PDA

View Full Version : Fahrenheit 9/11


Pages : [1] 2

The Black Rider
17-10-2004, 12:14 PM
I just saw this recently. It was appalling. A friend of mine put it best: "Propaganda worthy of the Nazis." All it is is a cut-and-paste job on the Bush administration, full of lies from start to finish. And you know this is the case when both Richard Clark and Norman Mailer agree, proving you don't have to be a Dubya lover to realize this fact. What an insulting piece of garbage.

Just thought I'd warn you.

CFC
17-10-2004, 12:18 PM
Just like Bowling for Columbine was cut and past propaganda against the gun industry.

Sarah
17-10-2004, 01:49 PM
Never seen it, don't want to see it. Looks like shit.

frodo1511
17-10-2004, 02:14 PM
I've boycotted this movie ever since I saw a trailer for it in theaters last May.

AureaMediocritas
17-10-2004, 04:32 PM
Methinks that movie is awesome for the information it provides but slightly
annoying by the way Moore tends to present it. Nevertheless , I would strongly
wish that not every "republican" (or so-called) American would not go to watch
it at least , instead of "boycotting" it without really knowing what it is
(objectively) about. In fact , this kind of fanatism and stigmatization of
"politically-incorrect" opinons reminds me more of the Nazis than the
"propaganda" the film is being compared with...

hasselbrad
17-10-2004, 04:51 PM
I refuse to see anything Michael Moore puts out while it's in the theater simply because I don't want to line the bastard's pockets. I saw Roger and Me years ago, and realized that this guy is no more of a documentary filmmaker than George Lucas. He misrepresents the genre.
Once his shit gets to cable, I watch it. I figure I'm already paying anyway.
That said, I am sort of looking forward to the hatchet job he does on the pharmaceutical industry.

The Black Rider
17-10-2004, 07:43 PM
Methinks that movie is awesome for the information it provides but slightly
annoying by the way Moore tends to present it. Nevertheless , I would strongly
wish that not every "republican" (or so-called) American would not go to watch
it at least , instead of "boycotting" it without really knowing what it is
(objectively) about. In fact , this kind of fanatism and stigmatization of
"politically-incorrect" opinons reminds me more of the Nazis than the
"propaganda" the film is being compared with...

In what way are Republicans not American? You may not agree with their policies, but they still want to do good things for this country.

When I compared the film to Nazi propaganda, I didn't mean in terms of content. In the mid thirties, a film called Triumph of the Will was commissioned by Hitler and directed by the late Leni Riefenstahl to portray the Nazi party as a means to paint a more flattering picture of the group. Also, Joseph Goebbles, the master of Nazi propaganda, was known for his portrayals of the Nazis in this kind of light. Both Riefenstahl and Goebbles used the footage they had and exploited the images in order to present the Nazis as good people, and (in Goebbles' case) the Jews as wicked. This is exactly what Michael Moore has done, except for the left.

Not to mention that the Nazis forced people to believe a certain way, which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have done. Besides, one doesn't have to see the film to know what he has to say. It's not like seeing five minutes of Citizen Kane, disliking what you saw, and then acting like you know what you're talking about. All you have to do is do your own research, find out some of the central points of the film, discover that they're lies, and you're done.

You are not American. You do not entirely know what goes on in this country. So you have as little right to criticize a certain political party as the very people you have just criticized. Do you see me going around, talking about how stupid certain European politicians are? No. Why? Because I wouldn't know what I was talking about, as you have just recently demonstrated.

Narg
18-10-2004, 01:12 AM
"I refuse to see anything Michael Moore puts out while it's in the theater simply because I don't want to line the bastard's pockets."

download it.. Michael Moore himself said it was ok to pirate the movie. What a fool, go check suprnova.org or some shit, its got stacks of seeds.

Nick
18-10-2004, 07:58 AM
You say you don't want to line Michael's pockets by seeing the movie, but what do you think "The Passion of the Christ" did for Mel Gibson? Was that movie really anything more than propaganda for Catholicism? So since you're saying those who are for Bush should avoid Michaels movies perhaps I should tell atheists and agnostics to boycot "The Passion" and other Mel Gibson movies as it is nothing more than Catholic propaganda that is helping to line Mel Gibson's pockets.
This is of course absurd. I'm not going to boycot all Mel Gibson movies simply because I don't agree with his religious views, after all we all have freedom of speech and religion right. Mel is exercising freedom of religion and Michael is exercising freedom of speech.

hasselbrad
18-10-2004, 12:20 PM
You say you don't want to line Michael's pockets by seeing the movie, but what do you think "The Passion of the Christ" did for Mel Gibson? Was that movie really anything more than propaganda for Catholicism? So since you're saying those who are for Bush should avoid Michaels movies perhaps I should tell atheists and agnostics to boycot "The Passion" and other Mel Gibson movies as it is nothing more than Catholic propaganda that is helping to line Mel Gibson's pockets.
This is of course absurd. I'm not going to boycot all Mel Gibson movies simply because I don't agree with his religious views, after all we all have freedom of speech and religion right. Mel is exercising freedom of religion and Michael is exercising freedom of speech.

I didn't say a fucking word about boycotting anything! I said I refuse to see his films in a setting where I'm going to have to pay for it. Sure, I could download it, except I've got the new McAfee "Bullshit Firewall". :p
I've read enough reviews from all sides of the political spectrum to know that this is simply propaganda. I have also seen enough of his previous films to know that he is willing to twist facts in any manner to support his position.
Mel and Michael can exercise their freedom of speech.
I am exercising my right to choose what I watch.

bob
18-10-2004, 04:41 PM
perhaps I should tell atheists and agnostics to boycot "The Passion"
heh, that's funny. i'm an atheist and i boycotted that movie. but my reasoning was that i'd have viewed it as a fictional piece, whereas a lot of my religious friends saw it as a realistic depiction of historical events. better that i not form an opinion by seeing it, lest i should get into a spat with one of them.

i'm not a michael moore hater. i've seen it, disliked bush for a bit (i don't care whether he was born that way or not, holding a permanent dumb expression doesn't sit well with me) essentially got bored (at least 'bowling for columbine' was funnier) none of it was breakthrough news. the bush/saddam/bin laden connections aren't a secret. if people followed politics closely enough they'd have known all about that before the film was made. while it often seems that many of the assumptions made in the film are a bit reaching, remember that he's presenting his opinions. and can he really help it if his tone is so persuasive? i honestly don't see a problem with propaganda. as long as you're smart enough not to believe everything that anyone says. and comparing moore's films to nazi propaganda is a bit much. he doesn't tell people what to think, it's what they choose to believe.

but when it comes to moore vs. bush, who really cares? if you've got money and a nice little reserved parking spot in middle class society, would you really care about what goes on halfway across the globe? i know i wouldn't. but then, i don't have all that.

AureaMediocritas
18-10-2004, 05:03 PM
In what way are Republicans not American? You may not agree with their policies, but they still want to do good things for this country.

You are not American. You do not entirely know what goes on in this country. So you have as little right to criticize a certain political party as the very people you have just criticized. Do you see me going around, talking about how stupid certain European politicians are? No. Why? Because I wouldn't know what I was talking about, as you have just recently demonstrated.

First of all , thank you for giving a calm and rational answer ; in fact , I was
prepared to read some kind of "Fuck off , heretic !" reply ;) .
As far as the Republican issue is concerned , I basically meant that people
calling themselves "pure Republicans" just do not go to watch the movie we
are talking about because it has been made by a person from a
different political border , a person they only dislike due to dissimilary political opinions : concretely speaking , narrow-minded fanatic bush-voters
pretending that everything shown in a movie by Michael Moore cannot
be anything but lies. I therefore affirmed that I ' d prefer if they went and
watched it and afterwards shouted that it was "huge crap".
How can one be sure that a movie spreads around lies without actually having
seen it ? How can somebody simply "trust" a (Republican) "expert"
demonstrating that the film includes no correct information at all ?
I can understand that you might not like political opponents as a Republican
but judging without really analysing appears very "questionable".
-> I only blamed that minority (hopefully) of Americans.

As for the second part , I have to agree with you , of course , that I do not
have the right to blame a party of a country whose politics I really am not
well informed of. Nevertheless , I truly hope that my explanation in the
"first part" prove that critizising the Republican party as such was not my
intention at all.
God bless America !

Narzys
18-10-2004, 08:49 PM
I think M.Moore is to much against the goverment, and Bush isn't a hero at all. He let me think of a cowboy (from Texas). M.Moore looks to much from one side and tries to put it all in a negative daylight.


"You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly"

Masters of War.

Ashley
18-10-2004, 09:02 PM
Moore was highly biased and made no attempt to hide it. I personally thought the movie was hilarious. Of course, I'm a democrat. But come on, taking it so seriously is stupid, it's there to make controversy. You can't take it at face value. I saw it because I think Bush is just full of funny... without him realizing it, which makes it all the better. There are no real documentaries, and especially this film... it says it's a documentary because it's unscripted... so if we went by this definition then Punk'd would also be a documentary. Anyway, I'm getting off track. Moore hates Bush, we all know that, why would you go see a movie that you KNEW was going to be extremely biased, and then complain about it? Those who don't want to see, don't go see it. Most people know what it's about.

The part about Ashcroft losing to Carnahan was HILARIOUS!!!! Well, for me anyway, being as though I saw the movie in Missouri and that portion got grand applause.
Anyway, everyone needs to calm down about it.
BTW: Mel Gibson not only paid for a big chunk of the movie out of his own pocket, but also just donated $10 Million to Children's Hospitals. So while Micheal Moore may be out for money with his movies, Gibson seems a bit more humanitarian.

