STOP What You Are Doing and Go Get Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD From Your Library!

[MikeMcK]

Civility please! Let's not go into slapping the 'ol "liberal" label on people.

Is it a bad thing to be a liberal? I'm told that there are some people who are quite proud of being liberals. Can't imagine why, but to each his own, I guess.

Please keep that and personal attacks about someone's credibility out of this

To question someone's credibility who confuses two groups in the course of trying to demonize one of them isn't a personal attack.

 

[BarbB]

Hehe, I love this response. "Michael Moore is a liar." This is typical pro-Bush Republican-speak. It is also a weak argument to make when Moore presents such overwhelming evidence regarding the real reasons we went to war.

I think people react this way simply because it confronts and criticizes George W. Bush. And people don't like it when poor GW is criticized.

Anyways, newlamb, sorry 'bout that - please forgive me! I should know better really than to continue talking so much about politics. But again, I do hate injustice, and I do feel strongly that injustice is being done in the Republican party right now.

Don't apologize to me, SackLunch. We don't have to agree on everything!

Bush has disappointed me quite a bit recently, with his waffling support of Israel. So the bloom is definitely off the rose. Maybe it's just MM's lack of personal hygiene that disgusts me!

 

[Harpuia]

Don't apologize to me, SackLunch. We don't have to agree on everything!

Bush has disappointed me quite a bit recently, with his waffling support of Israel. So the bloom is definitely off the rose. Maybe it's just MM's lack of personal hygiene that disgusts me!

Reality check.

Someday Israel will have to take care of itself. It better start getting used to it.

But they're the toughest army man-for-man in the world. They'll survive even if the whole world goes against them.

 

[ContraMundum]

Civility please! Let's not go into slapping the 'ol "liberal" label on people. Please keep that and personal attacks about someone's credibility out of this

As predicted, all critical thought dissapeared from this thread. Now we're into the polarized US name-calling paradigm.

He's a liberal! He's a wing-nut! She's a "conservative". This is a uniquely American phenomena.

What if both sides are complete failures? What if the alternatives end up getting enough money to take it to the big parties and teach them a lesson in what a real liberal (not meaning "lefty", but free) democracy is all about? Where will your little box system be then? (Answer: in another box, the outbox)

Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.

Is there a future for this kind of polarized partisan politics? I think not. Look at the last election- Bush or Kerry? Which puppet to chose? Neither represented the working class, but they kept telling you they did.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Wonder how I will be labelled? A liberal? I don't fit that- I'm a Christian. A conservative? I don't fit that either- because I'm a Christian.

 

[Harpuia]

As predicted, all critical thought dissapeared from this thread. Now we're into the polarized US name-calling paradigm.

He's a liberal! He's a wing-nut! She's a "conservative". This is a uniquely American phenomena.

What if both sides are complete failures? What if the alternatives end up getting enough money to take it to the big parties and teach them a lesson in what a real liberal (not meaning "lefty", but free) democracy is all about? Where will your little box system be then? (Answer: in another box, the outbox)

Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.

Is there a future for this kind of polarized partisan politics? I think not. Look at the last election- Bush or Kerry? Which puppet to chose? Neither represented the working class, but they kept telling you they did.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Wonder how I will be labelled? A liberal? I don't fit that- I'm a Christian. A conservative? I don't fit that either- because I'm a Christian.

*bell dings*

 

[ContraMundum]

Are you one of those people who thinks the pentagon was hit by a missile?

Oh, don't demean the man. He's not dumb.

Everyone knows it was a UFO driven by secret agents.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm a conservative who enjoys a good Michael Moore documentary.

But Fahrenheit 9/11, when I saw it on DVD, was poorly done. He rushed it, didn't take as much time as he should like he did for Bowling for Columbine. There's nothing that tells me he was just trying to put as many Bush-bashing phrases as he could into 2 hours.

That's not a documentary, that's propaganda. Moore can do a lot better...

It wasn't even funny, and that's his gifting.

 

[Harpuia]

It wasn't even funny, and that's his gifting.

Tell me about it...

 

[Scribbler]

Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.

And yet the country that continues to use the dual party system is the worlds oldest democracy...

 

[ContraMundum]

And yet the country that continues to use the dual party system is the worlds oldest democracy...

...but nowhere near the best.

 

[Scribbler]

...but nowhere near the best.

"Best" is subjective. Age isn't.

 

[ContraMundum]

"Best" is subjective. Age isn't.

Nor is age a credential for assessing value. In fact, it is useful for assessing delapidation.

 

[Scribbler]

Nor is age a credential for assessing value.

It's a credential for determining the strength and a functionality of a political system. The fact we are the Worlds Oldest Functioning Democracy is a testament to the effectiveness of ours.

 

[ContraMundum]

It's a credential for determining the strength and a functionality of a political system. The fact we are the Worlds Oldest Functioning Democracy is a testament to the effectiveness of ours.

That's like saying Fords are better than BMWs because Ford is an older institution. I know which I'd rather drive. Keep your Pinto.

