TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Michael Moore slams Bush on fictitious war
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Why do you think anyone is michael moore fan , unless that would make it easier for you to label everyone whose point you don't like. Michael Moore is not an issue here, but that lying , cruel incoherent twit sitting in the white house that is about to throw entire planet to perpetual warfare of colonialism and terrorism. Yes american troops that are dropping bombs right now on iraqis are terrorists. Every action has a reaction and what bush is doing to the iraqis today will be done to some innocent americans tommorow. Iraqis deserve to choose their own destiny on their own, without interference from anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Why do you think anyone is michael moore fan , unless that would make it easier for you to label everyone whose point you don't like. Michael Moore is not an issue here, but that lying , cruel incoherent twit sitting in the white house that is about to throw entire planet to perpetual warfare of colonialism and terrorism. Yes american troops that are dropping bombs right now on iraqis are terrorists. Every action has a reaction and what bush is doing to the iraqis today will be done to some innocent americans tommorow. Iraqis deserve to choose their own destiny on their own, without interference from anyone.

I don't dislike anybody here. And everybody has a valid point one way or the other. What makes you think that I thought different? I'm just saying that a lot of people are voicing their support for Michael Moore's comments during the Oscar's. And I'm contrasting his statements with what is evident in the making of his documentary and I find that there is some hypocrisy in his comments. Perhaps his message is altruistic but I find his methods anything but. I mean you can shift the argument to bush all you want, I don't mind. I was just wondering what everyone else's opinion on the matter was.

With regards to your last statement, do you think the Iraqis currentely have the ability to choose their destiny under Saddam Hussein?

Man, everyone booed his ass because people didn't go to the Oscars to hear some fat, ignorant douchebag spout off about how "OMG BUSH STOLE TEH PRESIDENCY LOL!!!". No, they came to congratulate themselves and their shitty movies in a self-rightous way. What gives Micheal Moore more of a right than anyone else to say anything?


Also, he was so crass about it as well. Atleast the 10 or so other war references were nice and subtle. I will listen to their anti-war statements but not to some loud-mouthed ******.

[QUOTE]I don't dislike anybody here. And everybody has a valid point one way or the other. What makes you think that I thought different? I'm just saying that a lot of people are voicing their support for Michael Moore's comments during the Oscar's. And I'm contrasting his statements with what is evident in the making of his documentary and I find that there is some hypocrisy in his comments. Perhaps his message is altruistic but I find his methods anything but. I mean you can shift the argument to bush all you want, I don't mind. I was just wondering what everyone else's opinion on the matter was.

With regards to your last statement, do you think the Iraqis currentely have the ability to choose their destiny under Saddam Hussein?


For your issues with moore you might really want to talk with someone who is a professed moore specialist so to speak. I am not that familiar with him although I've seen him speak on tv couple of times. He might be over the top and predictable but he was able to provide voice that is needed in these times. In the grand scheme of things he is just a fat disgruntled guy but he has voice and he has nothing to lose by using it.
As far as your question with the iraqies and Saddam, yes they have a choice to live with him or assassinate him and choose their destiny as I understand that's how most of the regime changes happened so far in that region. Thing is you can't force democracy on people, they choose it of their own will but democracy is far from perfect as we can see with the current US administration

quote:

Originally posted by erdega As far as your question with the iraqies and Saddam, yes they have a choice to live with him or assassinate him and choose their destiny as I understand that's how most of the regime changes happened so far in that region. Thing is you can't force democracy on people, they choose it of their own will but democracy is far from perfect as we can see with the current US administration

Haha but your choices of picking a new leader shouldn't be limited to assassination. You sound as if I could just shoot bush in the head if I disliked him and escape with my life. Actually few assassinations are carried out by the will of the people. Typically it's a putsch or a junta that would put a similar dictatorship in place with few concessions to the people. Democracy is difficult but surely it provides for a better life for Iraqis than an oppressive dictatorship. Also what differentiates the US democracy from any other democracy? Britain, France, Australia, etc. all rely on similar methods to elect leaders to represent constituents.