The Black Rider
18-10-2004, 09:22 PM
You say you don't want to line Michael's pockets by seeing the movie, but what do you think "The Passion of the Christ" did for Mel Gibson? Was that movie really anything more than propaganda for Catholicism? So since you're saying those who are for Bush should avoid Michaels movies perhaps I should tell atheists and agnostics to boycot "The Passion" and other Mel Gibson movies as it is nothing more than Catholic propaganda that is helping to line Mel Gibson's pockets.
This is of course absurd. I'm not going to boycot all Mel Gibson movies simply because I don't agree with his religious views, after all we all have freedom of speech and religion right. Mel is exercising freedom of religion and Michael is exercising freedom of speech.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Gibson made the film for himself and for fellow Christians, not the Catholic church. Also, freedom of speech has nothing to do with anything. Yes, Michael Moore and Mel Gibson have the right to say whatever they want to say, but the people have a right not to bother with them if they choose. The "freedom of speech" card only works when the government is forcing the people to believe a certain way. What entertainers do means nothing.

bob
19-10-2004, 12:33 AM
What entertainers do means nothing.
in fear of upsetting every english teacher trying to explain why texts are valued in society and are necessary in order to promote social change, i agree with you.

well, semi-agree. it can mean something to you, but it doesn't have to for everyone (it's called having your own opinions, people) which is why there should be less moore bashing. i really get upset when people say "moore's film plays on biased opinions = evil evil man" because if expressing your own biased opinion is considered propaganda, than i'm guilty. moore does't force anyone to believe anything. if you feel that by watching his films you are being forced to agree with him, than you're a bigger idiot than everyone else. in my opinion (or you could call it anti-american propanda) films like 'pearl harbour' are more guilty of brainwashing than 'fahrenheit 9/11'.

Nick
19-10-2004, 06:50 AM
I think you people are taking my post way out of context. What I was saying was that you are all getting on Moore's case for spreading his "propaganda" when all he's doing is giving his opinion. If you don't agree with his points of view that's fine, but don't criticize him just because you don't agree with his political points of view. If Moore wants to be left wing liberal than that should be just as acceptable as Mel choosing to be Catholic. I was simply using "The Passion" to illustrate my point that just because I don't agree with some of Mel's opinions that doesn't mean I'm going to hate the guy, I still like Mel Gibson and his movies. The same should be true for Moore. If you don't like some of his work that doesn't give you a reason to absolutely hate him. You people make it sound as though you want him assassinated.

And by the way "The Passion of the Christ" was Catholic propaganda. They're simply trying to find a more efficient way to convert people and they know people go to the movies, so they figured making a movie is the perfect way to spread their doctrine.

The Black Rider
19-10-2004, 10:58 AM
Yes, but Michael Moore claims to be a documentarian. He claims that the information in his films is all based on fact. But his films are full of lies. That's what we're so hung up about. We couldn't care less if he's liberal or not.

And, by the way, last time I checked, Mel Gibson was one person so I don't think the word "they" is an appropriate pronoun.

CFC
19-10-2004, 09:06 PM
Yes, but Michael Moore claims to be a documentarian. He claims that the information in his films is all based on fact. But his films are full of lies. That's what we're so hung up about. We couldn't care less if he's liberal or not.


DING DING DING...we have a winner!!

After watching Bowling For Columbine and seeing all the crap in there, I did not want to see that same fabricated crap on a different subject.

Straker
19-10-2004, 10:17 PM
Am I the only die-hard Democrat in this board? I am personally a huge fan of Michael Moore and do not believe his movies are propaganda. The Republicans are saying everything in the movie are lies, and trying to show documents to prove it, etc... but how exactly do you know the Republicans are telling the truth in their contradictions of the film? You can't prove they're right any more than you can prove Moore wrong. All in out, you really can't believe what any one side says.

But, seeing as how F9/11 has undoubtedly played some part in swaying voters to the Democratic side, I'm all for it. Someone has to get to the dumb-asses (about 67.9% of American population, I say ;)) in order to kick that scumbag Bush out of office.

I believe it was Haz who said quite personally that he supported Bush and Capitalism, two things of which I despise down to the utmost root.

Let me say something to all you (male) pro-Bush people: Can you make it any more obvious how much you love the Bush, the Dick and the Colon?

BTW: I won’t get into religion, because I know how everyone just *loves* to debate religion with me, but was I the only one that found the media’s take on The Passion of the Christ annoying? I mean, there were articles in magazines and whatnot about “who killed Jesus Christ”... like it was a big fucking mystery.

Kelsey
19-10-2004, 11:52 PM
Hey, it's JD...using the same joke he used last time. Whatever, aren't you like, obsessed with Nazis?

Anyways, Michael Moore is a dumbass...and his film (F9/11 cause I haven't seen the other one yet) was just propoganda. All he used were stereotypical images (I'm sure our Dutch members will agree that presenting the dutch population as potsmokers is unfair and inaccurate), the oldest trick in the book. I refuse to call it a documentary, as that suggests both sides of the argument are being presented and this was a film, which implies fiction. Retard. Enlightener my ass. I prefer manipulator. If Michael Moore is the patriot so many claim him to be than i am a truck.

Straker
20-10-2004, 12:16 AM
Beep, beep Kelsey. Listen, the pot smoking of the Dutch? Don't tell me you took that literally. Along with the other little clips along with it about the coalition?... maybe that's the problem. People can't discern the facts in the movie from the little hints of dark comedy, which are mixed throughout the entire film. And to pick something out as irrelevant as the pot smoking out of the entire meaning he was trying to portray is a bit... ignorant, maybe? Arrogant? Something along those lines.

And as I said before, you can't honestly prove what he's saying is propaganda.

Another thing: Michael Moore is not a dumbass. Even if his films were propaganda, which they aren’t, I don’t think a dumbass could have created such a mass following and belief. If he’s a propagandist, he’s one hell of a smart propagandist.

Lastly, about the documentary... how can you not say it’s a documentary? The only documentaries that aren’t predominantly one sided are those nature ones, and the search for King Tut, or about the Titanic, etc. And "film" implies fiction? Dunno where you got that from... but I won't get into. I will if wanted, but I feel it's self explanitory. Of course, that’s my take on it.

hasselbrad
20-10-2004, 12:27 AM
Lastly, about the documentary... how can you not say it’s a documentary? The only documentaries that aren’t predominantly one sided are those nature ones, and the search for King Tut, or about the Titanic, etc. Of course, that’s my take on it.

Which is why they are documentaries...and his work is not.
In Bowling For Columbine, he leads viewers to believe that all he did was walk into a bank, open an account and walk out with a rifle.
However, it has been documented, that in fact, one had to open an account with a minimum of $5,000 and then take a voucher to a gun store. There, the account holder underwent a background check. I may be wrong, because it's been a while, but I think there was a waiting period.

Kelsey
20-10-2004, 12:30 AM
The potsmoking thing is one example of many where Moore uses stereotypes to manipulate viewers to think the way he does. Other examples: "fine french linens", the half naked Puerto Rican urging on the emaciated cow pulling his cart", how he somehow makes shaking the hands of a Saudi into something sinister. Please.

Here's the article I wrote about this, because I'd rather post it than repeat it all (I've already repeated some of it, as you'll notice). It recieved numerous responses from the community , the majority of them agreeing with me.

Political Manipulation at a Theater Near You
By: Kelsey F----

Michael Moore's newest film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is meant to inform Americans of today's politics. But in a time when many people depend too much on entertainment as education, Moore's film is nothing more than pure propoganda.

The attack on New York occurs early in the film, and preceding the horrible images of the tragedy at the World Trade Centers, Moore states that on September 10, 2001, Bush was visiting his brother in Florida, and slept in "a bed of fine, french linens." Fine french linens? Obviously Moore cannot possibly know the type of sheets Bush sleeps in, but by describing someone as the "french linen" type, people will tend to form negative opinions of that person. I checked the label on my sheets and saw that they were made in Bangladesh - what does that have to do with anything?

Does Moore have something against the French? I might accuse him of having something against the Dutch. When describing the Coalition of the Willing, Moore completely "forgets" to mention the major countries who supported us (England who?) and instead mentions the lesser-known or respected countries, such as the Netherlands. Forget Dutch architecture, Vermeer, and Rembrandt; Moore choose to accompany his commentary with images of a man smoking weed.

And what about those Costa Ricans? Moore portrays Costa Ricans as being hundreds of years behind the rest of the world by showing a half-naked Costa Rican farmer urging on the emaciated cow pulling his cart.

It is very interesting that Moore tries to show that only ignorant people and countries would support President Bush, and shows this by using (and abusing) stereotypical images.

How is it that Moore succeeds in making something like shaking the hands of a Saudi into something sinister? We have to ask ourselves, is this the work of someone enlightening us, or manipulating us?

If Michael Moore is the patriot that so many claim him to be, then I am a truck.

Straker
20-10-2004, 12:35 AM
Which is why they are documentaries...and his work is not.
In Bowling For Columbine, he leads viewers to believe that all he did was walk into a bank, open an account and walk out with a rifle.
However, it has been documented, that in fact, one had to open an account with a minimum of $5,000 and then take a voucher to a gun store. There, the account holder underwent a background check. I may be wrong, because it's been a while, but I think there was a waiting period.

It's been a while since I saw BFC too, so I'm going by memory... and while I'm not sure about the 5,000 dollars, they gave him the gun from the bank. Not a voucher to a gun store. And also, there was no waiting period because, as long as you don't have any record of criminal activity or mental instability, they give you a gun (even in a regular gun store, Army Navy, etc) that day. A friend of mine did it not too long ago. Went in, filled out a form, and brought a gun home that day.

