Many friends of mine watched Michael Moore's documentary about the Columbine shooting (me too). Most of then told me that "because of the documentary they know everything there is to know about the sick society there is America". Quite sad, and a little frightening, isn't it? I mean...the movie has its merits, but nobody should judge a whole country or a society by it. Although I'm not American (I'm brazilian), I think it is a great country. As in every place, there are good people, evil people, corrupt people, generous ones, etc. I just wonder.. why some of you (Americans) like to bash yourselves so much?
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I ask that you not judge us, as Americans, by what that idiot Moore has to say. He is a loud mouth, media craving, self serving moron. The only agenda that matters to him is his own. Of course this is only my opinion, but I absolutely can't stand the man.
With that said, yes, there are many Americans that feel they need to atack, bash, or insult they way our leaders do things. We are a strong and powerful country and some people see this as a fault. I for one love America and all it stands for. There are things I disagree about with our government and policies but all in all I am proud of the accomplishments of the United States.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
This may be slightly off topic, but I was watching Tough Crowd last night, and one of the comedians said something funny about Michael Moore. I can't remember the exact quote, but it went something like this:
"When you devote your whole life to exposing the excesses of American capitalism, it's best not to weigh 450 pounds."
Okay, it's a little childish, but I laughed.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
That about sums it up!
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Eduardo, there were a huge number of innaccuracies in Bowling for Columbine and quite a few places where he manipulated interviews and stock footage to get across his message. Sadly, a lot of folks took what he said to heart and he's painted a brutal picture of us that just isn't true.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Well...the man IS fat Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Sopwhit: I know what you mean, because I read quite a lot about the Columbine murders (I'm a College/High School teacher, so it concerns me a lot). The problem is: my cousin is a pedagogy major. She's studying the science of teaching. She told me yesterday that 4 of her teachers told her to watch "Bowling for Columbine", as "the movie depicts accurately the flaws in American society".
There are flaws? I'm sure there are a lot of them. But...I don't know...all the bashing the whole country is taking is making me a little sad. Don't know much about Michael Moore, but the Oscar Awarded "Bowling for Columbine" and the book "Stupid White man" (the first 30 someting pages). He seems to be a vitriolic type, hun?
Hey...I'm not a suck-up or anything. I'm proud of my country and I'd like to live here my whole life. It's just that I would feel the same if people were kicking me or my country around as they're doing with U.S. right now (do you believe an U.S. flag were burnt four blocks from my house, in front of an old lady's home - she happends to be American, but she lives in Brazil for 16 years!)
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Unfortunately many people just feel down right guilty for living here. and the only way they know to alleviate that guilt is by picking some random cause or policy or political agenda and arguing/fighting for it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those less fortunate and believe it to be the responsibility of us who have the power to help but... Not at the cost of self hatred, which is basically what alot of poeple here suffer from. They hate or show hatred toward the country that gives them the freedoms that allow that opinion and way of life. It is very depressing for me to see people forget how great this country really is.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
"When you devote your whole life to exposing the excesses of American capitalism, it's best not to weigh 450 pounds."
Why?
First, let me say that from what I have seen and read, Moore's film doesn't rise to the level of serious journalism or balanced documentary.
But, here is my problem with the above italicized statement: It's the same kind of tossed-off put down that people hurl against Rush Limbaugh.
If there are issues with American society that we need to deal with, does it matter who attempts to point them out to us?
Sometimes, it seems as if our society has degenerated to an intellectual level where we don't even want to do research to refute ideas with which we disagree. Instead, we just toss off a ridiculous insult, as if that were some type of witty rejoinder. Indeed, we toss off "witty" rejoinders as if they were well thought out arguments.
I guess it's easier, and we can just get back to the X-box? Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I'm about do do something that will really hurt. I'm going to agree with Moore. I saw him the other day on some talk show and he said something that really made sense. he was disussing the liberals and how they will never hold power because traditionally they have never really shown strong leadership. He made the point that people are liberal in their views and opinions of the issues, pro-choice, pro-environment, etc... but often vote republican/conservative because when we elect leaders we want someone who will be strong and actually lead. The strong leadership skills often override political affiliation and stance on issues. He was calling on Liberals to take a strong stance on the issues and a strong stance on leadership. I personally am pretty conservative in my opinions and as I have stated Moore is a big IDIOT, but he makes a good point. Americans want someone who will lead, someone who will make the difficult decisions and fight for what they believe in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it. (Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
Unfortunately, being reasonable and playing Devil's Advocate are not traits we associate with strong leadership.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
quote: being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable
Not sure I agree here. I'll be the first to admit that I am not hugely knowledgable on popular and current political trends, but it seems to me that many of the faces that are out there right now for the liberal left are anything but reasonable. Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Jessie Jackson are a few that come to mind. I know there are much better advocates of the liberal point of view but the average puplic, like myself, see these men so often that we begin to associate the entire party with their ideas. These men often come across as irrational or unreasonable or just plain crazy. i think this is why Morre's statement makes sense, If they wish to be taken more seriously they need a strong face up front. Of course, as a conservative, I prefer to see these men as they help furthur the strengths of the conservatives.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
I saw “Bowling for Columbine” for the first time a few days ago, and I think that Michael Moore made a very good point, regardless of his exaggerations and distortions.