Haha but your choices of picking a new leader shouldn't be limited to assassination. You sound as if I could just shoot bush in the head if I disliked him and escape with my life. Actually few assassinations are carried out by the will of the people. Typically it's a putsch or a junta that would put a similar dictatorship in place with few concessions to the people. Democracy is difficult but surely it provides for a better life for Iraqis than an oppressive dictatorship. Also what differentiates the US democracy from any other democracy? Britain, France, Australia, etc. all rely on similar methods to elect leaders to represent constituents.[QUOTE]

I didn't suggest that they have a choice between choosing their leaders, Saddam is more like president for life, self-styled king. Absolute rulers fear their people though and they are always on the lookout. In that region every leader is preaty much selected not elected and I wasn't arguing against democracy I was arguing that democracy comes from the people themselves it can never be imported.

quote:

Originally posted by erdega I didn't suggest that they have a choice between choosing their leaders, Saddam is more like president for life, self-styled king. Absolute rulers fear their people though and they are always on the lookout. In that region every leader is preaty much selected not elected and I wasn't arguing against democracy I was arguing that democracy comes from the people themselves it can never be imported.

With Saddam's case I don't know if he fears his own people as much as his people fear him. It seems he has a Stalinesk system of control set up such that he never relinquishes power or let's it consolidate elsehwere to maintain a firm grasp. His method of retaining that power is to systematically terrorize the population into obedience. Can democracy be imported? I think so ... Japan is one example of an authoritarian regime being converted to a democracy. I'm not too familiar with Serbian politics but couldn't milosevic be characterized as a dictatorship like regime that was converted to a democracy? Tito would likely know better. I just think that there are easier transitions to a democracy rather than bloody revolutions.

well,,...freedom of speech is great, so here i go.

Michael Moore is a obese fat fuck. Not only a discrace to society, in which there is a growing # of obese people, but also a discrace to film makers worldwide.

Serves him right for getting booed, by just about everybody

guess what people, perception is REALITY. Most people DO support USA's action, and do not hate Pres. Bush.

as for the Teamsters helping Moore into the limo,...



.

>JM<

quote:

guess what people, perception is REALITY. Most people DO support USA's action, and do not hate Pres. Bush.

Now that is just plain naieve, if by most people you are refering to global public opinion.

If you are refering to american public opinion maybe you are right. Although the fact that he needed to cheat to win speaks volumes about how much politicians really value what the voters think.

Maybe so many americans dont bother to vote because they know it is a farce because the politician with the most money and the greatest hunger for power will cheat anyway. Kennedy cheated to beat Nixon and then Nixon cheated in 1968 so Bush isnt Robinson Cruso.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider With Saddam's case I don't know if he fears his own people as much as his people fear him. It seems he has a Stalinesk system of control set up such that he never relinquishes power or let's it consolidate elsehwere to maintain a firm grasp. His method of retaining that power is to systematically terrorize the population into obedience. Can democracy be imported? I think so ... Japan is one example of an authoritarian regime being converted to a democracy. I'm not too familiar with Serbian politics but couldn't milosevic be characterized as a dictatorship like regime that was converted to a democracy? Tito would likely know better. I just think that there are easier transitions to a democracy rather than bloody revolutions.

Yes, Milosevic's regime had many characteristics of a dictatorship. Although I think Saddam's regime is more oppressive. In Serbia they did have several opposition parties, although they were often pressured and threatened. Also, Milosevic's generals weren't as obedient as Saddam's. When he lost the elections, he ordered his generals to send the troops to the streets, but they refused.

question @ tito: Would Milosevic still be in power had the US not attacked ?

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Now that is just plain naieve, if by most people you are refering to global public opinion. If you are refering to american public opinion maybe you are right. Although the fact that he needed to cheat to win speaks volumes about how much politicians really value what the voters think. Maybe so many americans dont bother to vote because they know it is a farce because the politician with the most money and the greatest hunger for power will cheat anyway. Kennedy cheated to beat Nixon and then Nixon cheated in 1968 so Bush isnt Robinson Cruso.

American public opinion: Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq Bush approval up 13 points to 71% http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030324.asp

British public opinion: The 15-point swing in public opinion recorded by the ICM survey means that there is now a clear majority, 54%, who back military action, after a sharp rise from 38% just a week ago. The results represent a sudden and widespread shift in public mood in Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,921381,00.html

Australian public opinion: In the first Australia-wide poll since war began in Iraq, slightly more Australian electors disapprove (48.5%) than approve (46.5%) Australia being part of an American military force to depose Saddam Hussein. Five percent of Australian electors are undecided.