Also, Kelse, I don't want to be an asshole to you... but I may have to be. I won't pick apart your essay... yet. May I just ask what community you posted it in? I'd like to see it and the ratios of political affiliations of people who responded and agreed.

CFC
20-10-2004, 02:17 AM
Michael Moore Hates America



Gonna be a great movie.

Nick
20-10-2004, 06:14 AM
Don't worry Straker, you're not the only "liberal left wing" in here. I like Moore too and yes I also found "The Passion of the Christ" annoying. Like I said before that whole movie was nothing more than Catholic propaganda.

bob
20-10-2004, 06:32 AM
is it really so wrong to hate america? aheh... (not that i do. seriously.)

straker: i think hasselbrad is trying to make the point that you shouldn't believe everything you see - basically he's saying that the bank scene was staged (scripted even) and his descriptions of the real procedure directly contradicts the scene, thereby removing its credibility or validity.

i really don't understand why people insist on picking apart an opinion piece. you can't possibly expect moore to produce a completely objective piece of work. and don't go saying "it's a documentary" because it's virtually impossible for any text (or statement, or art work, or any other expression) to be completely objective either. just look at history texts and whatnot, cos you know what? they're ALL friggen biased! there are no absolute truths because everything recounted is distorted by the language, tone, and context. even the selection and organisation of detail to be presented can affect people's perceptions. you can hate moore's opinions but don't go saying that he's a bad filmmaker for it. on the other hand if you found his voice to be droning, the dialogue boring, the editing lazy, the interviews pointless.. then yeah, that would equal bad film technique.

and on the issue of the bank scene in BFC...
hasselbrad - obviously the staging of that scene had a comical effect, agree? so now we go on to say that moore's methods of manipulating the truth to gain audience sympathy are wrong. he manipulated the facts and presented fictitious situations to suit his purposes.

but if you were to identify the main point being presented in the scene, would it be "you can get a gun over the counter at the bank" or "banks endorse the sale/use of guns"? i can honestly say that when i saw the film (i've only seen it once) i saw the bigger issue being the idea that a bank (as an institution) would encourage the possession/purchase of guns. but then i come from a country where it's not in our constitutional right to own a firearm for personal protection.

so if you're moore or less (aha, get the pun? very unoriginal) saying that michael moore makes propaganda-ridden films which don't express valid points or incite people to think about serious issues, then i would oh so wholeheartedly disagree with you and anyone else who follows a similiar school of thought.

and on the note of guns and the bill of rights:
you buy a gun to protect yourself from the other guy with a gun... who got his gun by exercising his right to protect himself from that other guy with a gun... who got his gun... etc - it's vicious cycle.

hasselbrad
20-10-2004, 11:47 AM
It's been a while since I saw BFC too, so I'm going by memory... and while I'm not sure about the 5,000 dollars, they gave him the gun from the bank. Not a voucher to a gun store. And also, there was no waiting period because, as long as you don't have any record of criminal activity or mental instability, they give you a gun (even in a regular gun store, Army Navy, etc) that day. A friend of mine did it not too long ago. Went in, filled out a form, and brought a gun home that day.

Also, Kelse, I don't want to be an asshole to you... but I may have to be. I won't pick apart your essay... yet. May I just ask what community you posted it in? I'd like to see it and the ratios of political affiliations of people who responded and agreed.

Thank you for illustrating my point.
He didn't actually get the gun from the bank. The shot of him walking out with it was staged. The amount of money is from memory, but the gun was supposed to be equal to the amount of interest the account would earn in the first year. Michael Moore stages events in his films. It has been documented over and over! This, in and of itself, makes his films anything but documentaries.
There is what he shows you...and then there's what actually happened.

Straker
20-10-2004, 08:35 PM
Michael Moore stages events in his films. It has been documented over and over! This, in and of itself, makes his films anything but documentaries.
There is what he shows you...and then there's what actually happened.

Where? I'd like to see these 'documents'. I've seen some, but I want to see what you're talking about.

Bob: I completely agree with you.

CFC: I have heard of that. Haven't seen it anywhere. And I don't think I will. The only documentary against Moore that is remotely known is Fahrenhype 9/11. For you middle-class Republicans out there (“middle-class Republicans”... do I smell an oxymoron?) have you heard of this whole business with this Sinclair guy and Wounds Never Heal, I believe it's called? If you have, would you consider *that* a documentary?

A bit off topic, but: Why can’t the Republicans actually defend themselves? They’re always on the offense, as if they’re incapable of defense. Bush never says why he should be elected, he always says why Kerry [i]shouldn’t[i] be elected.

Ashley
20-10-2004, 08:52 PM
I really don't want to get into all this squabbling... but I have to.

#1. There are no pure documentaries.
#2. Michael Moore, as annoying as I think he is (I'm a registered democrat), loves America. Hello!!! He excersises his rights constantly, you think this type of film would make it anywhere else? Fuck no. He's even said how much he loves America.
#3. I do believe you republicans are coming out with your own "documentary" on Kerry and his role in Vietnam. A Film which I'll call disgusting without even seeing it being as though the guy put his life on the line. Who gives a hoot if he was against the war when he got back? There were gaggles of people against the war, other soldiers included.

The Black Rider
20-10-2004, 08:56 PM
I think Hasselbrad and CFC have got my argument covered, but let me just remind you that it's not only Republicans who see through Moore's lies. Norman Mailer and Richard Clark, the former of which was one of the most successful anti-Nixon writers of the Vietnam era, also have acknowledge the film's lies. So to classify all these people as Republicans is flat-out ignorant.

And Michael Moore is far from being a dumbass. Could a dumbass have created such an ingenious way to cash in on the liberal agenda? I think not. He's even got a soundtrack out.

One more thing. Nick: Unless you have any definitive evidence that Mel Gibson made The Passion of the Christ as a propaganda film for the Catholic church, then you have no right to make such charges. It makes you sound like an idiot.

Ashley
20-10-2004, 09:23 PM
You're right, it's not only republicans who says it. But really... he's not telling lies... he's just telling you what Bush supporters don't want to hear. Put that together with some ingenius editing and there you have it. Once again, I personally thing the movie should be taken in for entertainment value only, and that Michael Moore is annoying.

Straker
20-10-2004, 10:16 PM
#3. I do believe you republicans are coming out with your own "documentary" on Kerry and his role in Vietnam. A Film which I'll call disgusting without even seeing it being as though the guy put his life on the line. Who gives a hoot if he was against the war when he got back? There were gaggles of people against the war, other soldiers included.

I just got word that they're not going to air it... not totally sure, though. If they're not, I don't know why. Republicans are known for fighting below the belt. And I agree with you, Ashley: so what if he was against it? I'd bet 4/5 of the soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are against the war they're fighting in, because they've seen what it's like first hand. In America, we don't get the whole story, I believe. And maybe if Bush gets re-elected and reinstates the draft, all of you pro-Bush fellas will see the truth too, when you and I are over there, and fighting for what, exactly?

(I'm a registered democrat)

Good for you, Ashley. Good for you. :)

CFC
20-10-2004, 10:22 PM
Bush is not going to reinstate the draft.

It won't happen, congress won't pass it.

Ashley
20-10-2004, 10:26 PM
Ashley: so what if he was against it? I'd bet 4/5 of the soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are against the war they're fighting in, because they've seen what it's like first hand. In America, we don't get the whole story, I believe.

Exactly my point. My cousin got back from the Middle East not too long ago and said it was the worst thing he's ever seen.
It's terrible. If I keep going it'll go off topic so I'll quit.

Straker
20-10-2004, 10:35 PM
Bush is not going to reinstate the draft.

It won't happen, congress won't pass it.

In the first debate he said straight out he'd reinstate the draft if it comes to it. Then, in the second, he said there will not be a draft. Who's the flip flopper now?

Bush wants this war to go on. He will have to bring the draft back. Already we're at a loss of troops. And Bush saying "Things are getting better, don't worry!" is just as much bullshit as you accuse Moore of saying. Things are, if anything, getting worse. The so called "Green Zone" is being corrosively eaten away day by day; you have beheadings galore. Would you like me to make a montage of the all the beheadings and horrible things going on in Iraq, playing to "What a Wonderful World"? Mark my words, if Bush is re-elected, there will be a draft. You can write it down now.

And if Congress was stupid enough (Or conservative enough) to allow Bush to invade Iraq, they sure as hell will pass a draft, since it really doesn't pertain to them or their children. It pertains to us middle class people the most. Just ask Dubya about how far money can go during a draft.

If I keep going it'll go off topic so I'll quit.

I ain't worrying about that. I, for one, want to hear what you have to say.

CFC
20-10-2004, 10:56 PM
So Kerry knows how to continue the US presence in Iraq without having a draft?

Straker
20-10-2004, 11:15 PM
So Kerry knows how to continue the US presence in Iraq without having a draft?

Did I stutter or something? Maybe Kerry did... who knows. Allow me to refresh what I said before:

Bush wants this war to go on.

Kerry does not want this war to go on. He's said numerous times he is planning to start removing troops from Iraq, which I believe is the right thing to do. It will not get better; only worse. This is, without a doubt, a second Vietnam. We've destroyed Iraq and it will never be what Bush promises to make it. It will become just like the other places we've come in contact with: Korea, Russia... everything America touches turns to shit. And, may I remind you, while this pointless war has been going on, Korea has acquired nuclear weapons. Hmmm... I wonder what their plans are.

CFC
20-10-2004, 11:21 PM
How exactly did America mess up Russia? I think communism did it in for them. I also assume you mean North Korea because South Korea ain't that bad.

I think it is too ealry to call Iraq another Vietnam.

Straker
20-10-2004, 11:29 PM
How exactly did America mess up Russia? I think communism did it in for them. I also assume you mean North Korea because South Korea ain't that bad.

