, and do awful things to the parent/child relationship.

As for suggesting that intelligent and accomplished people ought to be forcefully violated because someone disagrees with their opinions, well, no.

When people disagree and can't get along, maybe they should just agree to disagree, and leave each other in peace. I tend to think the USA would be a happier place if the states were much more diverse in their laws and customs, and the Federal government cut back its roles a whole lot, so people could stop interfering with each others' beliefs and cultures, trying to pervert the system to try to control everyone else.

PvK

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Parenting that includes spanking (not to be confused with beating or other harsh punishments) is by no means bad parenting, of course. Just a different approach.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You must not be a Democrat then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Nor a Republican... they both tend to stand for more control by the government these days... ugh.

[ June 30, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Truth in Politics.

My official functions as one of your dually elected congressional DemO'Rep leaders will be to pass into a law obscenely stupid laws that protect you from your god given freedoms and constitutional rights.

Once elected I will completely forget all the campaign promises I have made and embark upon my quest to bilk you out of your hard earned money by raising taxes, reducing freedoms, accepting pay increases that I clear do not deserve, and enjoying the fringe benefits that come free to me but a cost to you. Oh yes, I shall secretly accept all bribes, kickbacks, and freebies that come my way.

When reelection comes I will lie to you again, smear my opponent, and embark upon my second term in office as I did the first. Eventually I shall become so powerful in the Washington political scene that I will run for the office of President where I will gladly accept any and all offers for sex from super models, female interns, and the occasional boy scout.

I will put my own interest ahead of the country and will continue the age-old tradition of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thank You.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:56: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That must a translation from Chirac's life.
Probably the only political line he keept following during his life.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Atrocities- I'd vote for you. I mean at least you're being honest about it...

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I have ignored this thread because I had no wish to get involved in a debate about some bloke who, in my eyes, is such a staunt democrat and is unhappy his side didn't win an election that he criticises and insults the person who fairly won the elction. Today though I must speak as he has started to insult the democratically elected leader of another country just because we allied with America. I don't think he would insult us if we had allied with a democratic party lead America. I am no fan of democracy, I see many things wrong with it most specifically making opposition parties compulsory. My ideal system would have one party with the best ability to run the country, but we do not live in an ideal world that would allow that. If we must live within a democratic system though, and if a person keeps going on about democrarcy, they should be willing to accept the truth not shout the virtues of democracy on one hand while wroking towards the downthrow of its results.
I am going to make my thoughts public knowledge, not something I usually do as I usually avoid conflict. Michael Moore is an idiot. I may not have much say as I am not American and am not involved in Americas internal politics, but as I said he has come out and started to insult the leader of my own country. I fully expect US democrats to support him, that is their democratic right I suppose, but personally he is an idiot. A few weeks back there was an uproar here because the US president "dared" to imply our opposition shouldn't be elected. This was our opposition supporters eager to jump on any chance to disparage our allies and government. I fully expect such people will turn around and support this idiots right to "dare" to imply our government is wrong.

Edit: look, I apologise for my rant. Usually I don't get so emotional, and in an hour I may have calmed down. For the moment though I am seriously annoyed (to put it politely)

[ July 08, 2004, 04:38: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Randall, what's this about Michael Moore insulting Australia's leadership? I haven't heard anything about it, and a quick look at the Australian Version of Google news didn't bring up any headlines.

And just a note about his criticizing Bush: In your eyes, Bush might have 'fairly' won the election, but for a lot of people in the US, it is still not that simple. Bush did *not* get a majority of the votes in the country, and the only reason he did get the higher number of Electoral College votes is because in a closely contested election where Bush's supporters (Katherine Harris, the former Secretary of State of Florida, was responsible for counting votes, and she was the chairwoman of Bush's election team in Florida) were counting the votes, the courts finally stepped in to get some closure over the whole ordeal. So he might have been elected according to the law, but for a lot of people, he was far from being elected fairly.

Just had to throw that in for clarification. The real point of this post is to find out what this insulting stuff is all about. Since I haven't heard anything about it here.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I have quitened down a bit so I'll return to being civil. first though, as you said technically Bush won. I said I disagreed with the democratic process a bit, but I am lawful, I believe laws are to keep order. According to the law, Bush won. Its a pity the system wasn't changed before hand if you disagree with the result, but society has to accept how things work if thats how its organised. If you suddenly find the results aren't what you wanted then if a majority agrees change the law afterwards. I thought the idea of a Democracy was majority rule. You might say "ah, but the republicans aren't going to change something that got them into power". Well if the republicans are the majority then according to democracy they choose.
You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it.

to the matter at hand

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html

basically he said our Prime Minister has half a brain, and he hopes that he is voted out. If he is going to intrude in our politics depsite having no right then I in turn hope whichever person he votes for in America never gets voted in.