However a majority of Australian electors (51.5%) approve of the US using military force to depose Saddam Hussein, 41% disapprove and 7.5% remain undecided, a special Morgan Poll finds.
http://www.roymorgan.com.au/index.c...00560&docType=1

Let's not limit our discussion to just americans ...

Re: Michael Moore slams Bush on fictitious war

quote:

Originally posted by erdega I watched this and it was a great and only interesting moment of the night Michael Moore booed as he slams Iraq war at Oscars 56 minutes ago HOLLYWOOD (AFP) - Famed US documentary maker Michael Moore (news) used his win of an Oscar to launch a violent attack on US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and war in Iraq (news - web sites) amid loud boos from the audience. AFP Photo "We live in fictitious times," he said when picking up the award for best documentary for his anti-gun film "Bowling for Columbine." "We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. "We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars. When he went backstage at Hollywood's Kodak Theatre to face reporters, Moore was unapologetic for his outburst. "I'm an American, and you don't leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theater. What's great about this country is that you can speak your mind," he said. He said that, far from being appalled, many people in the audience stood up to applaud him. "I say tonight I put America in a good light," he said praising the decision to push ahead with the Oscars (news - web sites) despite the war raging in the Middle East. "I showed how vital it is to have free speech in our country and all Americans have the right to stand up for what they believe in," he said.

Best damn oscar speech of all time. Micheal Moore is the man. Shame on you President Bush, shame on you.

This guy is compalining that we are Beeing lied to in a way. LIKE WHEN HAS THE GOV NOT LIED AND WITHHELD LOADS OF INFO?!!??!?! STFU IDIOT THIS AINT ANYTHING NEW!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Although the fact that he needed to cheat to win speaks volumes about how much politicians really value what the voters think.

following the law is not cheating. the highest representation of the law in the US is the supreme court, they said Bush had won the presidency. nobody was cheated out of anything. as soon as people realize that in the US, the law does not uphold 1 voice = 1 vote, then we can put this behind us. if you dont like it dont blame bush, go out and advocate changing the law.

Just as I heard about what the idiot (because he is EXTREMELY closed minded... even more then some of you bloks here in the forums) did at the academy awards I got this in the e-mail;

quote:

Dear UT student, (<-- thats me) The Student Endowed Centennial Lectureship (SECL), the only entirely student-run organization that brings speakers to campus, would like to thank you for choosing the optional $2 $tudent $peaker $eries Fee during registration last fall by offering you early tickets to our Spring Centennial Lectureship. Our Spring Lecture Event will be Oscar-Winning Filmmaker and Best Selling Author Michael Moore on Monday, April 14 at 7pm at the LBJ Auditorium. Free tickets will become available to you on Wednesday, March 26, starting at 9am at the Student Services Building (SSB) on the 4th floor at the Student Organization Center Window. The next day, the remaining tickets will be available to all students at four locations around campus. To get tickets, please bring your UT ID with you, between the hours of 9am and 5pm to this location, and you will be entitled to two tickets. Our speaker was chosen by students in an online poll of over 8,000 votes, including Dan Rather, Maya Angelou, John Walsh, Steve Forbes, and Bill Bennett.

How damn gay huh? I pay my optional $2 fee to bring in guest lectures and they go waste it on this blok..... I think I will go pick up my tickets so someone else wo't be able to listen to him

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Just as I heard about what the idiot (because he is EXTREMELY closed minded... even more then some of you bloks here in the forums) did at the academy awards I got this in the e-mail; How damn gay huh? I pay my optional $2 fee to bring in guest lectures and they go waste it on this blok..... I think I will go pick up my tickets so someone else wo't be able to listen to him

Dude you should go and use that website I posted to tear apart his documentary! I would love for the opportunity to question his misrepresentation when he is so keen on presenting the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus How damn gay huh? I pay my optional $2 fee to bring in guest lectures and they go waste it on this blok..... I think I will go pick up my tickets so someone else wo't be able to listen to him