I think it is too ealry to call Iraq another Vietnam.

We messed up Russia by forcing Capitalism on them. Their economy can not support that. Why do you think they're so poor over there, people killing each other over toilet paper? Under Communism, they'd be fine. Now it seems like this Vladimir Putin is attempting to slowly bring Communism back, and you know what I say? GOOD FOR HIM! He's trying to make life better in Russia, and that's more than Bush is trying to do for America.

Communism didn't destroy Russia. America destroyed Russia.

marry rich people
20-10-2004, 11:42 PM
Are you guys just saying that the movie sucked because you're Bush-supporters?

Jacoby
21-10-2004, 12:15 AM
Are you guys just saying that the movie sucked because you're Bush-supporters?

Yes, yes they are.

ryan
21-10-2004, 12:25 AM
anything Moore releases is a bunch of shit.

Straker
21-10-2004, 12:50 AM
anything Moore releases is a bunch of shit.

Why? Everyone else has supported their opinions save you.

You're beginning to sound like Dubya:

"Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
Bush's answer (in a nutshell): "I dunno."

Clinton
21-10-2004, 01:34 AM
Go Kerry! Bush is a dumbass....

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 01:34 AM
I believe it was Haz who said quite personally that he supported Bush and Capitalism, two things of which I despise down to the utmost root.


Yeah...but why exactly was I dragged into a debate when I wasn't even fucking here?!

Was it to add credibility to your ridiculous arguments? Ahh...makes sense now...still...not even MY name could add credibility to that bullshit.

Bob, however, put your arguments over in a much better way. However, whilst she is correct in pointing out that documentaries are NOT unbiased they should NEVER contain staged scenes…documentaries should document REAL events, that’s kinda the definitional difference. That is why ACTUALLY Moore’s films are NOT documentaries, but propaganda, but who said propaganda was a bad thing? Persuasive opinion pieces (which is where Bob IS correct, it’s an opinion piece, it’s not, however, a documentary) have their place in film. I actually find his film-making technique poor Bob, I don’t think his films are entertaining, persuasive or well put-together, but that’s just me. My dislike has nothing to do with his viewpoint, because I actually AGREE with the view put forward in BFC but I didn’t like the film…although Ducky has given me some strong evidence to suggest that a right to bear arms can be a very useful thing to protect individual freedoms against oppressive governments…and ironically it’s governments like Bush’s which both favour the right to bear arms and are called “oppressive”…how rare.

Ashley…well YOU, have put forward the arguments in the best way…and I’m glad you agree with his viewpoint and yet CAN criticise his films…as being entertainment value only (I agree, but I just don’t find them entertaining, nor are they persuasive, and I wouldn’t call them particularly enlightening) and I find him, personally, very annoying…

Oh, and Straker mate? You actually SAID to me you’d read/heard Kerry was planning to keep troops in Iraq…so what’s that thing about removing troops come from? NOW who’s the flip-flopper, eh mate? :p (EDIT: Having checked my logs, despite my very strong recollection of the man saying these things...cos I remember it being rather shocking because I was SURE Kerry wanted to withdraw...I lack the logs to back it up so...I shall withdraw that statement)

And CFC has points about Russia and South Korea…oh…and btw Straker? North Korea at last check does NOT possess Nuclear Weapons, they’ve just got a program to acquire them and be able to utilise them…they’re on the right PATH to becoming a nuclear power, at least as far as I’m aware.

Straker…you’re a fucking retard. Communism has destroyed every country it’s existed in. Putin is NOT trying to bring communism back, he’s instating stronger socialistic values…because y’know what? Revolutions don’t make change happen, slow incremental changes make change happen, the great Duckster and I discussed this…want to go to war with us two over it? No…didn’t think so. Oh…and why’s China moving AWAY from communism? And I know that because one of my closest friends has family living in China and they’ve commented on it…so shut your fucking gob and get some facts, eh?

BACK on topic…Jacoby, I hated the movie cos it was shit…it was poorly put together, not entertaining and unfunny…kinda like me then really ;) And I agree with Ryan (will wonders never cease?) Moore can’t make a film to save his life imho, and that’s even when I agree with his viewpoint (such as BFC which I had a LOT of high hopes for and hated when I finally saw it…I was crushed).

And there ends the first essay of the return of Haz. I hope it's the last but this thread raised a lot of points I'd have been commenting on as it went along but...well...I kinda wasn't here...ARRR...good to be back though ;)

Jacoby
21-10-2004, 01:40 AM
BACK on topic…Jacoby, I hated the movie cos it was shit…it was poorly put together, not entertaining and unfunny…kinda like me then really ;) And I agree with Ryan (will wonders never cease?) Moore can’t make a film to save his life imho, and that’s even when I agree with his viewpoint (such as BFC which I had a LOT of high hopes for and hated when I finally saw it…I was crushed).


Welcome back, Haz. I take offense that you know more of American government than I. Effing London, man.

To stay on topic: I still haven't seen a single Michael Moore film. Yet, I slander his name to see left-wing liberals flip out. It's good fun.

Straker
21-10-2004, 01:52 AM
Yeah...but why exactly was I dragged into a debate when I wasn't even fucking here?!

Was it to add credibility to your ridiculous arguments? Ahh...makes sense now...still...not even MY name could add credibility to that bullshit.

Because we love you, Haz. <3 and to the second part: no. In fact, I don't see how your liking the things I hate adds ANY credibility to my arguments at all...

Oh, and Straker mate? You actually SAID to me you’d read/heard Kerry was planning to keep troops in Iraq…so what’s that thing about removing troops come from? NOW who’s the flip-flopper, eh mate? :-P

I don't believe I would ever say that. Of course, I've never been known for my memory.

Revolutions don’t make change happen, slow incremental changes make change happen, the great Duckster and I discussed this…want to go to war with us two over it?

Well then, by implication, it looks like Iraq is fucked.

I'll ignore a lot of the stuff Mr. Haz here said... seeing as how it appeared to be meant as a personal blow for me mentioning his name without being here, even though it was, and I admit, completely irrelevant to my arguments. Haz's approach was... rather unethical, if I may be allowed.
“Fuck you, fuck that... I wanna beat someone with a baseball bat.”

I don't feel like a personal flame war. Lets stick to business.
:fencing:

BTW: I believe it was John Knowles who once wrote, "Sarcasm is the defense of the weak."

ARRR...good to be back though

Good to have you back.

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 02:00 AM
Because we love you, Haz. <3 and to the second part: no. In fact, I don't see how your liking the things I hate adds ANY credibility to my arguments at all...

Just the mere mention of my name adds credibility to anything mate, you know that ;)

I don't believe I would ever say that. Of course, I've never been known for my memory.

Yeah, corrected that one.

Well then, by implication, it looks like Iraq is fucked.

Not so much. Because as we also discussed, revolutions have their place in smashing certain set ways to allow slow incremental change to happen. In short...Iraq is going the EXACT same way that France went after the French revolution, and most other democracies born out of revolutions or stark change have...there was a sudden change...there was a reaction out against it...which is still being felt...but underneath that, behind it, there is the force of slow change which will insititute democracy and secure its place in Iraq.

So err...thanks for proving my point ;)

I'll ignore a lot of the stuff Mr. Haz here said... seeing as how it appeared to be meant as a personal blow for me mentioning his name without being here, even though it was, and I admit, completely irrelevant to my arguments. Haz's approach was... rather unethical, if I may be allowed.
“Fuck you, fuck that... I wanna beat someone with a baseball bat.”

I don't feel like a personal flame war. Lets stick to business.

Awww, diddums. Gonna take your ball and go home? Such a shame too...Sorry you don't like my battering ram style, but finesse has never been my way, has it? Unethical? And the ethics in dragging someone into a debate, countering their viewpoint in public, in order to prove them wrong are...where exactly? Thank you...and goodnight.

Good to have you back.

Good to know...but next time maybe think a wee bit before replying cos, well, I don't need you just supporting my ideas for me and making a berk of yourself because I ENJOY pointing out when you're being a pratt.

CFC
21-10-2004, 02:09 AM
We messed up Russia by forcing Capitalism on them. Their economy can not support that. Why do you think they're so poor over there, people killing each other over toilet paper? Under Communism, they'd be fine. Now it seems like this Vladimir Putin is attempting to slowly bring Communism back, and you know what I say? GOOD FOR HIM! He's trying to make life better in Russia, and that's more than Bush is trying to do for America.

Communism didn't destroy Russia. America destroyed Russia.

Look at China. They are allowing more capitalism and free enterprise into their economey. They are going to become very powerful. In the near future they are gonna rival or maybe even pass the US.

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 02:16 AM
Look at China. They are allowing more capitalism and free enterprise into their economey. They are going to become very powerful. In the near future they are gonna rival or maybe even pass the US.

Hehe...yeah...I said that too...methinks Straker should quit on that particular point while he's behind ;)

CFC
21-10-2004, 02:21 AM
Oops. I did not see that. I stopped reading after "Straker…you’re a fucking retard."


Hazzle since you are back...

Save the Footballing News thread!!

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 02:42 AM
Oops. I did not see that. I stopped reading after "Straker…you’re a fucking retard."

Yeah...I think you won't be the only one...but I like my battering ram style damnit!

Hazzle since you are back...

Save the Footballing News thread!!

Will do...tomorrow...right now...SLEP. Sorry...

bob
21-10-2004, 03:12 AM
did someone say that people under communism were fine? an interesting point of view, but no.

michael moore - think of him what you will. just don't judge him based on his political leanings. and while a staged scene is quite an unscrupulous method of getting your message across, that shouldn't undermine the points being expressed in a film.

and to tell you the truth (figure of speech, it's actually my opinion) this thread is as much anti-moore propaganda as moore's films are anti-bush propaganda. how about we all try to stop forcing each other's views on each other, and just sit happy in our own ignorance? yes, let's do.