There is no denying that America is one of the most violent countries in the world, and perhaps the most violent (as far as murder) of all the developed countries. Whether you consider it “bashing” the country to say it, it is still a fact.
What Michael pointed out was that was not the special brutality of our country (Germany and Britain have equally brutal histories), or our racial diversity (Canada also is diverse), or even the number of private guns (Canada also has a large number of guns). What distinguishes us from most other nations is our climate of fear. We fear strangers, gangs, even our own neighbors. And our culture fosters this fear.
Regardless of how bad Mr. Moore made Charlton Heston, the NRA, Lockheed-Martin, and other institutions look, the real culprit appears to be ourselves. We are afraid, and so we kill each other out of fear.
It is not really as much a “bashing” of the United States as a movie trying to understand why we are so stupid.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It is not really as much a “bashing” of the United States as a movie trying to understand why we are so stupid.
There you have it. The best self-defeating statement of all time.
I was shocked at MM's play of the race card. He really went overboard with that. After watching the movie, I was shocked that it won any awards at all, as it is mainly an opinion piece, documenting nothing but MM's opinion.
quote:The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it. (Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
This is interesting. If you are speaking of the classic definition of liberal, you are correct. If you are speaking in contemporary terms, you are laughably incorrect. There are plenty of people on the left who are not willing to be nice and listen to the other side.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:(Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
I think you forgot to read that part. I know. It's a lot of words.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:he was disussing the liberals and how they will never hold power because traditionally they have never really shown strong leadership. He made the point that people are liberal in their views and opinions of the issues, pro-choice, pro-environment, etc... but often vote republican/conservative because when we elect leaders we want someone who will be strong and actually lead.
Reminds me of what an old football coach used to tell the less experienced kids on the team:
"If you don't know what you're doing, at least do it fast!"
And instead of just calling Moore a "big IDIOT", maybe you could give a few reasons...if you want anyone to take your position and ranting seriously, that is.
Eduardo - We bash ourselves because it's better than sweeping our issues under the carpet...and we really don't care much about our image.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I think you forgot to read that part. I know. It's a lot of words
Are YOU then claiming that one of the tenents of modern liberalism is "getting along"? I am trying to get Tom to explain himself a little more, pipe down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm saying that one of the core tenets of liberalism IS "getting along," and therefore that a lot of so-called liberals should in fact sign up for the Republican Party post-haste, since the only thing that differs in their application of despotism is the identity of the group they're willing to oppress.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: a lot of so-called liberals should in fact sign up for the Republican Party post-haste, since the only thing that differs in their application of despotism is the identity of the group they're willing to oppress.
I think your whole line of reasoning here is faulty. The leftist approach is not historically understanding of other opinions. NO successful political movement is.
You are correct in stating that both the democrat and republican parties are oppressors. However, the leftist approach is no more or less understanding than the right-wing approach.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
big - see above comment by speed
IDIOT - my personal opinion of anyone who labels propoganda as journalism. Bowling for Columbine , which does obviously have some factual base is basically Moore's opinions. He manipulates the facts to further his argument. I respect a man who argues his points with dignity and class but that is not the way Moore opperates. He ambushes, attacks, antaganizes anyone who he doesn't agree with. To me this is not a good way to make your point and makes you a big IDIOT. Plus the guy has always just rubbed me the wrong way.
[ November 18, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: beatnix19 ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it.
That's no more true than saying being conservative is being practical and rational.
[ November 18, 2003, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Quote:
Eduardo - We bash ourselves because it's better than sweeping our issues under the carpet...and we really don't care much about our image.
_______________________________________________
See, Frisco...bashing yourselves is, sometimes, how you sweep things under the carpet. But that's not the point. I don't think you should sweep issues under the carpet. I think important (even non-important) issues should be discussed. I may be a bit naive, but I also think that you can do that without bashing. About the "we really don't care much about our image"...well...that's a pity, because you should. In order to succeed in today's globalized world, one should not be self-centered. Not caring about "your image" is not understanding why some countries deems America as "White Satan". In short: It's bad P.R.
Oh, yes. I don't hate your country. Just the opposite. I think it's a shame people label you knowing so little, as I think it's a shame when people do the same with any country.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
quote:IDIOT - my personal opinion of anyone who labels propoganda as journalism. Bowling for Columbine , which does obviously have some factual base is basically Moore's opinions. He manipulates the facts to further his argument. I respect a man who argues his points with dignity and class but that is not the way Moore opperates. He ambushes, attacks, antaganizes anyone who he doesn't agree with. To me this is not a good way to make your point and makes you a big IDIOT. Plus the guy has always just rubbed me the wrong way.
Well..then O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and many other Republican pundits are DEFINATELY Idiots according to this criteria.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
quote:Well..then O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and many other Republican pundits are DEFINATELY Idiots according to this criteria.
