Michael Moore - Stupid Fat White Man?

[Sprafa]

I'm really sorry to Necromance this, but Michael Moore is a ****ing genius. Either that or he's incredibly lucky. You're all living proof of it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern, you have yet to tackle Kopel's points. You seem quite content to attack his character however.

 

[ishootfools]

martha Stewart = innocent

Michael Moore = the way he dresses makes him look like a food junkie or sumthin lol

Luckily I voted for Bush!!!!

 

[Calanen]

Moore is an entertainer chomsky is an academic ..in this the right falters ...you can debate emotion but you cant debate the facts ...just as in this forum ..you'll all rally around the emotional threads about the spread of democracy or the horror of terrorism yet when confronted with facts this place becomes a right-wing ghost town ...case in point: this piece of evidence scares the beejebus out of most of you
__________________
If they come to ethnically cleanse me will you speak out? Will you defend me? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright. Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right.
- Ich bin ein Auslander

I don't agree with Chomsky and a lot of what he has to say. Nor many of the left. But Chomsky is a very different thing to Moore.

Younger people's places and generally speaking in public, the place becomes a 'ghost town of the right'. Not because people do not hold their beliefs. But because it is futile to argue with those that oppose them. Left wing people I generally find to become far more hostile and agitated and are more open to expressing strongly their views, sometimes extreme, in public and freak out when challenged. When I go out to dinner, I don't want to have the 'Bush is a murderer' argument with the wife of one of the clients I am entertaining. It goes through to the keeper as they say. Doesn't mean I am 'scared' of the argument. Just that it is pointless to have it.

The central plank of all of your reasoning that I can understand is that Centcom blew up water treatment plants during the First Gulf War. And you say that this killed 500,000 Iraqi children through disease from contaminated drinking water. And this gets a run to stop whatever the US is doing. On whatever basis, Whatever we are debating you wheel out the water treatment plants and say well its all bs because Centcom blew up the water treatment plans in Gulf War I.

A) If they blew them up it was a war. You blow stuff up in wars. You can't fight a sensitive and delicate war that does not. Would I have ordered it? Don't know. But if it meant that troops fighting us were not going to get water re-supplied easily, yes I would. No water to drink paralyses the army of an opposing force or stretches their supply lines. If you start saying, hmm the kids drink the water too, and maybe if we bomb them Saddam may not fix them for 12 years or so, so better not. You will lose the war. But you want the USA to lose wars Stern. So it makes perfect sense.

Thats why the USA lost in Vietnam, because they so often fought the delicate and sensitive war by not wanting to bomb Hanoi as much as they should have.

B) Who knows the true figure of Iraqis killed by sanctions. But many more were killed by Saddam pocketing the wealth of the nation, and the world sanctions were the convenient scapegoat to hide his thievery of the Iraqi treasury. We will get not the true figures on leftist websites. The *billions* stolen by Saddam would have paid for water to be trucked into Iraq. Could have paid for a lot of medical treatment - as could the many thousands of monuments, palaces, and grandiose extravagance Saddam made sure that he had while the people suffered. The corruption in the oil for food program could have fixed the water treatment plant. Hell they even had the oil smuggling down pat to get the parts. If it was the USA that blew it up, it was Saddam who did not ever try and fix the problem. And he could have done so easily. How could the USA fix the water treatement plant as long as Saddam was in power? They expected he would collapse after the invasion of Kuwait. In addition, Saddam does not need the help of the USA to deprive people of water. Look at how he drained the marshes of the Marsh Arabs.

And I hate sanctions, but they are all that most democracies will let their govts do - wont let them send in the troops. Right Stern? I would have preferred if they got rid of Saddam back in 92. 'Give sanctions a chance!' is what is so often said....but I think that sanctions just hurt those who do not make the decisions they were designed to stop.

The USA propped Saddam up so they should not stop him now? I disagree that this is true, but even if it was, that would to my mind mean they had a moral duty to do everything they could to stop him. Not say, hmm we created this problem let it continue forever.