Kelsey
21-10-2004, 04:25 AM
I can't wait for some people to realize that Kerry isn't the brightest crayon in the box himself. Just like I used to respect JD for his intellectual comments, except now I've seen the light. I, of course, don't mind if people support John Kerry, but you'd better provide a better reason than "because Bush is a dumbass," or "because my dad says so." (I've heard them both). Can anyone tell me why they *truly* think Kerry will be a successful president without mentioning Bush? At least Michael Moore knows why he leans the way he leans, even if it is made up and/or manipulated.

Ashley
21-10-2004, 04:33 AM
Kerry would be a good president, I believe, during this war and after... if there is an after... because he's been through it. He's seen war and it's effects.
I didn't mention Bush, but without doing that I'm not sure what I could say.
Mentioning Bush, Kerry is a more environmentally minded fella, plus I do think that a new president could bring allies back to the US.

That's just the tip of the iceberg for my reasons.

hasselbrad
21-10-2004, 12:18 PM
We messed up Russia by forcing Capitalism on them. Their economy can not support that. Why do you think they're so poor over there, people killing each other over toilet paper? Under Communism, they'd be fine. Now it seems like this Vladimir Putin is attempting to slowly bring Communism back, and you know what I say? GOOD FOR HIM! He's trying to make life better in Russia, and that's more than Bush is trying to do for America.

Communism didn't destroy Russia. America destroyed Russia.

That is quite possibly the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read.
Communism was good for Russia?
So high ranking Communist Party officials living the good life while the 'proletariat' was being forced to live in sub-human conditions is a good thing?
I guess upwards of 40,000,000 people being slaughtered by Stalin would be justified in your opinion then?
What exactly is wrong with capitalism? I'm sure you'll have a litany of Democratic talking points that will all point to the present economic status of the country...which contrary to what many think, isn't all that bad...but I'd be really interested in reading what is so wrong with capitalism.

Bob...you have a point about the anti-Moore sentiment, but there's a big difference. We're not influencing peoples' opinon on a broad scale with what is simply anti-Bush propaganda. I've seen far too many interviews of people walking out of the theater and talking as if they had just seen an unbiased report of fact.

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 01:56 PM
did someone say that people under communism were fine? an interesting point of view, but no.

Thank you :)

michael moore - think of him what you will. just don't judge him based on his political leanings. and while a staged scene is quite an unscrupulous method of getting your message across, that shouldn't undermine the points being expressed in a film.

I never said it did. I said it undermined its status as a documentary. The points it makes still stand, but a documentary has to document real life events, it cannot contain staged events and still count as a work of pure fact. Moore's work is a mixture of fact and fiction, the fiction usually an exageration of the truth to make a point, but fiction nonetheless. The status as a documentary/opinion-piece is somewhat irrelevant and semantic. Incidentally I agreed documentaries have an entitlement to be biased, any work is, by its nature.

I dislike Moore's work simply because I dislike his work. I don't care about his political leanings...I agreed with the anti-gun perspective of BFC but the film was shit.

and to tell you the truth (figure of speech, it's actually my opinion) this thread is as much anti-moore propaganda as moore's films are anti-bush propaganda. how about we all try to stop forcing each other's views on each other, and just sit happy in our own ignorance? yes, let's do.

Again, I also said I didn't think propoganda was a bad thing. Persuasive discussion is sort of the point of a discussion forum, so err...let's not sit happy in our points of view...let's fight to the bitter end and actually make the forums worth reading, eh?

Also...what Hassel said. So what if we turn people against Moore? What impact is that going to have on society? None, surely. Whereas Moore's manipulation of fact to make what is HIS point of view more obvious can be quote dangerous if people take it as being a pure, relatively balanced presentation of fact (note I didn't say unbiased, because no documentary is unbiased, I merely said relatively balanced). That is because it can influence political sentiment and given that right about now Americans are supposed to be deciding who should be the leader of the western world, the most powerful man in the world, that raises a slight fear on my part. I'd much rather critics, and others made it blatently clear that this was just Moore's perspective on things, it was not some official report into 9-11 and its aftermath.

Jacoby
21-10-2004, 07:02 PM
Face it. Communism is the most idealistic form of politics. Everyone's being treated the same. Lovely. Even Jesus Himself would support communism. Hard to pull off, though. People are lazy and don't work. And, there's no room for entrepueners. Suck it, Bill Gates.

//Hmmm...I just thought of something. I've heard Presidential candidates would be reluctant to have a black person or woman as their VP. They'd be assassinated. This has nothing to do with anything, so I'll leave. Bai.

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 09:12 PM
Face it. Communism is the most idealistic form of politics. Everyone's being treated the same. Lovely. Even Jesus Himself would support communism. Hard to pull off, though. People are lazy and don't work. And, there's no room for entrepueners. Suck it, Bill Gates.

//Hmmm...I just thought of something. I've heard Presidential candidates would be reluctant to have a black person or woman as their VP. They'd be assassinated. This has nothing to do with anything, so I'll leave. Bai.

What he said. Me and Straker discussed it and I basically said I'd back Marxism (not communism per se, because I've always sought to differentiate the THEORY of Marxism and the PRACTICE of Communism, since it's been the execution through revolutionary seizure of power and the creation of totalitarian governments that ruined Marx's dream more than anything) if we took about a dozen selfless people (and there are probably only about that many left in the world) who are idealistic enough to WANT to work, to NOT want to rule but willing to do so if they're the best candidate for the job, not greedy...etc...put them in a bunker and then nuked the rest of the world...start anew...other than that it's a failed theory that's lovely in theory (genuinely, I mean that) but flawed in practice.

I'm all in favour of a Platonic Republic, actually, that'd be my utopia...but it won't happen either...so let's accept it. Capitalism works as it builds on the fact human beings ARE greedy, ARE selfish etc...don't hate capitalism, hate people for being so flawed that we can't make Marxism work in practice, as I said to Straker last night.

Straker
21-10-2004, 10:40 PM
...but I'd be really interested in reading what is so wrong with capitalism.

Walk down a New York street and count the number of homeless people. Observe the amount of unemployment in America, and how good jobs are going to [illegal] immigrants, just to save a buck. To any American kids, (I'm assuming the majority here are in their teens? I know I am), have your parents ever come home a bit worried that they may lose their job over nothing of their own fault? "A man is not a piece of fruit", you can't just eat him and throw away the peel. Our own Vice-President is a prime example (with Halliburton) of what is wrong with Capitalism. You see it every day in the streets, in your towns, maybe even in your own homes. To be an inbred, die-hard capitalist is to be the epitome of selfish.

Which brings me to Haz... where I nearly completely agree with him and what Jacoby said. But where I differ is that I believe under the right circumstances, and in the right hands (which is about a 1/1,000,000 chance will happen), Collectivism could work. I'm just sick of seeing wealthy, elitist people who don't deserve any of what they have (hell, most of them were born in it! Want an example of someone who has but doesn't deserve? George Bush.) While at the same time good, hard working middle class folks, like much of what are on the boards, work their ass off but still get fucked by the upper 1%.

Of course it's the fault of the people in part; people in this day and age are born greedy (which can be slowly manipulated over periods of time, I think), but you must blame the system itself somewhat for allowing people to become as greedy as they are; giving them the means to carry out the actions for which we hate them over.

There. My opinion in a rather quick nutshell.

One last thing, Kelsey: I personally supported Dean. And honestly, I can say very little of why Kerry would make a good president. But I can say a ton of why he would make a better president compared to Bush, as I think many thinking people on this board would be able to do. [I actually would support Ralph Nader if he had ANY chance of winning. He's run for, what? 20 years straight? :P]

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 10:46 PM
Of course it's the fault of the people in part; people in this day and age are born greedy (which can be slowly manipulated over periods of time, I think), but you must blame the system itself somewhat for allowing people to become as greedy as they are; giving them the means to carry out the actions for which we hate them over.


That's where your argument falls. The system doesn't ALLOW people to be greedy...they just ARE...the system merely rewards them for being as they are...communism rewards people for being lucky enough to have been part of the revolution...I know which I prefer ;) At least greed is a personality trait, and not just fluke :D

bob
21-10-2004, 10:56 PM
Bob...you have a point about the anti-Moore sentiment, but there's a big difference. We're not influencing peoples' opinon on a broad scale with what is simply anti-Bush propaganda. I've seen far too many interviews of people walking out of the theater and talking as if they had just seen an unbiased report of fact.
but hasselbrad... those people were idiots.

honestly, those interviews are only representing a certain percentage of the population. and chances are if the interviews were done at one particular cinema, in one particular area at one particular screening, then it's only representing a specific demographic (a dumb impressionable one, at that)

i'll tell you now that everyone i know (above the age of 15 or 16) knows that michael moore is a film-maker and that what they're seeing is someone's individual take on events. it just so happens that most of them (if not all) have been agreeing with moore's opinions before he even released a novel or film. they've been conditioned (as have i) by all the anti-american sentiment we've been exposed to while growing up.

and haz, those were general comments that i made earlier. i wasn't attacking your posts :) plus my last line about leaving each other alone was meant in jest. i think everyone should be allowed to express their biased opinions. heck, i do it all the time.

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 11:06 PM
and haz, those were general comments that i made earlier. i wasn't attacking your posts :) plus my last line about leaving each other alone was meant in jest. i think everyone should be allowed to express their biased opinions. heck, i do it all the time.