I would agree. As I stated earlier I'm not all that knowledgable about current poilical trends. There's a reason. Most of the people out there do not appeal to me, republican or democrates. So I find it difficult to be actively involved. When I vote it usually comes down to basic research of issues and one of the final debates to get an overall impression of the canidate. This may not be the best way to go about it but it works for me and I have voted in every election sinse I was 18 for good or bad.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Nearly every media reporter of any type is ridiculously biased. That includes every station, regardless of what popular opinion is. (I know, people say fox is the worst, theyre all bad) You can't watch a debate of any kind with hope of seeing a reasonable middle ground. Everything is George Bush is satan. No, he's god. Liberals are always right. No, conservatives are always right.
Nobody in the media can have a reasonable opinion, it wouldn't get ratings. If you saw a guy on tv making sense, you would turn the channel to find the two guys ready to fight to the death for which one has the might of god behind him.
Unfortunately, when all people see is the two extreme ends of the spectrum, they start thinking that's all there is, and then we are in trouble.
--ApostleRadio, who thinks neither side is right all the time
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:we really don't care much about our image
Why is that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The leftist approach is not historically understanding of other opinions."
Are you confusing leftism with liberalism?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Yes he is. And the conflation of the two by both reactionary conservatives and dogmatic leftists is laughable, yet, sadly, pervasive.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:Are you confusing leftism with liberalism?
This is what I was asking you. You seemed to respond that you mean liberal in the definition that it is used in modern america, which is a leftist position.
If you refer to the classic definition of liberalism, including reform and open trade, etc. then you may have a point. I am sure that most of this disagreement is due to my misunderstanding your position. I would consider myself more liberal, in the classic sense, than conservative. I don't give a crap about maintaining the status quo, what's more important is having just and prosperous laws.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Yes he is.
Wow! I don't even need to answer anymore. Thanks for reading my mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You seemed to respond that you mean liberal in the definition that it is used in modern america, which is a leftist position."
Nope. I DO think that the Democratic Party is much more socially liberal than the Republican Party is economically liberal, and therefore the Democratic Party is a much better choice for liberals (if you, like me, are scared by the nuts who control the Libertarian Party) unless the only kind of liberalism that matters to you is economic.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:(if you, like me, are scared by the nuts who control the Libertarian Party) unless the only kind of liberalism that matters to you is economic.
I could be classified as a libertarian, but have not seen a candidate that was worth voting for. Its just not a large enough party to draw anyone with a chance of winning an election.
Economic liberalism is most important to me. I am of the opinion that social freedoms follow economic freedom, that they are all tied together. Economic liberalism will bring social liberalism. To champion social liberalism, without the economic side is useless. Lack of economic liberalism will always lead toward to repeal of social freedoms. As the nation's economy fails, its government grabs onto the economy tighter and tighter, gradually removing all private citizens from the decision making process, creating a top-down economy, which will always fail.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Economic liberalism will bring social liberalism."
Why does this logically follow? Can you not imagine, for example, a laissez-faire economy run by Christian fundamentalists?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I just wonder.. why some of you (Americans) like to bash yourselves so much?
quote: The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it. (Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
Wait a second Tom. Are you saying that liberals have a monopoly on being reasonable? Are you saying that all conservatives are unreasonable and unwilling to understand the other side? That's what I'm getting from that. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Are you saying that liberals have a monopoly on being reasonable? Are you saying that all conservatives are unreasonable and unwilling to understand the other side?"
Well, all the conservatives on THIS board, at least.... Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
"Can you not imagine, for example, a laissez-faire economy run by Christian fundamentalists?"
Imagine? I'm living 20 miles north of one.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Can you not imagine, for example, a laissez-faire economy run by Christian fundamentalists?
Of course I can imagine that. The problem comes when those fundamentalists attempt to control people's lives, which they would be unable to do in such a system. People accustomed to un-bridaled freedom when doing business, will not stand for social domination. The freedom of economy will spread to all other areas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The problem comes when those fundamentalists attempt to control people's lives, which they would be unable to do in such a system."
See, this is the central presumption of an economy-first philosophy, and it's the reason I'm NOT a believer in Ayn Rand; I don't actually believe that money is always the primary motivator in people's lives.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Well, all the conservatives on THIS board, at least....
<joking> Just thought I would clear that up.
I'm not what you would call "conservative", and I'm not unreasonable, and I'm afraid you're a bit wrong on that one. Not all conservatives on this board are unreasonable. </joking>
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
If economic freedom leads to social freedom, then why is the US the most socially conservative nation of all the developed world? Perhaps it has something to do with religion? No, that can't be. America is a secular state!
Economic and social liberalism are not enmeshed. If all you give a damn about is money, go ahead and vote Republican. But if you are concerned at all about personal freedoms that extend beyond the economic, and don't want the religious right to cram their nauseatingly parochial beliefs down everyone's throat and control every aspect of people's lives, your loyalties should lie elsewhere.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: But if you are concerned at all about personal freedoms that extend beyond the economic, and don't want the religious right to cram their nauseatingly parochial beliefs down everyone's throat and control every aspect of people's lives, your loyalties should lie elsewhere.