And you say, that when the facts come out the right runs? Look at you running from what Dave Kopel had to say...... and just dismissing him as an ideologue of the right so you don't need to deal with anything he has to say?. You don't like it when people are as dismissive of you Stern, or of any of your heroes. But you are equally dismissive of 'facts' sent your way which do not fit with your world view - which is 'America Evil, Moore is a Legend.'

In addition, pointing to alleged inaccuracies or lies on the part of the US govt is not an adequate response to those levelled at Moore. When you are accused of something in court, you don't get to say 'I lied under oath you honour, but let me show you where some other people did too!'

Originally Posted by Calanen
So there are no reasonable people who are pro-gun advocates, nor any reasonable people who are Republicans. Pretty bold statemtn to make?

So just by being proi-gun, or in the Republican party, a person is without reason?

dont twist my words calanen as your so oft to do. Of course there are reasonable republicans but that's not my point. Kopel has an agenda to push in discrediting moore because of his pro-gun stance ..he makes a living off of it:

I did not twist your words. I took their plain meaning. You said

' Dave kopel pro-gun advocate and staunch republican ..ya the voice of reason'

not Dave Kopel - the voice of reason.Or just Dave Kopel is a nutcase. But to give an example to the Lefties, see he's nuts, he must be people, he's a REPUBLICAN!

So then you give the fanclub two examples of why he must not be 'the voice of reason' these being: 1) Support for the Republican Party; and 2) Support for Guns. So I just, called you out for saying that a person is clearly not without reason because they were pro-gun and Republican. I did not twist your words, you have twisted your own to try and recant what was their clear intended meaning when they were first expressed.

How about we change it to 'Dave Kopel, a black American from East LA...yay the voice of reason...' or Dave Kopel......transgender dress wearer...yay the voice of reason....' See Stern - the decriptive terms in front of the sarcastic remark are designed to try and belittle the integrity of the source - that is their intended meaning. And you are doing Chubby Checker's the Twist now to say er, no, no........ when that it is clear to everyone, but you, that this is what you meant.

 

[Calanen]

I'm really sorry to Necromance this, but Michael Moore is a ****ing genius. Either that or he's incredibly lucky. You're all living proof of it.

Genius might be going too far, but he is definitely a smart guy.I sometimes wonder whether if Moore really believes what he says, or whether its all just a clever ruse to make money, and he is quietly at home in his palace in New York smoking Cubans and laughing at the left who supports him.

I don't like Michael Moore's agenda or his political views. But I do say that he is very good at getting his message across, to the masses. Sound bytes - simple concepts, few facts, use of humour. A good film-maker and entertainer, for sure/

I liked his show the Awful Truth btw. I thought it was hilarious sometimes. I even agreed with Moore about some of the things he said, like the outrageous treatment of the sick and injured if you do not have medical insurance. America is going to have to smash the drug companies and HMOs, at some point - it just has to. The USA will have more civil disorder if it does not bring medical care to everyone who needs it. I knew myself, as a relatively high earner in the states, that I really thought twice about going to the doctor or the dentist, and often 'toughed it out'.

But I will say where I disagree with what he says. And I hate it when he makes stuff up to serve the 'greater good' which is anti-USA, anti-conservatism.'

 

[Sprafa]

Genius might be going too far, but he is definitely a smart guy.I sometimes wonder whether if Moore really believes what he says, or whether its all just a clever ruse to make money, and he is quietly at home in his palace in New York smoking Cubans and laughing at the left who supports him.

I don't like Michael Moore's agenda or his political views. But I do say that he is very good at getting his message across, to the masses. Sound bytes - simple concepts, few facts, use of humour. A good film-maker and entertainer, for sure/

Well, exactly my point. Not only does he BS you and you don't even think about doubting it (you're entertained!) he also keeps a healthy fanbase while smoking his Cubans in his New York mansion. You've got to be pretty smart to do all that.