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Just as I heard about what the idiot (because he is EXTREMELY closed minded... even more then some of you bloks here in the forums) did at the academy awards I got this in the e-mail; How damn gay huh? I pay my optional $2 fee to bring in guest lectures and they go waste it on this blok..... I think I will go pick up my tickets so someone else wo't be able to listen to him

ya, yoepus, you should read that article occrider posted (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html), confront him and see what he has to say, we'd all love to hear about it!

once more

HA-HA

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Now that is just plain naieve, if by most people you are refering to global public opinion. If you are refering to american public opinion maybe you are right. Although the fact that he needed to cheat to win speaks volumes about how much politicians really value what the voters think.

yes i was referring to the american public.

as for the "cheating", here it goes.

I'm not sure if you've had a politics class in your school yet, but according to my books and teachers, there's a thing called "checks & balances" in the US Governemnt. Bush "cheating" ??? What do you think, the US is like Iraq where Saddam gets 100% of the votes? c'mon now, checks and balances ensure justice and fairness.

will you please say how Bush so called "cheated"? because i'm still not sure i know how he went about doing that....and i live in a liberal city, and i'm suprised that "they" didn't have themselves heard about this issue when Bush was elected president.

someone shine some light ova here

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM will you please say how Bush so called "cheated"? because i'm still not sure i know how he went about doing that. >JM<

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2606/election.htm

Not the best cred but u get the idea. ITS ALL ABOUT INFLUENCE.

well i was looking for a more credible, unbiased source...not an Anti-Bush site......well good to see one biased point of view. but i did say "checks and balances" and the supreme court had a say in this? hmmm...i dunnnnnnoooooooo......

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM well i was looking for a more credible, unbiased source...not an Anti-Bush site...... >JM<

Biased anit bush? how????
By the way ive seen quite of few other sites that are credible who report the exact same facts, which by the way were taken from daily news reports.

quote:

question @ tito: Would Milosevic still be in power had the US not attacked ?

I don't think so. Most of the people were against him, and there was real although opressed opposition. Besides, the US led attacks didn't do much harm to his army. They only chased him out of Kosovo, an area where he didn't have much popular support anyway, except for the 10% of the local serbian population. But maybe the fact that NATO attacked, together with support from most of the countries over the world was a sort of eye-opener for part of the people there, which made them see their country is really not very liked around the world. But most of them probably knew that anyway, so overall, I doubt it had much influence. It was like the sort of effect that the no-fly zones have on Saddam. They limited his expansionistic tendencies, but aside from that, couldn't have done anything to remove him from power.

well I have read the opinion polls too, the Australian ones that is. It is suprising because as an Australian, not one, not one person I know friend, acquintance or work colleague supports this war. Maybe that is just the people I speak to and perhaps people in different states or older people think the war and Dubya are just grand. I dont know. What I do know is when this war goes pear shaped (which it will) public support for america will evaporate.

Then onto the dude who suggested I go back to school and learn about checks and balances well I have two degrees one in law and the other in government so maybe I might know something about legal issues.

The thing that always amazes me about americans (well americans that arent black or minorities) is that they have this faith in the fact that their system works.

Well yes, if you are a CEO or a white person going to an Ivy League college then yes your system works just great.

In principle the US system of government is actually quite a good one, the Constitution is well thought out and in principle has good checks and balances. The founding fathers of the USA were very concerned lest government turn into a tyranny which might impact on their property rights.

In practice the system is fundamentally and systemically corrupt. Which isnt to say that other "democracies" in the west arent corrupt as well, there just not as bad as the USA.

Why, because of corporate power. The founding fathers of the USA never envisaged that there would be extremely wealthy and ultimately unaccountable corporations. In fact corporations didnt exist in the 18th century.

The corporations are that powerful and wealth is that concentrated that government in the USA does not exist to serve and protect the interests of the majority of its citizens but to serve the interests of the corporations, who in turn exist to benefit the ruling elite.

The so called checks and balances that the legislature, judiciary and executive balance each other out are illusory because corporate interests control all three.

I am sure that what I have said will be ignored or dismissed as the ramblings of a Communist (which I am not) but I could if it was really desired I could explicitly articulate how the system in America works in practice and give actual case examples of how political decision making is actually made.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.