WHAT??? Are you saying that conservatives are the only ones who are religious fanatics?
That's ridiculous. No matter what party you vote for, there will always be religious fanatics of that party.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: US the most socially conservative nation of all the developed world?
I would say that you are way off on this. Legal abortions, gay marriage, etc. are all signs of a socially liberal country.
quote: Perhaps it has something to do with religion? No, that can't be.
This is nice, answer your own questions more often, only do it without posting them.
quote: your loyalties should lie elsewhere
Where do my loyalties currently lay?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I was hoping this would be Alan Moore, instead of Michael. I'd choose Alan any day of the week.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Same here, Book.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:TomDavidson said: The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it. (Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
You cannot make this statement and pretend to be reasonable and see the other side, since you are saying that the other side is not reasonable. Which means you are not seeing the other side.
So are you audacious in your liberal orthodoxy or are you a conservative?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You cannot make this statement and pretend to be reasonable and see the other side, since you are saying that the other side is not reasonable."
Ah. Is it unreasonable to say that the other side isn't reasonable? I can certainly understand WHY the other side isn't reasonable, but being reasonable does NOT necessarily mean believing that the other side is RIGHT. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right, but since the other side is reasonable, you’re considering them unreasonable is obviously not reasonable.
See? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe being conservative means you are no longer as open. I know many conservatives that were very open, very liberal once, and then used life experiences to make decisions that make sense to them. You can't accuse them of not being reasonable. Being reasonable does not mean ignoring your experience and making every decision anew every time action is called for.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
"and don't want the religious right to cram their nauseatingly parochial beliefs down everyone's throat and control every aspect of people's lives, your loyalties should lie elsewhere."
I assume that calling others' beliefs "nauseatingly parochial" is an example of the reasonableness mentioned all too often on this thread.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Sure, I could join the Democrats. I wouldn't get Christianity shoved down my throat, just the religion of tolerance and environment-worship.
Both sides have their own religious agendas. The main difference is that the conservatives' religion is more obviously a religion and less popular with the general American public than the liberals' religion. (I use "liberal" and "conservative" in the modern sense, not the classical sense.)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Going back to Michael Moore for a minute....
I liked Bowling for Columbine. I know it wasn't an impartial documentary, but then I don't think it ever claimed to be. I think it illustrated a lot of foreign and domestic US Policy that has been at best dangerously irresponsible and at worst just plain dangerous.
quote: We are a strong and powerful country and some people see this as a fault.
I think the point is not so much that the fact the US is strong and powerful is at issue. Rather this is what makes its actions so open to scrutiny. My country does lots of idiotic things. However, we don't have the economic, political or military might to make much of an effect on other countries. It is because the US is 'a world leader' and so strong that criticism is both desirable and necessary.
I read Stupid White Men - while I know Michael Moore likes a good rant, he also had some good points.
One more thing: in his latest book he states that most Americans aren't like the people he complains about. Most Americans are educated, and smart. Most Americans are 'liberal' in their veiws towards welfare, healthcare and education, though not politically 'liberal'. (You can still be a republican and think public education is a good thing... )
I think the point is America is currently under a regime that, whether you agree with or not, has bombed two countries (and hasn't found what it was looking for in either) and managed to get a lot of the rest of the world offside. Further, gun violence rates are much much higher in the US than anywhere else.
I think what Michael Moore is doing is questioning these aspects of American society and politics. If you can answer him with reason and logic, then well and good.
If all his critics do is laugh at his weight and call him un-American, then I think they're kinda illustrating his point.
[ November 18, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Being reasonable does not mean ignoring your experience and making every decision anew every time action is called for."
Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
It's amazing how threads evolve... :-)
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: If all his critics do is laugh at his weight and call him un-American, then I think they're kinda illustrating his point.
That's not all they do. They point out all the major mistakes in his film. All the captioned portions for example, those were all wrong.
His critics pointed out that he is overweight when he calls America a gluttonous country to point out his hypocrisy.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
But Tom, isn't that unreasonable? Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Nick, I'm curious - do you mean the bits about CIA involvement in other countries?
I had previously done a lot of work on US Foreign Policy, and there have been clear instances of where the CIA has deposed a (sometimes democratically elected) leader with disasterous results for the civilian population. The cases of Iran and Nicaragua are well documented and were both brought before the International Court of Justice.
I got the whole why-it's-funny-Moore-is-fat-because-he-says-we-should-consume-less-and-look-how-much-he-must-eat.
I think it's petty. I could keep on going but i really don't think its worth it.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I think it's petty. I could keep on going but i really don't think its worth it.
Petty but valid.
About the CIA bit. Some of the events as described in the film did happen, but much of it can be directly blamed by the United States.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don't think it's valid. By that reasoning Bush has no right to speak on anything to do with drink-driving, as he was arrested for DUI.
Nor can he be qualified to talk on poverty, as he has a personal fortune of over $20million.
(I think the above two points are spurious. But I think they make as much sense as saying Michael Moore is a hypocrite because he's fat).
quote: much of it can be directly blamed by the United States.