I know it ;) Hence I wasn't overly brutal in response...was just reiterating my view cos it makes me feel important :p (Almost had a Freudian slip there and put "impotent")

Seriously...I know you were just jostling...and I was just using your little joke to make a serious point about the nicey-nicey attitude that seems to be prevailing at the W these days. Whatever happened to the days of bitch-fests and flame-wars? Those were fun.

bob
21-10-2004, 11:28 PM
maybe they got a bit personal? or maybe because we're all united in our fight against glare and nearoka. creates a sense of comraderie.

but it's good to see that people will stick to their guns and won't let a couple of posts on a forum sway their opinions. except when those opinions are... kinda... stupid...

Hazzle
21-10-2004, 11:32 PM
maybe they got a bit personal? or maybe because we're all united in our fight against glare and nearoka. creates a sense of comraderie.

True that...but c'mon...will noone fight the fight FOR Glare or Nearoka? Seriously...if you're all going to unite against them it's not so much fun bashing them...I may have to start fighting alongside them...

Personal Schmersonal. That's bullshit...apart from me and Cliffeh (which is a matter best avoided right now) there haven't been that many truly PERSONAL battles. And with me and Cliff it's more personal cos, well...at least from my perspective I consider him a mate in the real world cos we've met a fair bit and hung out...anyway...enough with the details. Bruised egos are part of the fun Bobbeh...c'mon...you wouldn't deprive Hazzle of his fun now, would you? :(

but it's good to see that people will stick to their guns and won't let a couple of posts on a forum sway their opinions. except when those opinions are... kinda... stupid...

Yeah...Straker, Bob said your opinions are stupid. So there :p

Bait
22-10-2004, 12:35 AM
id go with glare... :icon_err:

but definately not nearoka...
anyways i have only seen the ending of this movie and i thought it was funny with gw trying to tell his little story about the trick me once thing...but thats all i see this is "documentary" as...is a comedic film...

Hazzle
22-10-2004, 12:36 AM
id go with glare... :icon_err:

but definately not nearoka...
anyways i have only seen the ending of this movie and i thought it was funny with gw trying to tell his little story about the trick me once thing...but thats all i see this is "documentary" as...is a comedic film...

We have one comrade for Glare...gg.

And yeah...I think that's a pretty common view of Moore's work. Not really documentary so much as satirical opinion piece.

Straker
22-10-2004, 12:54 AM
Yeah...Straker, Bob said your opinions are stupid. So there :p

He has the right to say what he wishes. But, until he tells me *why*, he's the only one who looks stupid.

I should have resigned long ago. This debate got a bit too childish when Haz came into it... Haz, remind me again why you were banned numerous times?

Bait
22-10-2004, 12:57 AM
she*

:P

...yes thats all i have to contribute as i just woke up after sleeping for 10 whole minutes...damn ups man

hasselbrad
22-10-2004, 12:58 AM
There are always going to be the haves and have-nots. There are plenty of people who have been born into wealth and affluence, just as many Soviets were born into lives of opulence and plenty. That's just the luck of the draw.
I met a German foreign exchange student through my ex-wife's family. She had lived in East Germany and she thought it was great. Of course, her father was a high ranking official...and she thought Hitler was just "misunderstood"...so it was hard to take what she said seriously. She had grown up in the lap of luxury while those around her suffered.
I also had the pleasure of meeting a couple from Romania. They were both doctors who were visiting their family here in the States before the Soviet Union crumbled. The wife stood in the grocery store and cried when she saw meat spread out in the butcher's case. She would typically stand in line for three hours every day for a piece of meat roughly the size of a large filet mignon. I watched the husband...a grown man...cry over the sight of sutures with the needle attached and disposable syringes. He told us that he would have to draw twice as much medication into an ancient glass syringe, whose barrel had become so worn from years of use, due to the fact that half of the medication would shoot out of the top of the syringe. He described what he was forced to use everyday, and many of the items predated my father's entry into the medical supply business, which was the late 1950's.
No, my parents haven't had to worry about losing their job. My father started his own company when I was four months old, but now they (and I) worry about the possibility of losing the company due to ridiculous new state regulations concerning perscription drugs. Which, I guess from your attitude toward 'capitalists' just serves us right. We were just lucky, right?
Communism/Socialism/Marxism/any other form of government that seeks to distribute wealth evenly among its citizens, only succeeds in taking away all incentive to be productive. The Soviet Union, which you seem to think was such a wonderful place, decided to battle the growing problem of alcohol abuse among workers by cutting the production of vodka. All this did was drive the proletariat to desperate measures in order to get their fix. I read an article about this in the late 1980's which was appalling. They would spread black shoe polish on toast, set it on the radiator and when it dried to a crust, they scraped it off and ate the toast. Some would filter after-shave through bread and drink what came out the other side. The Soviet Union was a complete wreck due to the fact that there was no reason for workers to do anything but show up, usually drunk.
Capitalism provides an incentive. If you work hard, you get ahead, simple as that. Most homeless people are homeless because they made bad decisions. Most poor people are poor because of the same poor decisions. I know this is a really hard thing for most Democrats to grasp, but what I say is borne out by the fact that immigrants come to this country with nothing, and within a few years, they own businesses.
And, the "good" jobs all of these immigrants are taking are the jobs that people in this country are simply unwilling to do. Do think working in a chicken plant, hanging drywall or roofing houses are "good" jobs? How about migrant farming? Sounds glamourous, huh?
I know it seems hopeless when you look around and see big companies getting bigger and bigger, but realize this.
The economy runs in cycles. I've seen double digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment. The current unemployment rate is about 5.4%. Classic economics prefer it to be around 3%, but most current economists say around 5% is right where it needs to be.
The more people who lose jobs in the corporate workplace, mean those same people will start their own small businesses...you know, those evil capitalists...who provide most of the jobs in America in the first place. It's cyclical.

bob
22-10-2004, 12:58 AM
but people love satire. i love satire.

and my opinion on bush (not on the presidential campaign, just on bush):
the most annoying (though the most entertaining) thing about george bush is his stupidity. i'm not saying he can't run a country, he's got a whole team behind him who obviously have the experience (if not the morals) to keep it running ok. but i mean, his public comments? is he doing improv? ad lib? why aren't his speech-writers doing their job? is he impaired? a bit slow in the head? maybe shy? what is it!?!?

and the comment he made towards c-grade yale grads (was it yale?) about how they too could become president. was that necessary?! were his PRs going "fuck"? he's like forrest gump, minus the sweet adorable nature and humble upbringing (although bush snr probably had to do favours to get jnr through school, much like forrest's mum)

i don't know how kerry is better than bush in terms of policies, experience or abilities, but imo he's got to be smarter just on an intellectual level. i refuse to believe otherwise. when 12yr old girls are laughing at the comments the american president makes... there's a problem.

Hazzle
22-10-2004, 01:00 AM
He has the right to say what he wishes. But, until he tells me *why*, he's the only one who looks stupid.

SHE mate...Bob's a girl.

I should have resigned long ago. This debate got a bit too childish when Haz came into it... Haz, remind me again why you were banned numerous times?

Hmmm...really? Well...number 1...I insulted both (there were only two) admins and several members while pissed off my skull in a spree many of us would rather forget...thanks again for dredging that up btw...number 2...well I told Apoggy to fuck himself when he tried to mod me and apparently he and Cliff thought it was best for me to concentrate on my exams...cos they're my friends...<shrugs>That's their story anyway ;) 3...I asked for that one...quite literally.

so...your point is err...exactly what?! I certainly didn't get banned for kicking your arse when you post infantile naive views :p

Try again please. Do I take it you've finally resigned? Good good.

Oh, and Bob. I didn't see your post when I posted this. A) I love Satire...I just don't find Moore's to be very funny...that said I still love satire as a genre...a LOT B) Bush's stupidity has nothing to do with it. Fact remains the president does very little in practical terms, a LOT of the real muscle is exercised behind the scenes, which you're intelligent enough to have recognised and said so, credit where credit is due.

His stupidity or otherwise is actually totally irrelevant. I happen to think he's an idiot too...but I still think his administration (ie those behind him) should be re-instated for another term. Just my take is all.

bob
22-10-2004, 01:25 AM
that leads me to a different question, haz, why don't they find a new leader? obviously bush isn't the one pulling the strings, so why can't they replace the puppet?

surely bush's character isn't THAT appealing to the american public?

straker: while my friends and i entertain the thought of forming our own communist society in uni (which we won't) it can only work in theory in the utopia that is a 100% egalatarian society (i haven't read utopia, but wasn't the point made that such a society would be boring?). much like haz has already said, people are greedy. if it came between my happiness versus yours, i choose mine. it's in our nature. accept it.

mao tse tung - dictatorship. seriously. what you have is a couple of regimes who claim to be communist when they're not. communism has never actually existed.

Straker
22-10-2004, 04:02 AM
SHE mate...Bob's a girl.

Well, SHE fooled me at the last forum, SHE fooled me again. Not just by the name, mind you.

communism has never actually existed.

Eh... I don't fully agree. I think it has existed, but it's just never lasted. And, "mao tse tung - dictatorship."? Are you comparing dictatorship to communism? If so, you can't. They're not really in the same fields: dictatorship is a form of government, where communism is a form of economy. Sure they can be intertwined, but I don’t think can be compared in the same level. If that's not what you meant... then meh.
Maybe it'd be wise to look into the works of Ayn Rand. You may agree with her philosophy. I do not.