significant statement
"And I hope the same thing happens to him (Mr Howard) as happened to the leader of Spain when he decided to be part of the coalition of the willing."

so he wants our Prime Minister to lose the election due to more than a hundred people being killed in a terrorist attack. The more I learn of this man the more I see he has no credibility.
"he's mad" my mother says.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Randall,
The AQ attack itself (in Spain) was not the reason the Spanish PM lost the election. He was thrown out of office because he tried to use it as a tool in his private war against the ETA/Basque. Most Spanish and Basque alike are way tired of the old conflict and want to patch the old wounds. A warmongering PM who tries to upgrade a conflict between a few hundred diehard terrorists (ETA) into a full scale war between ethnic Groups (Castilians vs Basque) was not what the Spanish people wanted.
Hmmm, strange how this reminds me of another politician who managed to upgrade a conflict with a few Moslem maniacs to a conflict involving Nations.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Randall, a democracy is not a democracy if you don't give the minority rights. The rule of the majority without any checks and balances over the minority is not democracy but dictatorship of the majority.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm sorry I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all. I said, i see (because I see what he means) then, Q: it wasn't what I thought but instead that the PM apparently tried to accuse ETA instead of AQ. I apologise for not realising that the way I organised my reply might be misconstrued. Should I have placed an emote to show I wasn't being sarcastic?. sorry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

edit: just saw the mistake. I should have said "the spanish people were angry not because" not "weren't so much angry"

[ July 08, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

No worries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually... the electoral college system in the US is set up to provide checks and balances for the minority (low population states) against dictatorship by the majority (high population states). This ranges from electing the President to the composition of the Congress. As Mephisto said, such checks and balances are needed in a democracy... this was how the people that set up the government of the US balanced it. That, and it was the only way to get the small states and large states to agree to be part of the same union and not have two separate nations after the secession from the British empire...

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Also what I meant was surely the point of voting is that the person or party who gets the most votes (ie the majority of voters) is the one elected. All citizens of a country deserve equal rights, but surely, at least in a 2-party system, one viewpoint receives the majority of support. I'll avoid using the US system which I don't know much of, but in Australia we have 2 major parties, the Coalition (which technically is 2 parties but they merge) and labour. If we held an election either one or the other gets the most votes, and thus a majority membership in parliament. Then for the term of government it is the "winning" parties agenda that runs the country, and even then the opposition may have power in the upper house opposing government. This may be effected by independents, the greens or the democrats who, if their small number of elected memebrs vote with the opposition may outweigh the government, stopping the Governments policies.
I said I disagreed with Democracy. My major irritation with it is that instead of getting to the business of running the country in the most beneficial way for the advancement of the state and the people, politicans spend alot of time trying to cosy up to people because they depend on getting people, who don't so much study politics as like which "nice politician goes around shaking hands and kissing babies", to vote for them. Also they spend almost all the time competing with the opposition, and the opposition almost has to oppose anything the government does not just because they have a differing political or economic viewpoint (except when they can't risk alienating the electorate by opposing moral decisions eg. if another country is attacked and our government sends aid the opposition can't be heartless and oppose it) , but because if they agree with everything the government does whats the point of having different parties. Normal opposition is part of the system but it seems these days politicians are getting nastier towards each other, not just having opposing viewpoints but actually insulting other politicians (Like saying they have only half a brain), and I mean the greens in particular (if your Australian, yes I am talking about bob brown). At least we aren't any of the countries which the news shows politicians throwing chairs at each other in parliament. My irritation with democracy is intellectual, I am not going to go out and start a rebellion to topple the government and impose a proper Republic (as opposed to the misleading democratic Version), that is impossible as well as against my belief in obeying the system. I will work with the system and vote for the party I support. The only viable way to make my intellectual thoughts work is if 100% of the population had exactly the same education and, the impossible part, everyone agrees with the same idea. Because of differing economic and living environments, it is impossible for everyone to agree. The US for example (the first modern democracy) has been convinced for 200 years, by which I mean citizens are taught from cradle to grave, that democracy is the one true free political system. Only in a perfect world can we have a perfect system. For this imperfect world we will have to accept an imperfect system, it sure beats some others I know of.

[ July 08, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Yes, I know a bit about this. Each state gets 2 senators right?. with 50 states that is 100 senators. So the 2 senators out of a lowly populated state get as much power as the 2 senators from a huge state.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that's the Senate. The House of Representatives is based on population. Both of those compose the Legislative branch of the US Congress.

A bill to be submitted to the President has to pass through both in order to be made into a law.

President and VP are the Executive Branch and the US Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch.

Wildcard

Here's a primer on the electoral college.
Electoral College

And the House of Representatives
House of Representatives