I liked his show the Awful Truth btw. I thought it was hilarious sometimes. I even agreed with Moore about some of the things he said, like the outrageous treatment of the sick and injured if you do not have medical insurance. America is going to have to smash the drug companies and HMOs, at some point - it just has to. The USA will have more civil disorder if it does not bring medical care to everyone who needs it. I knew myself, as a relatively high earner in the states, that I really thought twice about going to the doctor or the dentist, and often 'toughed it out'.

But I will say where I disagree with what he says. And I hate it when he makes stuff up to serve the 'greater good' which is anti-conservatism.

Anti-USA is pushing it. Conservators don't hold the USA entirely. If he wants to question them, I'd say it's a lot more pro-USA, due to the American Dream of freedom of thought and questioning.

 

[jondy]

Genius might be going too far, but he is definitely a smart guy.I sometimes wonder whether if Moore really believes what he says, or whether its all just a clever ruse to make money, and he is quietly at home in his palace in New York smoking Cubans and laughing at the left who supports him.

I don't like Michael Moore's agenda or his political views. But I do say that he is very good at getting his message across, to the masses. Sound bytes - simple concepts, few facts, use of humour. A good film-maker and entertainer, for sure/

I liked his show the Awful Truth btw. I thought it was hilarious sometimes. I even agreed with Moore about some of the things he said, like the outrageous treatment of the sick and injured if you do not have medical insurance. America is going to have to smash the drug companies and HMOs, at some point - it just has to. The USA will have more civil disorder if it does not bring medical care to everyone who needs it. I knew myself, as a relatively high earner in the states, that I really thought twice about going to the doctor or the dentist, and often 'toughed it out'.

It's good to hear you say that, Calanen, it's nice to know you can respect some of the points he makes even though he's on the loony left

 

[Calanen]

It's good to hear you say that, Calanen, it's nice to know you can respect some of the points he makes even though he's on the loony left

I agree with what some of Chomsky says too. Just not everything heh....

 

[firemachine69]

Watch farenHYPE 9/11. It's quite sad that half of Moore's movie is completely unfactual. Pipeline, anyone? He loves bashing Bush, and he will BS just to make himself feel better.


He's just a dam hypocrit, honestly. He bashes guns to hell and back, yet somehow is ok with two armed body guards?


Seriously, he's no better then political BSers.

 

[jondy]

He bashes guns to hell and back, yet somehow is ok with two armed body guards?

He might be protecting himself from the people that think having a self-defence firearm is just another form of insurance :O

 

[firemachine69]

Key word:

self-defense.


Other forms of defense for non-gun supporters:

Ballistic armour.

Seriously. I know how to take care of VIPs when time comes. And I have squat (other then a pair of cuff, zipties, multi-tool and a double AA maglight) to do my job.

 

[Absinthe]

Watch farenHYPE 9/11.

It's interesting that you condemn Michael Moore for innacuracies and lying, and yet you reccomend a film that employs the same.

 

[jondy]

Key word: self-defense.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that being pro-gun means more likely to shoot people. Which is pretty much irrefutable.

 

[firemachine69]

No, it means supporting one's self or others through another form of self defence. It does not equal to shooting people. It's purpose is a form of preventative fear. A usually violent man may not feel secure about aggressing certain people whom *may* be carrying, in the case of concealed weapons, or even if they are visible, he'll think twice if he remotely cares about his bodily health. If he doesn't, well then, he's got some serious mental issues. This does not apply to military situations (friend brought up that point). This only applies to someone thinking about bullying innocent people.


If people get shot, that's unfortunate, but 99% of the time, they deserve it.

Another person who mis-understands, wonderful. :stare:

It's interesting that you condemn Michael Moore for innacuracies and lying, and yet you reccomend a film that employs the same.

