3
   

Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

 
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 11:35 pm
Most certainly.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 04:59 am
swolf wrote:
Harper wrote:
Quote:
An American president porking teenage interns in government offices during working hours.


And that would be which American president? I missed out on that one.


What about the one about killing Kathleen Willey's cat and then threatening to kill her children. Did you miss that one as well?



Still wondering about the president who porked teenage interns. Is that Reagan too? Nah, coulodn't be...Viagra wasn't around back then.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 01:09 am
Harper wrote:
swolf wrote:
Harper wrote:
Quote:
An American president porking teenage interns in government offices during working hours.


And that would be which American president? I missed out on that one.


What about the one about killing Kathleen Willey's cat and then threatening to kill her children. Did you miss that one as well?



Still wondering about the president who porked teenage interns. Is that Reagan too? Nah, coulodn't be...Viagra wasn't around back then.


And here comes Harper...

Am I the first to wonder about the veiled avatar, the signature expressing transgender pride, and the contention that Harper is fully immersed in the world of entertainment...

Could it be, Harper is Joan Kusack?

I admit to being uncertain as to what "transgender" specifically means. I am interested in understanding why one might be proud of being a transgender woman. I think I can understand why one might not be ashamed to be a transgender woman, but where does the pride come from?

My understanding of the biological aspect of transgenderism is that it represents, depending upon one's point of view, genetic uncertainty or totality.

Presumably, a decision to make the shift from male to female dispenses with the notion that any shade of hermaphrodity is, in any way, representative of totality.

Therefore we are left with uncertainty.

I can certainly relate to the notion that someone might be proud about their decision to confront the incongruity of their physical and psychological sexuality, but is there reason for pride about becoming the ultimate result?

What is the difference with pride in being a female and pride in being a transgender female? Certainly, the mechanism bringing the individual to the specific state of being is vastly different.

Isn't there something peculiar about a transgender female focusing her identity on the process that brought her to "female" rather than being "female?"

I make no value judgments here, I simply wish to understand.

This is not a phenomenon exclusive to transgenderists.

I have complete sympathy with the notion that those confined to a wheelchair should not be ashamed of their situation,

What I have difficulty with is the notion that one's disability might be a source of pride.

The sexual status of a trangenderist, prior to any intervention could, conceivably, be a source of pride (Again the sexual totality concept), but how is that someone who has made the perfectly understandable decision to move off of the biological fence, and transform themselves into a conventional status, can claim pride in being a somehow different version of the sex they chose to align with?

It seems unlikely that a transgenderist who makes the decision to physically align themselves to a male or female model would want to celebrate the fact that he/she didn't arrive at the the end point through strictly biological means.

Why is not being ashamed of one's irregular status not sufficient?
0 Replies
 
mrcool011
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 01:11 am
moore is a lying scum bag.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:31 am
mrcool011

Quote:
moore is a lying scum bag.


Are you inferring he is as bad as Bush?
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:44 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:


I admit to being uncertain as to what "transgender" specifically means. I am interested in understanding why one might be proud of being a transgender woman. I think I can understand why one might not be ashamed to be a transgender woman, but where does the pride come from?


In the middle ages, I think the term for that would have been "eunuch"...
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:47 am
swolf, crusader, do we live in the Middle Ages?
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:49 am
mrcool011 wrote:
moore is a lying scum bag.


Typical hits from a google search on "Michael Moore"

Quote:


...Hey, I have a "future son-in-law" over there, DUDE. Asshole. I have no - no, absolutely none, can't for the life of me imagine - NO idea where this fat wanker gets his ideas from. Maybe I haven't spent enough time as a coddled, rich, fat piece of s**t[/b]. I'm sure that's it, it's all my fault.

...Back to my point... I HATE MICHAEL MOORE. His bulls**t should not hinder my right to own a handgun and have the ablity to defend my wife and home if need be. He is a liar, a fat piece of s**t[/b], and WILLFULLY deceptive. Let's look at words from the horse's mouth...

...f**k you and f**k michael moore, that douche bag is a piece of s**t liar. All he does is lie to make some money cause hes a fat piece of s**t[/b] with no real job.

...Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us the Brits along with the rest of communest loving Europe can go F**k themselves, As for that fat piece of s**t[/b] Moore If he hates his county so much why the hell doesnt he leave. the french (frogs) would welcome him with open arms.