How about NTSC vs PAL? I know which format I'd rather watch.

 

[SackLunch]

Bush has disappointed me quite a bit recently, with his waffling support of Israel.

That deserves a big

Maybe you know about these sites, but do check out
www.watch.org
www.focusonjerusalem.com

Bush said Israel will have to abide by the 1949 armistice lines, thus forcing Israel to cede all her land won since that time. Not to mention that $50 millon was given directly to the Palestinians when they haven't done a THING to stop terrorism on Israelis. The U.S. has promised the Palestinians $300 million more.

But okay, I digress. Back to Michael Moore!

 

[Scribbler]

That's like saying Fords are better than BMWs because Ford is an older institution. I know which I'd rather drive. Keep your Pinto.
How about NTSC vs PAL? I know which format I'd rather watch.

Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.

 

[utdbear]

Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.

Actually NTSC and PAL are television standards. But you're right on everything else

 

[ContraMundum]

Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.

Poor dodge of the analogy.
Right- so then a system of democracy can't be improved upon? Are you sticking with that then? If so, then I suggest you do some history of the American political parties. Hint: they developed over time. Both were not born in 1776. I submit to you that the current system has ceased to grow, as it should, and it's growth has been stunted by money. (Meanwhile, more advanced democracies which have surpassed this system support fledgling parties that manage to get enough strong support from numbers of people-without taking their money- by allowing them a cut of the allocated taxes for government. Imagine that! Parties with people supporting them actually getting help to stay alfoat in the name of democracy and representative government! Cool, huh? That means that power is no longer the exclusive province of those who can afford to buy it!)

Now, can you explain what is so good about having only two parties and keeping it that way? Let's see some onus for that partisan spirit!

Socrates: "All forms of Government fall from an excess of their best principals"

Anyway, your comment about the US being the oldest democracy is rubbish. I didn't want to break it to you, but Iceland is older.

Furthermore, Britain had a form of democracy before the US (still tilted towards the landed class, of course) and that led to the famous cry "the rights of Englishmen" etc. The US just shed it's class system first.

 

[SuzQ]

As predicted, all critical thought dissapeared from this thread. Now we're into the polarized US name-calling paradigm.

He's a liberal! He's a wing-nut! She's a "conservative". This is a uniquely American phenomena.

What if both sides are complete failures? What if the alternatives end up getting enough money to take it to the big parties and teach them a lesson in what a real liberal (not meaning "lefty", but free) democracy is all about? Where will your little box system be then? (Answer: in another box, the outbox)

Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.

Is there a future for this kind of polarized partisan politics? I think not. Look at the last election- Bush or Kerry? Which puppet to chose? Neither represented the working class, but they kept telling you they did.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Wonder how I will be labelled? A liberal? I don't fit that- I'm a Christian. A conservative? I don't fit that either- because I'm a Christian.

You irritated me before, but I agree with this post completely. LOL!

I do have to chuckle when the OP poster & others asking for "civility" turn around & attack people who don't share their view. If that were the case, simply ask only Michael Moore SUPPORTERS to post responses. 'Nuf said.

Look how many people jumped on me for presenting another side - suddenly I was accused of "Republican Speak", right-wing blah-blah-blah! I vote for the CANDIDATE & what I think is most important at the time of an election. Here's my Presidential voting record for some of you accusing me of being an "all-or-nothing" conservative right-winger:

Bill Clinton - Dem
Bob Dole - Repub
Al Gore - Dem
George W. Bush - Repub

And, no I'm not a fence-post sitter, either. Again, it all depends on their experience & issues at hand. I've also sort of grown up a bit (meaning I voted for Bill Clinton because he, uh, looked "cool". Egads.). Yes, being a born-again Christian now, I do tend to vote for the candidate that is pro-life (now that I know the TRUTH). That is first & foremost. Yup, we won't have to argue about things like Social Security while we allow the legal murder of human beings every day, will we?

If both candidates end up being pro-choice, I'll look at other issues.

Moral of the story: Just because someone doesn't like Michael Moore doesn't mean they are a mindless die-hard right wing conservative. Get it? Sheesh.

 

[Scribbler]

Poor dodge of the analogy.

Well, it was a poor analogy. Youre comparing cars & TV's with Systems of Government, after all.

Right- so then a system of democracy can't be improved upon? Are you sticking with that then?

I said this? Does change always equal improvment?

Now, can you explain what is so good about having only two parties and keeping it that way? Let's see some onus for that partisan spirit!

So hostile. What I said was the US is the worlds oldest Democracy (neglecting, unfortunately, the good people of Iceland). The fact that we have sustained this is evidence to me of a successful system of government.

Anyway, your comment about the US being the oldest democracy is rubbish. I didn't want to break it to you, but Iceland is older.
Furthermore, Britain had a form of democracy before the US (still tilted towards the landed class, of course) and that led to the famous cry "the rights of Englishmen" etc. The US just shed it's class system first.

OK, Iceland is an older democracy than the US. LOL. You got me.