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 ******.

___________________
"Laces out Dan!"-Ray Finkle

[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.

___________________
1+1=10

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

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”