I presume you meant to add a 'not' in there. in situations like in Iran and Nicaragua, the USA directly trained, supplied and armed contra groups. They directed their movements, and gave them intelligence. If it had not been for the CIA's involvements, these groups (which did not have majority support) would never have been in a position of power or influence.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I presume you meant to add a 'not' in there. in situations like in Iran and Nicaragua, the USA directly trained, supplied and armed contra groups. They directed their movements, and gave them intelligence. If it had not been for the CIA's involvements, these groups (which did not have majority support) would never have been in a position of power or influence.
Prove it. Am I supposed to take your word on it?
I don't like President Bush very much, so if you are trying to hit me where you think my loyalties lie, you failed.
Let me understand something here. Michael Moore criticizes America for being gluttonous, yet he would have to be gluttonous to be as obese as he is. That's hypocritical by definition. You're saying that that DOESN'T make sense?
Actually, I want to talk about the Bush thing real quick:
quote: I don't think it's valid. By that reasoning Bush has no right to speak on anything to do with drink-driving, as he was arrested for DUI.
Actually, people who have driven drunk and have since changed their ways can be influential. I'm not saying Bush has, but saying that kind of makes what you said pointless.
quote:Nor can he be qualified to talk on poverty, as he has a personal fortune of over $20million.
So because he has money, his opinion no longer matters? Name one politician that DOESN'T have at least $1,000,000.00. Since you can't, and we have a representative democracy, who IS qualified to speak about poverty? Nobody if you're the judge.
[ November 18, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, now to defend my flamebait.
The Republican party is the home of the religious right. This much isn't really debateable. It wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be, but it is now. If the thought of this group having power scares the bejesus out of you, like it does me, then I guess that means that the Republican party isn't an option come voting day. The religious right's agenda is just too dangerous for people who believe in freedom and equality for all.
And for the record, tolerance and respect for the environment are values, not a religion. People who hold these values also attempt to justify them by rational and empirical means rather than an appeal to faith not shared by all.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I wasn't trying to hit you anywhere. I was trying to point out that someone's personal history or attributes do not necessarily impact on their ability (or right) to speak on a subject.
Just because Michael Moore is obese does not mean America is not a gluttenous country.
(In response to your edit - yes, I agree. That was my point. My arguments are ridiculous. But they are based on the same reasoning as the MM is fat so a hypocrite argument)
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: WHAT??? Are you saying that conservatives are the only ones who are religious fanatics?
That's ridiculous. No matter what party you vote for, there will always be religious fanatics of that party.
Chaeron, I said this earlier in the thread. I think you should take this one to heart.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Oh, and proof...
quote: [The ICJ] decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
quote: the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State
Go here for the full judgment. The pleadings of USA aren't online, but as you'll see from the full judgment, America didn't deny they committed these acts. They just denied that it was illegal to do so.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Nick, I said the religious right. They are a powerful force in the Republican party. This is not the case with the Democrats.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Just because Michael Moore is obese does not mean America is not a gluttenous country.
That's not what I said. Michael Moore stands up and says, "Don't be a glutton!" to the United States, and he himself is one, that IS hypocrisy. If President Bush said don't make speeches with really long pauses that don't convince anybody, then that IS hypocrisy.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Oh, and proof...
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The ICJ] decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go here for the full judgment. The pleadings of USA aren't online, but as you'll see from the full judgment, America didn't deny they committed these acts. They just denied that it was illegal to do so.
Where in there does it prove what Michael Moore's film claimed to be true?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hey Nick - I was quoting it as proof for what I was saying about the US actions in Nicaragua.
I thought you had wanted me to source my arguments.
[ November 18, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
You know the funny thing? The CIA even admit it all.
quote: CIA personnel became involved in building and maintaining the Contra forces. The Agency established a primary base of operations in Honduras. This base supported the FDN, led by Enrique Bermudez and Adolfo Calero. Airfields throughout the region were used to support Contra forces, and CIA personnel also trained Contra fighters and served as advisors to the leadership.
These are the contras that used violence (including sea mines) to overthrow a legitimate government. Pretty clear case of interference by the CIA - and I thought that's what MM was arguing. (or at least, it's what I was arguing )
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I wasn't what I wanted. I was talking about Micheal Moore's arguments.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Well, I can offer you proof for what I know to be true (how's that for tautological) about CIA interference, especially in Iran and Nicaragua. I had thought that was the point for a lot of the sub-titled section on the CIA.
There is also proof available for the stuff on US supplying weapons to Iraq and Afgahnistan.
As for the rest of MM's arguments - tempted though I am to go on a trawl for all the proof I can find, I really don't have the time.
Overall though I would believe most of what MM claims. He does his homework - in his latest book (Dude, Where's my Country) every fact he states is footnoted.
I would be quite interested to see the proof of those groups who claim his statistics and information of American foreign policy is erroneous.
(I should add: I'm not arguing that MM didn't set out with an objective when making Bowling for Columbine. I can concede that he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross as he wanted. However this is very different than arguing that he was wrong in the facts he portrayed)
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
First off, I'm not here to defend Moore. I don't like him, I don't like his style, and I think he is a self-promoting ignoramus.