Please don't answer questions you direct at me yourself, Haz. Let me make it clear that I'm not resigning in the fact that I'm admitting that I'm wrong, and you're right. No sir. I simply don't want to continue a debate with the likes of you. Actually, I saw little chance of me puting up a good fight with a majority of the population against me. It can't work like that. And if you want to pull me into a flame war, you'll have to do a bit better. ;)

Hasselbrad: Bravo. Seriously. I don't have a large argument against it, because a lot of what you said is opinion which makes sense. Different from facts, though. Of course, what ever is fact anyway? See, Communism requires a lot from a philosophical stand point. Capitalism does not, and I believe Haz has talked about this. Communism needs a certain amount of altruism in order to work. The submission of the people to want to give, not the want to want. And it's possible, I think. Very, very difficult... but possible. There are too many free thinkers out there currently.
But given time... who knows what can happen...

bob
22-10-2004, 05:51 AM
you're not fucking john doe are you?
did you just say communism was merely a type of economy?
are you one of those people who believes that 'nazism' is an actual definable term?

if you answered yes to 2 out of the above 3, i sincerely dislike you. well, if you answered 'no' to the first question, then i really dislike your opinions.

mao tse tung - he was a dictator, one that the people loved. when you're on the bottom you like to see the people at the top fall (or more specifically, see their heads fall). and china is a friggen hypocrite in the sense that they're opening up their economy to the point where they're more capitalist than communist, but they continue to call themselves a 'communist' state. they're not communists, they just claim to be. it's like how the nazis were a socialist party. of course by 'socialist' they really meant fascist. guess someone forgot to send that memo.

here's something cute, the animated film 'anastasia' as a piece of anti-communist propoganda. go america, land of the free, the true democracy, watch the o'reilly factor, try the veal.

however i remember jd making the point that it was america that screwed russia over, not communism. i disagree with this because i honestly don't think america has the ability to screw over a country without first invading/attacking it (sure they opened japan's economy, but look at japan. they're crazy... probably after-effects of the atomic bomb) but america certainly didn't help the situation by intimidating the USSR into an arms race - and all that anti-communist propoganda? it's the death of democracy? they'll try to invade us? like, what? (australia was pretty bad with this as well) how could russia possibly have even tried to rebuild itself when it was putting all its resources towards the military and 'defense' against the US?

stupid people all around. i wanna move to sweden and be closer to amit paul.

btw, jd, you just conceded that communism can't work because people aren't willing to think as a collective. well done.

Nick
22-10-2004, 08:03 AM
You know there is a thread on Comminism in this forum. So wouldn't it make more sense to talk about Communism there. (And me creating the thread about Communism has nothing to do with me wanting people to visit it :icon_err: )

bob
22-10-2004, 08:14 AM
You know there is a thread on Comminism in this forum. So wouldn't it make more sense to talk about Communism there. (And me creating the thread about Communism has nothing to do with me wanting people to visit it :icon_err: )
liar. nah, actually i'm over the topic. china's crazy. so is japan. and most of asia. particularly malaysia (crazy malaysians)

i had to write an essay about michael moore and a character called mike moore. do you have any idea how frustrating that could be? not to mention that i'd read so many opinions regarding michael moore that i felt schizophrenic when trying to write a point.

CFC
22-10-2004, 01:25 PM
Well, SHE fooled me at the last forum, SHE fooled me again. Not just by the name, mind you.



Eh... I don't fully agree. I think it has existed, but it's just never lasted. And, "mao tse tung - dictatorship."? Are you comparing dictatorship to communism? If so, you can't. They're not really in the same fields: dictatorship is a form of government, where communism is a form of economy. Sure they can be intertwined, but I don’t think can be compared in the same level. If that's not what you meant... then meh.
Maybe it'd be wise to look into the works of Ayn Rand. You may agree with her philosophy. I do not.

Communism and government will always be intertwined because communism is when the state controls the economy.

hasselbrad
22-10-2004, 01:58 PM
Hasselbrad: Bravo. Seriously. I don't have a large argument against it, because a lot of what you said is opinion which makes sense. Different from facts, though. Of course, what ever is fact anyway? See, Communism requires a lot from a philosophical stand point. Capitalism does not, and I believe Haz has talked about this. Communism needs a certain amount of altruism in order to work. The submission of the people to want to give, not the want to want. And it's possible, I think. Very, very difficult... but possible. There are too many free thinkers out there currently.
But given time... who knows what can happen...

Which parts of my argument do you feel aren't based on fact?
Do you have many friends in the chicken business? I do. Plants in Alabama and Georgia have been less and less able to get people to work. Mexicans who have been working as migrant farmers are rapidly becoming the only people that these plants can get to work. Americans, simply aren't willing. I spent a year selling construction fasteners to the drywall industry. Same thing. People on both sides of the industry told me that they couldn't afford to hire Americans to run screws into drywall because they demanded too much money, weren't reliable and would cause delays by working at as slow of a pace as possible. One foreman told me that a crew of 4 Mexicans could hang twice as much drywall in a day. It's not always simply an issue of who will work cheaper, but rather who will work harder.
People that come from other countries tend to work harder because they are used to it. Hard labor and sacrifice are a way of life. Most Americans aren't familiar with this sort of work ethic.

Straker
22-10-2004, 11:28 PM
btw, jd, you just conceded that communism can't work because people aren't willing to think as a collective. well done.

No... never meant that. If I did, why am I not on your side?
What was expected to be taken from my explanation is that communism/socialism/marxism... lets just call what I'm talking about Collectivism... is possible, but it would be very difficult to build up to what is required in order for it to work. I really said the complete opposite of what you said above... don't know where you got that.

o'reilly factor

Bill O'Reilly's a dick. The other night Haz described me as being as left wing as they come. Well, O'Reilly is as right wing as they come, and the great Haz said that an extreme left or right is never good; you must have a balance.

Hard labor and sacrifice are a way of life. Most Americans aren't familiar with this sort of work ethic.

Hmmm... do you think they could become accustomed to self-sacrifice? I hope so. I think so. Hell... that's our goal. ;)

Either way, I will not continue arguing because I don't plan to stand a chance. A situation like this is like a single one of you people at a Michael Moore convention. Don't think you would win any argument there by yourself.

All in all, it appears this board is predominantly right wing. I am greatly disappointed.

apoggy
22-10-2004, 11:47 PM
All in all, it appears this board is predominantly right wing. I am greatly disappointed.

That's because to play on the left wing you need to have good use of your left foot, as most of the population is right footed you therefore see a scewed distribution in favour of right wingers, as opposed to left.

Hazzle
22-10-2004, 11:50 PM
that leads me to a different question, haz, why don't they find a new leader? obviously bush isn't the one pulling the strings, so why can't they replace the puppet?

surely bush's character isn't THAT appealing to the american public?

Err...because Kerry will bring in his own backroom staff. It's the Republican party that find Bush's character appealing...if you want to keep the same backroom staff, sadly it means you keep the puppet. Anyway, he has more charisma than Kerry (not hard), which is really all that matters in a US president (a heck of a lot more than intelligence or integrity...I mean Clinton not only lied, but lied when he KNEW he'd be found out...yet the American public STILL loves him, because he has charm).

mao tse tung - dictatorship. seriously. what you have is a couple of regimes who claim to be communist when they're not. communism has never actually existed.

I choose to look at that SLIGHTLY differently...I prefer to think of Marx's theories as Marxism, and Communism as the fucked up failed attempts to introduce it into the world. Much simpler that way.

Eh... I don't fully agree. I think it has existed, but it's just never lasted. And, "mao tse tung - dictatorship."? Are you comparing dictatorship to communism? If so, you can't. They're not really in the same fields: dictatorship is a form of government, where communism is a form of economy.

Ok...few pointers. Communism is NOT a form of economy. You're mixing up collectivism or centralised economy, both features of Communism, with the POLITICAL movement known as communism which is the flawed human attempts to embrace the SOCIETAL theory known as Marxism. See Marx's theories extended WAY beyond the political, WAY beyond the economical...Marx spoke of totally overhauling society from the start...and ONLY in such an environment can collectivisation work. This is why Communism is a failed concept...it is a POLITICAL movement when it needs to be a social one, and even then it's doubtful any revolution could successfully purge society of greed and selfishness to make collectivisation feasible.

Please don't answer questions you direct at me yourself, Haz.

Clearly the concept of rhetoric escapes you. Shame that.

Let me make it clear that I'm not resigning in the fact that I'm admitting that I'm wrong, and you're right. No sir. I simply don't want to continue a debate with the likes of you.

What, someone better educated, with better grasp of the material and a better ability to argue his point cohesively? Oh well...suppose you're better suited to playground squabbles with people who are impressed by your lexicon. And if you're retiring from the argument, you're retiring the point, and accepting you were wrong...that's the gist of a debate mate.

Actually, I saw little chance of me puting up a good fight with a majority of the population against me. It can't work like that. And if you want to pull me into a flame war, you'll have to do a bit better. ;)

I had no intention to pull YOU into a flame war, only to further agitate discussion...and it seems to have worked...gg me.

you're not fucking john doe are you?
did you just say communism was merely a type of economy?
are you one of those people who believes that 'nazism' is an actual definable term?

I think he'd answer yes to all three. And we all know he'd answer yes to the first two. Sorry, am I putting words into your mouth again?

mao tse tung - he was a dictator, one that the people loved. when you're on the bottom you like to see the people at the top fall (or more specifically, see their heads fall). and china is a friggen hypocrite in the sense that they're opening up their economy to the point where they're more capitalist than communist, but they continue to call themselves a 'communist' state. they're not communists, they just claim to be. it's like how the nazis were a socialist party. of course by 'socialist' they really meant fascist. guess someone forgot to send that memo.

THIS girl knows her stuff.

btw, jd, you just conceded that communism can't work because people aren't willing to think as a collective. well done.

Thank you and goodnight people. JD just got his arse kicked. By a girl no less.