...First there was disgusting fat piece of s**t[/b] Michael Moore. Today Ted Rall, who has been an America hating low life for several years, tried to top himself and all the other bedwetting leftist. His 'toon was so offensive MSNBC s**t canned it post haste. The human garbage on the left, all Kerry supporters, are tripping over each other to see who can go the furthest in sodomizing Pat Tillaman's corpse.

...# Michael Moore...you no talent, fat piece of s**t[/b]! I can't believe you won an Oscar for capitalizing on someone else's misery. Quit using my oxygen!!! # Jesse Jackson # Jane Fonda # Barry Bonds

...This fat piece of s**t[/b] dared to make light about the terrorism of 9/11/01. This fat f**k who hides behind a camera actually had the balls (although I don't think a pussy like him actually has balls) to say places that voted for Bush should have been the targets for terrorism, not places that voted for gore. This fat piece of s**t[/b] needs to be arrested for treason, or at least for poor judgement. If there is a God, this disgusting obese pile of horse s**t will eventually explode, hopefully he'll explode in an area that voted for gore. FAT f**kING PIECE OF DISGUSTING s**t.


Somehow or other, I get the impression that Americans don't like this guy as much as the french do...


http://www.uwm.edu/~picmack/mm.jpg

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life...
(Dean Wormer)
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:50 am
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
swolf, crusader, do we live in the Middle Ages?


No, but a lot of our adversaries do. Why?
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:51 am
Just wondering if you were a fan of the Middle Ages.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:58 am
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Just wondering if you were a fan of the Middle Ages.


I am something of an amateur historian. I'd not want to live in the middle ages for any particular reason, nonetheless the 1200s are interesting. The modern age was set into motion by the Mongols reopening the trade routes between China and Europe.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 09:11 am
Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous

By MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.

"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."

Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.

"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."

Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.

More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.

When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.

"You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."

Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.

"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."





Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11" hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.

"Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life," O'Brien said. "This goes back a long way."

In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.

"I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job," the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them."

Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.

"We didn't even stay to see the whole thing," Campbell said. "It was one-sided."

Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July," he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks."

Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.

"In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?" Mahaffey said.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 10:05 am
This morning, Moore called into the Howard Stern show to spout his rhetoric. I wasn't able to cathch his whole interview, but one statement he made caught my attention.

He was speaking about the war in afghanistan and made a comment regarding the number of troops we sent being less than the number we have in manhatten or something.

To me this was another example of his "truth stretching". It is my understanding that in order to support a certain number of troops, there must be ways of transporting fuel, food, water, ammo, etc. Afghanistan did not, and still does not have the infrastructure available to support huge numbers of troops. Because of this, our military commanders (who I trust to do the best for their men under circumstances beyond their control) decided what numbers we would be able to support and used that force.

Moore, I assume, knows this but doesn't mention this because it doesn't support his arguement.

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents on that.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 10:19 am
Whoa there, McG...

I didn't catch Moore on Stern this morning (slept later than usual), but I think he might have been talking about something that was brought up in the movie.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we sent less troops (or roughly the same number of troops) to fight the war in Afghanistan as we have police officers in NY (or NYC). The number is somewhere around 10k or so. If that's true, it truly is a disturbing point.

As for your comment about the "infrastructure" thing, I'm gonna have to call baloney on that one. If we wanted to, we could easily support a contingent of 70k-100k troops in Afghanistan. The strongest, most powerful army in the world is not going to be deterred by a lack of "infrastructure". Its fully possible.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 10:24 am
McGentrix
I have no idea what Moore said. However, it is a fact that Bush foolishly stripped, men material and funds from Afghanistan to support his war in Iraq. If he hadn't we by this time would have been rid of Bin Ladin. I would suspect that was the tone of the Moore discussion
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 12:25 pm
au1929 wrote:
McGentrix
I have no idea what Moore said. However, it is a fact that Bush foolishly stripped, men material and funds from Afghanistan to support his war in Iraq. If he hadn't we by this time would have been rid of Bin Ladin. I would suspect that was the tone of the Moore discussion


Granted we have to proceed for the next twenty years as if binLaden was alive, the overwhelming likelihood is that he bought it (got vaporized) at ToraBora.

As to numbers of American troops appropriate for Afghanistan, there's no comparing Afghanistan and Iraq. All that was required for Afghanistan was special forces and bombers; the ground war there was between the talibangers and other indigenous forces.