But...I am really offended by the "fat" comments. Being fat does not make one stupid; it does not make one ugly; and, this is important now, it does not mean that one necessarily overconsumes. Different people have different metabolisms. So, you know, don't make assumptions that you don't know to be true. It's like saying that someone "obviously" reads a lot, just because he or she wears glasses, or that they "must" play basketball, just because they are tall.
[ November 18, 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks littlemissattitude, I completely agree.
I was going to say earlier that being obese may be in some cases be as a result of overconsumption but not gluttony. People eat for many reasons, mostly emotional or pyschology. It is very rare that people over eat because they are greedy.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:The problem is: my cousin is a pedagogy major. She's studying the science of teaching. She told me yesterday that 4 of her teachers told her to watch "Bowling for Columbine", as "the movie depicts accurately the flaws in American society".
Hey...I'm not a suck-up or anything. I'm proud of my country and I'd like to live here my whole life. It's just that I would feel the same if people were kicking me or my country around as they're doing with U.S. right now (do you believe an U.S. flag were burnt four blocks from my house, in front of an old lady's home - she happends to be American, but she lives in Brazil for 16 years!)
Eduardo, I only wish that everyone had your attitude.
It’s chilling that someone would do that to an elderly lady. Wouldn’t those same people be outraged if someone in the US burned a Brazilian flag in front of an elderly Brazilian lady’s house?
I can understand that people are affected by movies, but to judge the entire society by one documentary is just foolish. I am surprised that educated people would do so. Would these people, who are so quick to judge American society, want me to judge Brazilian society based on the way the Vargas government protected the Nazis after WWII? Would they want me to say that Brazilian society is anti-Semitic because many art dealers are refusing to cooperate with investigations into the suspect origins of their masterpieces? I would never do that. It would be ignorant of me, especially in light of former President Cardoso’s commission for the search of Nazi monies in Brazil.
I would suggest that you refer people to this website: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html. It exposes the many inaccuracies and outright falsehoods in that movie.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: But...I am really offended by the "fat" comments. Being fat does not make one stupid; it does not make one ugly; and, this is important now, it does not mean that one necessarily overconsumes. Different people have different metabolisms. So, you know, don't make assumptions that you don't know to be true. It's like saying that someone "obviously" reads a lot, just because he or she wears glasses, or that they "must" play basketball, just because they are tall.
True, but I was just being cynical for the sake of showing how biased that film was. That's all. I never said anything about his weight making him stupid or ugly. I'm not a stereotypical person.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
imogen
quote: I can concede that he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross as he wanted. However this is very different than arguing that he was wrong in the facts he portrayed
yeah, cause his creative editing didn't change any meanings...
MM quotes imogen:
quote: he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross very different
he was wrong in the facts he portrayed
Look, I took two things you said, edited them together and voila, you now agree with Nick.,,
quote: . I know it wasn't an impartial documentary, but then I don't think it ever claimed to be.
A documentary, by definition, is supposed to be a work of non-fiction. Moores 'creative editing' made it a work of fiction. It's not that it wasn't impartial, it wasn't a documentary.
-me
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Imogen, don't forget the US/CIA support for the 1973 Allende coup in Argentine. It is well-documented, as is US involvement with Nicaraguan contras, Iran, and arming the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (including our old buddy Osama Bin Laden.) . psuedo-random Allende link Tough noogies if the above is not covered in the film, all of these examples support Moore's theme of fear driving American policy, or at least being a factor.
quote:Michael Moore stands up and says, "Don't be a glutton!" to the United States, and he himself is one, that IS hypocrisy
Nick. The original Tough Crowd one-liner is funny (speaking as an overweight person.) But that's all it is--a funny one-liner.
glutton.(from M-W online) 1 a : one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking b : one that has a great capacity for accepting or enduring something
obesity= morbidly overweight.
As littlemisscool rightly pointed out, obesity and gluttony are 2 different things, though sometimes related. Lack of exercise is at least as big a cause of America's obesity (and possibly Moore's) weight problems as gluttony. I feel Moore was speaking to a larger point: America has less than 5% of world population yet consumes (gluttonously) more than 20% of world resources.
I am overweight, and I claim as a fact that America is the fattest country on Earth. Am I a hypocrite?
Robespierre, allow me to say that my opinion of you has risen. While I disagree with the philosophies of Objectivism (I believe you said a few weeks ago you support some ideals of Objectivism but don't consider yourself an Objectivist) and strict laissez-faire capitalism, your arguments support them well. Bravo. You appear to be a political independant, which the US needs more of.
[ November 19, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It is a well-known fact that Christian fundamentalists have had increasing power in the Republican party over the last 25 years.
Since 1990, many commentators have seen outright domination of the party by religious fundamentalists, in both the national party and the state parties. Many state parties have essentially been taken over by fundamentalists.
"The religion of tolerance and environment-worship" (Shigosei) is a far cry from a real religion, although the PC crowd does have laughable excesses.