Communism and government will always be intertwined because communism is when the state controls the economy.

This man understands :D

No... never meant that. If I did, why am I not on your side?
What was expected to be taken from my explanation is that communism/socialism/marxism... lets just call what I'm talking about Collectivism... is possible, but it would be very difficult to build up to what is required in order for it to work. I really said the complete opposite of what you said above... don't know where you got that.

There goes JD trying to salvage a bit of pride. You SAID Communism and now you're using three terms that are NOT interchangeable as if they are. Maybe you need to get your own brain in gear when formulating your views so you can present them coherently. And before someone makes a smart alec remark about me engaging my brain before I post, most of my more "immature" posts are intended to be throwaway and flippant...if I make an argument, however, I back it up and am at least consistent throughout.

Bill O'Reilly's a dick. The other night Haz described me as being as left wing as they come. Well, O'Reilly is as right wing as they come, and the great Haz said that an extreme left or right is never good; you must have a balance.

Well if you're trying to say I was RIGHT in saying that...because you're using it to criticise someone of the far right (and quite right too), then you must be conceding Communism (on the far LEFT) is also wrong...must have a BALANCE...such as...democratic socialism? Arrrr...I smell a winner mate.

Either way, I will not continue arguing because I don't plan to stand a chance. A situation like this is like a single one of you people at a Michael Moore convention. Don't think you would win any argument there by yourself.

I beg to differ. In my A-level Politics class I argued against an entire class of lefties...and battered most of them into submission. Unsurprisingly I topped that particular class. So err...try arguing politics with someone else mate. There's no small amount of politics involved in studying law either...I fancy I could hold my own against a bunch of lefties...assuming none of them were, for example, degree or masters students of politics, because I tend to have respect for the professional qualifications of others, and defer to their wisdom in areas they know more about than I do. Try it sometime JD.

FUCK ME this was a long post. Arrr...whenever you get JD and Haz on a thread the essay-length posts NOONE reads flare up. Such is life, eh? :D

bob
23-10-2004, 02:17 AM
since we all love biased opinions and lack of regard for political correctness (well... i do) this place is fun for all who aren't easily offended:

the Spin Starts Here (http://www.spinstartshere.com)

this article was particularly amusing

Bill O'Reilly: Alleged Wanker of the Week 16/10 (http://www.spinstartshere.com/archives/wanker_of_the_week/_bill_oreilly_alleged_wanker_of_the_week_1610.html )

fun times.

Nick
23-10-2004, 05:16 AM
I fancy I could hold my own against a bunch of lefties...assuming none of them were, for example, degree or masters students of politics, because I tend to have respect for the professional qualifications of others, and defer to their wisdom in areas they know more about than I do.

I don't think I agree with you here. I don't have respect for people until they prove their intelligence. Just because someone has a masters degree doesn't mean they're necessarily intelligent. I've met some college students who got there masters degrees and thought they were hot shit when in reality several of them were complete dipshits. So clearly a piece of paper with a professor's signature on it isn't always worth all that much.

Hazzle
23-10-2004, 04:15 PM
I don't think I agree with you here. I don't have respect for people until they prove their intelligence. Just because someone has a masters degree doesn't mean they're necessarily intelligent. I've met some college students who got there masters degrees and thought they were hot shit when in reality several of them were complete dipshits. So clearly a piece of paper with a professor's signature on it isn't always worth all that much.

Did I say it made them more intelligent? I was referring to them having spent several years studying a subject area and thus having more facts to back up their arguments than I do. Y'see I don't accept ANYONE is more intelligent than I am, and since politics is quite a niche subject area for me that I've dedicated a lot of time to, I consider myself second only to a specialist in that area, such as someone who has a degree in said area. It wasn't the standard of the degree, merely the amount of time studying the area I was referring to, since for me politics is a passion, but not my specialist area (that being Law).

So if you like I could just withdraw that statement and say I could kick any lefty into next Tuesday with ease? I was just trying to be humble. <shrugs>

Nick
24-10-2004, 05:33 AM
Y'see I don't accept ANYONE is more intelligent than I am, and since politics is quite a niche subject area for me that I've dedicated a lot of time to, I consider myself second only to a specialist in that area

You sound pretty sure of yourself. I'd like to see what you've got.

So if you like I could just withdraw that statement and say I could kick any lefty into next Tuesday with ease? I was just trying to be humble.

You were trying to be humble!? You sound pretty cocky to me.

Hazzle
24-10-2004, 06:40 PM
You sound pretty sure of yourself. I'd like to see what you've got.

I am, and you will, just give me fuel for my fire ;)

You were trying to be humble!? You sound pretty cocky to me.

Yes, I was trying to be humble. No, that does not mean I AM, just I was trying to BE, by conceding that some people might beat me in a political debate. You, however, pointed out NOONE could beat me in a political debate. Thanks for the vote of confidence. :p

I'm not cocky at all. Cockiness is when you think you know everything, confidence is when you know ;)

Nick
25-10-2004, 07:31 AM
You say you think you're just confident, not cocky. Well there is such a thing as being over confident, it's called arrogance which is pretty much the same as being cocky. So you are definitely a little on the cocky side.

Anyway, what do you say we get back to politics because I'm somewhat left wing so I want to see you try to kick me to next Tuesday.

Hazzle
25-10-2004, 05:23 PM
You say you think you're just confident, not cocky. Well there is such a thing as being over confident, it's called arrogance which is pretty much the same as being cocky. So you are definitely a little on the cocky side.

That would suggest I was OVER confident, rather than having the adequate amount of confidence my intellectual superiority demands. Still, you're entitled to your opinion, but then, what you've proffered isn't an opinion, it's a statement of objective fact. As such, since it's wrong, so are you. And I didn't say I thought I was confident, not cocky, I said I WAS confident, not cocky. It was a statement of fact, not opinion.

Anyway, what do you say we get back to politics because I'm somewhat left wing so I want to see you try to kick me to next Tuesday.

Bit difficult to do when rather than post your political views you've chosen the rather poor tactic of personal insults. Post some of your views, and should I disagree, I'll gladly kick you into next Tuesday. Which is only tomorrow, so it's not that far. How about we call it Saturday?

CFC
25-10-2004, 09:02 PM
You say you think you're just confident, not cocky. Well there is such a thing as being over confident, it's called arrogance which is pretty much the same as being cocky. So you are definitely a little on the cocky side.

Anyway, what do you say we get back to politics because I'm somewhat left wing so I want to see you try to kick me to next Tuesday.

Claiming victory already?

The Black Rider
25-10-2004, 10:00 PM
Bill O'Reilly's a dick. The other night Haz described me as being as left wing as they come. Well, O'Reilly is as right wing as they come, and the great Haz said that an extreme left or right is never good; you must have a balance.

You obviously don't watch the show very often...if ever.

bob
26-10-2004, 01:19 AM
why... are you suggesting that bill o'reilly isn't a dick? cos i reckon that's gonna take some convincing.

Nick
26-10-2004, 06:11 AM
Bit difficult to do when rather than post your political views you've chosen the rather poor tactic of personal insults.

Whoa! You need to lighten up a little. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was just messin' with you. It wasn't supposed to be taken that seriously.

Claiming victory already?

I'm not claiming victory already, I was just presenting my challenge since Hazzle seems so sure about being able to beat any "lefty". If you prefer I could slap Hazzle in the face with a glove and challenge Hazzle to a duel :fencing: .

As for a topic to debate I suppose we could start off with something simple like whether or not the U.S. is really a Democracy, we can move on to a more intricate topic later, this is just to get things started.
I don't think the U.S. is technically a Democracy because in a true Democracy every person has a vote in every matter where in the U.S. it's Congress that really makes all the decisions. For instance if an amendment to the Federal Constitution is to be passed it's Congress that votes on the Amendment, not the American people. So although when it comes to local matters we are a Democracy, when it comes to Federal matters we are more of a Republic than a Democracy.

CFC
26-10-2004, 08:39 PM
We are a Republic, I thought everybody knew that.

True Democracy could not exist in America, then even less would get done.

hasselbrad
26-10-2004, 08:55 PM
We are a Republic, I thought everybody knew that.

True Democracy could not exist in America, then even less would get done.

True. Our founding fathers were much smarter than some give them credit for. Mob rule...er...democracy...isn't very effective. Rule of law prevails, thank God.

The Black Rider
26-10-2004, 10:27 PM
We are a Democratic Republic.

bob
26-10-2004, 11:26 PM
True Democracy could not exist in America, then even less would get done.
true democracy can't really exist anywhere. true of -anything- can't exist anywhere, really.

Hazzle
27-10-2004, 12:58 AM
Yeah...ok...I'm going to deal with this one simply.

There is no "true" democracy. There are two forms of democracy, direct and indirect, otherwise known as representative democracy. When we vote for elected representatives, that is a representative democracy. As such, the United States IS a representative democracy.

However...of more interest is whether the US president is a democratically elected leader. I would argue he is not, since the current president received LESS votes than the loser. I don't think it's essential to have more votes than all one's opponents put together, but I do think it's quite tough to argue a democratic mandate when your rival got more votes than you did, even on a first past the post measuring system.

Oh, and the whole argument that a republican form of government does not mean a democratic form of government is moot. It is true, but that really has no baring on whether the US is a democracy, as it IS possible to be BOTH republican and democratic.

Edit: I didn't actually change it but I did just realise that the last sentence could be misread. I mean republican in the sense of a republican form of government, and democratic in the sense of a democratic form of government, NOT in the sense of the political parties, obviously. Although even then it is possible to be both, if one is a moderate.

Oh, and just to address Nick's idea I took it personally, I didn't...just pointed out it was hard to debate with you if all you're going to do is call me cocky.