So on the one hand we have conservatives who are contractually obliged to oppose anything Moore says, regardless of what it is. That's all well and fine as no one expects them to behave any differently. But on the other hand, we have ivory tower liberals who pretend they would never sully their hands with anything so far beneath their dignity as partisan mudslinging. Forsooth! 'Tis far better to remain sequestered in their ivory towers and pretend that their lofty sentiments alone will carry the day, while the Republican propaganda machine wrecks havoc amongst the populace, unopposed. The Democrats have honed their skills at losing elections to such a fine point that it's almost a pity they upset the boat this last time around.
Originally posted by rwingett Why not implement a program to foster and accelerate employee buyouts of corporations? If you are an advocate for democracy, then this would seem to be the best of both worlds. You would have capitalist corporations that are democratically owned and operated. Capitalism AND democracy, what a novel concept.
You are free to 'implement a program' just don't expect others to pay for your wet dreams.
Originally posted by rwingett So on the one hand we have conservatives who are contractually obliged to oppose anything Moore says, regardless of what it is. That's all well and fine as no one expects them to behave any differently. But on the other hand, we have ivory tower liberals who pretend they would never sully their hands with anything so far beneath their dignity as partisan mu ...[text shortened]... tions to such a fine point that it's almost a pity they upset the boat this last time around.
Oh, don't worry. Feel free to stay in your ivory tower. There are plenty of liberal mudslingers to do your dirty work.
Originally posted by sh76 Oh, don't worry. Feel free to stay in your ivory tower. There are plenty of liberal mudslingers to do your dirty work.
Huh?
I'm the one defending Michael Moore here. My point here is that liberals need to descend from their ivory towers and not worry so much about getting their hands dirty. Some Michael Moore style polemics are a good thing in my opinion.
I'm the one defending Michael Moore here. My point here is that liberals need to descend from their ivory towers and not worry so much about getting their hands dirty. Some Michael Moore style polemics are a good thing in my opinion.
Yes, I know what you were doing. I was only trying to say that there's no danger of there being a shortage of left wing partisans who are willing to get their hands dirty. So, criticizing some of the more absurd ones is not going to have a devastating effect on the over-all tenor of the debate.
Originally posted by sh76 Yes, I know what you were doing. I was only trying to say that there's no danger of there being a shortage of left wing partisans who are willing to get their hands dirty. So, criticizing some of the more absurd ones is not going to have a devastating effect on the over-all tenor of the debate.
You think Michael Moore is "absurd"? Have I got that right?
absurd (comparative absurder or more absurd, superlative absurdest or most absurd)
Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.
Originally posted by zeeblebot http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absurd
absurd (comparative absurder or more absurd, superlative absurdest or most absurd)
Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.
Originally posted by zeeblebot absurd [...] Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.
Michael Moore is canny political operator, working within the mainstream, influencing ordinary down to earth people with adroit, award winning, populist manipulation of a medium that's positioned at the very heart of the public discourse in America, entertaining millions of people, while at the same time sending ripples through the complacent body politic, and having an impact on a national debate. sh76 quite rightly took the word 'absurd' back and clarified what he thought was wrong with Mr.Moore. In this context, cutting and pasting the definition of 'absurd' from wikipedia, now that's "absurd".
Originally posted by FMF Michael Moore is canny political operator, working within the mainstream, influencing ordinary down to earth people with adroit, award winning, populist manipulation of a medium that's positioned at the very heart of the public discourse in America, entertaining millions of people, while at the same time sending ripples through the complacent body politic, and h ...[text shortened]... tting and pasting the definition of 'absurd' from wikipedia, now that's "absurd".
Originally posted by sh76 Couldn't have said it better myself. 🙂
In Bowling for Columbine, for example:
First, we're told the guns are the scourge of American society. Fine.
Next, we're told that in Canada, they have just as many guns, but they don't have the same level of violence.
Then, we're told that's because in Canada, they trust people and don't lock they're front doors.
Then, it's media hysteria that's the big problem in the United States.
Then, it's not media hysteria but racism that's our big problem.
Finally, we go see Moore make his courageous visit to Charlton Heston, who was suffering from Alzheimer's and clearly demented at the time. Of course, Moore gains entrance to interview Heston under false pretenses and then, surprise(!), he manages to out debate someone who is twice his age and is half dead from Alzheimer's.
I wish I could say the movie made me think. In fact, it just made my head spin trying to figure out what he's trying to tell us.
Originally posted by zeeblebot Originally posted by sh76 [b]Couldn't have said it better myself. 🙂
In Bowling for Columbine, for example:
First, we're told the guns are the scourge of American society. Fine.
Next, we're told that in Canada, they have just as many guns, but they don't have the same level of violence.
Then, we're told that's because in Canada, they tr ...[text shortened]... , it just made my head spin trying to figure out what he's trying to tell us.[/b]
Well at least you've attributed your cut and paste to sh76. Beyond that, this is sheer zeeblebottery.
I see the movie as a parody of NRA gun lovers. I find Moore's movies to be entertaining, although I take the sarcasm and leading Moore values with a grain of salt.
Capitalism: A Love Story
02 Aug '09 21:14
Back to Top