Not at all, the ENTIRE purpose of that movie was just to verify the facts and disprove them. Nothing but that. It introduced ZERO new elements. Just counter-arguments to Moore. Have you even watched it, or are you sprouting off again?

 

[Absinthe]

Not at all, the ENTIRE purpose of that movie was just to verify the facts and disprove them. Nothing but that. It introduced ZERO new elements. Just counter-arguments to Moore. Have you even watched it, or are you sprouting off again?

Yes, I have seen it. And what I saw was mish-mash of half-truths and selective facts in order to make a poit. It's no different than any Moore film.

 

[jondy]

No, it means supporting one's self or others through another form of self defence. It does not equal to shooting people. It's purpose is a form of preventative fear. A usually violent man may not feel secure about aggressing certain people whom *may* be carrying, in the case of concealed weapons, or even if they are visible, he'll think twice if he remotely cares about his bodily health. If he doesn't, well then, he's got some serious mental issues. This does not apply to military situations (friend brought up that point). This only applies to someone thinking about bullying innocent people.


If people get shot, that's unfortunate, but 99% of the time, they deserve it.

Another person who mis-understands, wonderful. :stare:

I don't misunderstand; I just think it's a pretty ****ing expensive form of insurance. That is, if you put a worth on human life.

"A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present."

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

As for the criminal getting shot, it's statistically more likely that the criminal will turn the gun on the homeowner.

 

[Bodacious]

I don't misunderstand; I just think it's a pretty ****ing expensive form of insurance. That is, if you put a worth on human life.

"A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present."

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

As for the criminal getting shot, it's statistically more likely that the criminal will turn the gun on the homeowner.

Those are risks I am willing to take.

I would rather have a gun and nothing ever happen then not have a gun and be unprepared when something does happen.

 

[GhostFox]

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present."

You have to take those statistics with a grain of salt too. Let's be honest. Who is most likely to have a gun in their home? I'm going to go with people who want it for murder/suicide. So they skew the statistics when dealing with Joe Suburbia and the .38 he keeps in his drawer beneath a tiffany lamp.

 

[Calanen]

I've said a few times I am ambivalent to the whole gun thing. In Australia they got rid of all guns for everyone, maybe 1995? I think. You can still own an old bolt action rifle if you are a farmer. Or maybe an olympic biathlon guy. But its almost impossible. Of course, the criminals still have them - this was just another law they could ignore.

Just tonight, I am awake now, because I thought someone was breaking in by coming in through a window. Turns out it was just the idiots next door having lost there key to the common area and came home too late. But when I woke up, and worked out what was going on - ie someone is coming through the window....I thought, hell, (and it sounded like two guys) what am I going to do - and there is only one door the separates me from them. I thought, wrongly, that they were coming in from the roof and about to appear on the other side of that door by jumping down the access whole. And then I head thump, thump, as they did jump down from somewhere. But it was the other side of another door. All made sense though. And I thought to myself, if these guys come in here, I have no weapons at all, so they can kill me and there is not a thing I can do about it. The lady downstairs said that heroin addicts had broken in a few times. People with nothing to lose.

Im reasonably tough, but two guys against me - not good odds.

People will say - call the police. The police if they did bother to come, would come in an hour or so and take some photos of my corpse. If I did have a gun (and yes I know how to use one) I would have had it handy. I would not have charged out and shot them both, nor randomly fired into the dark or anything ridiculous like that. But it certainly would have evened the odds had they attacked me. And certainly once they were in my house, (if they came through the next door) they had no business being there.

And thats the rub with gunlaws. It is in the interests of the state for you to die in that situation rather than have a gun to defend yourself. The state wants as few guns as possible, because it is more difficult to impose law and order, it thinks if any citizens have guns. There are some pretty significant statistics on how many firearms are used in self-defence legitimately in the United States :

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

This study cites pther studies which show 700,000 to 1 million defensive gun uses in the United States per year, and even in the Land Of Glorious Milk and Honey, Canada, 70,000 - 80,000 defensive gun uses per year.