I suppose you have to pick your poison. Better tolerance and respect for the environment than intolerance and contempt for the environment, IMHO.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Quote:
__________________________________________
I can understand that people are affected by movies, but to judge the entire society by one documentary is just foolish. I am surprised that educated people would do so. Would these people, who are so quick to judge American society, want me to judge Brazilian society based on the way the Vargas government protected the Nazis after WWII? Would they want me to say that Brazilian society is anti-Semitic because many art dealers are refusing to cooperate with investigations into the suspect origins of their masterpieces? I would never do that. It would be ignorant of me, especially in light of former President Cardoso’s commission for the search of Nazi monies in Brazil.
_______________________________________________
Mr. M. First of all, I'd like to praise you for being so knowlegeable about Brazil. Most brazilians did not pay such attention to local history. To tell you the truth, many people over here still praise Getulio Vargas, who was a bloody dictator who ruled for 15 years (being the man who held power for the longes time in brazilian history), flirted with the Nazis, showed support for the Allies only when war was preety much won, retired as a life-long Senator and came back as President (voted on democratic elections!) some years later and commited suicide during his mandate. We hear a lot "President Cardoso was a liberal lackey! We should have people like Vargas, or the military back in power (we also had a bloody military dictatorship from 1964 to 1984. Vargas was tame, compared to them)". I mean...you are lucky. Here, we fear right wing because it means blood on the streets. American money supported the military dictatorship, but I guess there were different times and America already reaped the grim harvest for things like that (as Nicaragua, etc.) My whole point creating this thread is: your country is great! Mine too! Everybody who lovestheir country could say the same, I guess. They don't, not anymore. I'm not suggesting to "sweep bad things under the carpet". I think such things must be exposed and discussed. The problem is: there are people making whole careers, these days, as post-moderns doomsayers. They are voted, elected, write books, make movies, win prizes...always telling "the truth"; "The country (Brazil, U.S., England...name it) has gone downhill!" "We were great in the past, but not anymore!" These people do not want things to improve. If things do improve, they would loose everything (elections, career, budget, etc.). That's what I'm talking about. Sorry if my reasoning seems a little simplistic. Unfortunatelly my english is not good enough to make my point.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote: The problem is: there are people making whole careers, these days, as post-moderns doomsayers. They are voted, elected, write books, make movies, win prizes...always telling "the truth"; "The country (Brazil, U.S., England...name it) has gone downhill!" "We were great in the past, but not anymore!"
Ah, Eduardo, if that was your point, you could have chosen a better example than Michael Moore! What you described is the running theme of every single religious fundamentalist and conservative commentator that I can think of. Of course, it is also the theme of every liberal commentator I can think of, except for the part of “we were great in the past.” (Liberals tend to think we stunk in the past, too, not just now. )
I fear it is just part of human nature. We all tend to pay attention to the bad news that threaten us in the immediate future. So that’s where the money is.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Here, we fear right wing because it means blood on the streets. American money supported the military dictatorship. . .
Eduardo. Sorry to hear that, both your people's fear and American support for military dictatorship--it was unfortunately common practice during the Cold War for us to support right-wing governments because they fought the left, and communists. Hopefully, American foreign policy in the 21st century will be more nuanced and respectful of human rights. Not under Bush though--he has a lamentable and regrettable tendancy to see things in black-and-white, us-or-them, "You're either with us or against us!" (direct Bush quote) terms. I doubt if Bush knows what "nuanced" means.
quote: My whole point creating this thread is: your country is great! Mine too! Everybody who lovestheir country could say the same, I guess. They don't, not anymore. I'm not suggesting to "sweep bad things under the carpet". I think such things must be exposed and discussed.
Eduardo. I agree with this, especially the statement in bold. I love America, it is a great country. Yet I fear my government. The federal government grew exponentially in the 20th century, and stuff like the Patriot Acts I and II will deny future Americans their civil rights.
The US has already lost enormous credibility world-wide in the fight to champion human rights thanks to our unconstitutional detention without bail, charges, or proper legal representation of "enemy combatants", both citizen and non-citizen, in Guantanomo, Cuba. According to Amnesty Int'l and other human rights activists, dictators elsewhere are already using US tactics like these as rationalizations and justifications in their own own repressive schemes. The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear appeals concerning this, but no decision is likely for months.
Discussion of events and government actions is the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, too many Americans associate love of country with blind loyalty--"Love or leave it!!" is an all-too-common mantra.
The doomsayers are wrong-- things were not better in the past. The future can be better if everybody strives for it.
On a more positive note, I met a nice Brazilian girl yesterday. Any tips on macking in Portugese, Eduado?
"Macking" means to talk up, or cruise, or chat with a girl with the intention of getting a date or phone number or ...oh my God, there's actually a Macking Manual ?!?? Good Lord, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket.
[ November 20, 2003, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In America we fear the right because of their lame music and lack of fashion sense. I guess we should count our blessings. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
According to this:
Reasonable = Liberal Conservative = Not Liberal Not Liberal = Not Reasonable
So, when a liberal aquires a mini-van and becomes a conservative, is it because they have become less reasonable or because they have done their reasoning and come to a conclusion?