There's no way I'd want large numbers of American soldiers in central Asia, for anything or any purpose. There's no rational reason for it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 12:29 pm
JustanObserver wrote:
Whoa there, McG...

I didn't catch Moore on Stern this morning (slept later than usual), but I think he might have been talking about something that was brought up in the movie.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we sent less troops (or roughly the same number of troops) to fight the war in Afghanistan as we have police officers in NY (or NYC). The number is somewhere around 10k or so. If that's true, it truly is a disturbing point.

As for your comment about the "infrastructure" thing, I'm gonna have to call baloney on that one. If we wanted to, we could easily support a contingent of 70k-100k troops in Afghanistan. The strongest, most powerful army in the world is not going to be deterred by a lack of "infrastructure". Its fully possible.



Obviously neither of us have any military logistics expertise. That's why I trust the military commanders who have military logistics expertise to be able to perform their jobs.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 12:59 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Obviously neither of us have any military logistics expertise. That's why I trust the military commanders who have military logistics expertise to be able to perform their jobs.


True indeed. We'll just both have to step away from that one Smile

Well, I'll rephrase it. I suppose its our opinion that you feel that way, and I feel the other, and we'll leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:29 pm
Good article, au. And, yes, this is the Gallup poll I have been talking about. It's very bad news for the Republicans.

Quote:
A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.

More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.


And this, IMO, is even worse.

Quote:
"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.


Who would have guessed the movie would attract such a huge audience, much less so many Republicans and undecideds? Even I'm surprised and I've been very lonely around here predicting the demise of Bush and his administration. I'm so encouraged, I feel gleeful. I think the rapidly changing attitude of the American voter has been eroding so significantly and so rapidly that the atmosphere is just right for the full reception and attention of a large number of voters.

Who was it said this movie would hurt our cause rather than help? I still think they're wrong.

As far as McG's example of "a stretching of the truth" goes..........McG, you're stretching for examples, I'd say. What Moore said is that there are more police officers in NYC (and it may have been Manhattan) than were sent to Afghanistan. Justanobserver is correct. And I agree with au......Moore used this as an example of the fact that Bush and his men aren't really as intent on fighting terrorism as they are in lining their own pockets. Do you know the the Bushes and other Carlyle Group people are getting very rich with all this. And now we have control of the oil in Iraq. All the more oil to pollute the environment with.

Moore is right, this has been an unnecessary war. And Clark is correct, it's distracted us from truly making the world safe from terrorism. It's a shame Bush and the neocons have managed to put us at such a huge disadvantage.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 06:43 pm
Lola wrote:
As far as McG's example of "a stretching of the truth" goes..........McG, you're stretching for examples, I'd say. What Moore said is that there are more police officers in NYC (and it may have been Manhattan) than were sent to Afghanistan. Justanobserver is correct. And I agree with au......Moore used this as an example of the fact that Bush and his men aren't really as intent on fighting terrorism as they are in lining their own pockets. Do you know the the Bushes and other Carlyle Group people are getting very rich with all this. And now we have control of the oil in Iraq. All the more oil to pollute the environment with.


... Exclamation I don't even know where to begin here. I guess I'll get a shovel and dig in.

What Moore said is that there are more police officers in NYC (and it may have been Manhattan) than were sent to Afghanistan. Justanobserver is correct.

Obviously the number of troops we sent were enough as the war in Afghanistan was a glaring success. The Taliban are no longer in power and al Qaeda no longer has a safe haven near the middle east. 10, 20, or even 30,000 more troops would not have mattered and it would only have placed more troops at risk than neccesary.

Moore used this as an example of the fact that Bush and his men aren't really as intent on fighting terrorism as they are in lining their own pockets.

Yeah, I'm just have to call BS on this whole statement. The Bush administration has been FAR more diligent and intent on fighting terrorism than any administration before. As far as lining their own pockets, shame on you for believing the propaganda.

Do you know the the Bushes and other Carlyle Group people are getting very rich with all this. And now we have control of the oil in Iraq. All the more oil to pollute the environment with.

Rolling Eyes Again with the propaganda... Moore has brainwashed you well. He should be proud of his achievements.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Michael Moore's October Surprise?! - Question by tsarstepan
Michael Moore on the Election - Discussion by edgarblythe
Moore on Obama - Discussion by edgarblythe
Slacker uprising - Discussion by ehBeth
Bowling for Obama - Discussion by nicole415
Michael Moore: Dems Are 'Wimps and Losers' - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/18/2020 at 07:33:39