A lot of people who defended themselves, with guns, would now be dead without them. And not in the USA, but in most other places (including Australia) that suits the government fine if you are dead and killed by an intruder. One ant stepped on in the colony, is far better than anyone but the soldier ants having weapons.

My interests, diverge from the state's however. I don't want to be the ant that is stepped on for the greater good. But then again, in this society at least, I will not be owning a gun.

 

[jondy]

Those are risks I am willing to take.

I would rather have a gun and nothing ever happen then not have a gun and be unprepared when something does happen.

Hey, it's your life. If you want to have an increased chance of death by hot lead, it's your call, buddy. Doesn't make it sensible tho'

 

[CptStern]

How could the USA fix the water treatement plant as long as Saddam was in power?

:upstare:

Rep. Tony P. Hall:

"Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death," Hall wrote. Of the 18 contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. Government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment.

"...I support the Administration's decision to maintain sanctions on Iraq," he added. "However, in the absence of compelling security information, I cannot in good conscience back a policy of contract holds that inflicts so much suffering on innocent people."



ya I can see how they were actively trying to rebuild the water treatment plants

They expected he would collapse after the invasion of Kuwait. In addition, Saddam does not need the help of the USA to deprive people of water. Look at how he drained the marshes of the Marsh Arabs.

not water, CLEAN water

"...I support the Administration's decision to maintain sanctions on Iraq," he added. "However, in the absence of compelling security information, I cannot in good conscience back a policy of contract holds that inflicts so much suffering on innocent people."

you cannot evade this

And I hate sanctions, but they are all that most democracies will let their govts do - wont let them send in the troops. Right Stern? I would have preferred if they got rid of Saddam back in 92. 'Give sanctions a chance!' is what is so often said....but I think that sanctions just hurt those who do not make the decisions they were designed to stop.

maybe if the US hadnt propped him up this wouldnt have haoppened ..the US is directly responsible for saddams rise and consolidation of power

The USA propped Saddam up so they should not stop him now? I disagree that this is true, but even if it was, that would to my mind mean they had a moral duty to do everything they could to stop him. Not say, hmm we created this problem let it continue forever.

oh but when the US had the chance, when Iran wanted to bring a resolution condemning saddam for crimes against humanity the US VETOED the vote. Propaganda bullshit, you just cant see it because you dont want to see it

And you say, that when the facts come out the right runs?

ok, here's your chance to shine ...go ahead answer this

Look at you running from what Dave Kopel had to say...... and just dismissing him as an ideologue of the right so you don't need to deal with anything he has to say?. You don't like it when people are as dismissive of you Stern, or of any of your heroes. But you are equally dismissive of 'facts' sent your way which do not fit with your world view - which is 'America Evil, Moore is a Legend.'

sig calanen you just love to put words into my mouth ..I gave you very valid reasons why I choose not to listen to Kopel ..probably much in the same way you've dismissed moore ..he has an agenda to push, he is a career pro-gun activist, he makes his living out of it ..of course he's going to attack moore...he threats his very livelihood

In addition, pointing to alleged inaccuracies or lies on the part of the US govt is not an adequate response to those levelled at Moore. When you are accused of something in court, you don't get to say 'I lied under oath you honour, but let me show you where some other people did too!'

you keep pushing this as if I've stated Moore is completely accurate, when I've never claimed that ..weak calanen ..you keep putting words in my mouth

I did not twist your words. I took their plain meaning. You said

' Dave kopel pro-gun advocate and staunch republican ..ya the voice of reason'

not Dave Kopel - the voice of reason.Or just Dave Kopel is a nutcase. But to give an example to the Lefties, see he's nuts, he must be people, he's a REPUBLICAN!

:upstare: putting words in my mouth is like an obsession to you ..I never said republicans are crazy, in fact I said some where reasonable. You're a hate-monger calanen and a rabid watchdog for pro-conservatism