I don't think we are well-served by the linking reasonableness to the terms of liberal and conservative.
Conservatives prefer to stick to one MO, and liberals are open to considering and possibly implementing multiple MOs. In cases where one MO is the most useful solution, capable of producing the most happiness for the greatest amount of people and is able to withstand the stresses that will come, sticking to that MO is the most reasonable solution.
[ November 19, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, I'm afraid you're trying to apply LINEAR logic, when really it's a matter of subsets -- you know, the old "all foozles are cranks, and some cranks are whatzits" bit.
Being reasonable is, in my opinion, an essential part of being liberal. It is possible to be conservative while still being reasonable, but it is NOT possible to be liberal -- as distinct from being leftist -- without being reasonable.
In other words, any given liberal -- again, as distinct from a leftist -- will be reasonable. Some people will call themselves liberals, but will in fact be conservatives. Some conservatives may in fact be reasonable, but are not REQUIRED to be.
I hold liberals to a much higher standard, since conservatism is really the "default" philosophy of the hindbrain.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
I think you need to create new terms here, Tom, since (if I read you right) you could have a pro-abortion, environmentalist, pro-big government, pro-tax hike, anti-business, staunch Conservative.
This, I believe, would cause the immediate total destruction of the known universe. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The simple truth is that few people properly examine their own ideologies, and application of these labels is therefore pretty inconsistent.
That the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "panty-waisted, granola-eating, Ivory Tower pagan" is unfortunate, and no more accurate than the association of "conservative" with "warmongering, racist, big-business fuddy-duddy."
I'm fighting what I recognize is a losing battle to reclaim these terms in some sensible way, since they've become meaningless -- and even damagingly stereotyped -- in common usage. I blame the uncomfortable alliances that were used to forge the modern incarnations of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
[ November 19, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I am overweight, and I claim as a fact that America is the fattest country on Earth. Am I a hypocrite?
Like I said, I was being cynical on purpose. Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
*takes a deep breath and breaks own rule about not getting involved in political threads*
quote: A documentary, by definition, is supposed to be a work of non-fiction. Moores 'creative editing' made it a work of fiction. It's not that it wasn't impartial, it wasn't a documentary.
J_M, A documentrary, by definition, is a film which documents a real event, or journey, or set of ideas. Objectivity or impartiality have nothing to do with it.
The very nature of film as a medium for revealing information is that you need to point a camera at something, and in doing so, you are immediately selecting some pieces of information for presenation to your audience - those which will support your position towards your subject -and excluding others, thus, right from the outset, even before any editing of the stock footage has taken place, there can be no such thing as objectivity in any documentary. Even the makers of a wildlife documentary, for example, must take a position towards their subjects, and this position will colour every aspect of the film; selection of shots, composition, soundtrack etc... All of this works against the notion of objectivity.
A documentary film, then, does not have to be objective per se, as this is impossible, but rather, is a 'document' which people may read and interpret in the light of their own experience.
If a film maker claims to be objective in their approach to the subject, then you are right to expect a more balanced (though still subjective) presentation of all arguments involved, however this is not necessarily intrinsic to defining a film as documentary. Moore, however, makes no pretence of being objective in his film; He is simply documenting his own opinions and objections to a number of issues in contemporary American Society. The amount of time he spends on camera himself or in voice over, suggests to me that this film is very clearly a document of his own positions on these issues, and as such, it is up to me as a viewer to 'read' the film, and make my own decisions on the information presented to me. I watched this film with no expectation of objectivity, because I did not feel that Moore was claiming to be objective.
I guess that what I'm saying is that I don't believe that it is possible to criticise the film on the basis that it was edited to remove impartiality, because I don't believe this is a valid basis for doco film criticism.
I'm not trying to be critical here, but think that a better basis for debating this topic would be to assess the validity of Moore's arguments based on fact, rather than based on the medium through which he presented them. Anyway, That's enough from me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My beef with Bowling for Columbine is not that its editing was BIASED, but that its editing was at times deliberately misleading and/or obfuscating.
Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
I don't disagree with you at all, Tom, my point is simply that it's the nature of the beast, and a film of that type should be read with its bias in mind; I don't know that it was edited to deliberately mislead, but it was certainly edited to lead the viewers down Moore's path; from there we make our own judgements.
All I really took issue with was the notion that its lack of objectivity disqualifies it from being regarded as a documentary of any value at all. It seems that much of the rebuttal in this thread has dealt with the ad hominum argument regarding Moore's weight, what precisely constitutes the notion of liberalism / conservatism in US politics, and general assertions that the facts of the film are wrong, but with very little actual detail on where and how.
That said, It's also ages since I saw the film, so I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm in error.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
As for political labels: Whig and Tory. Need I say moore?
Anyway, about Moore's film, what really got me was when he used deceptive editing to imply that the NRA went to Flint a few days after the shooting. It was really a 8 months later, and had nothing to do with the shooting. That isn't just "subjectivity," that's lying. Furthermore, Moore doesn't do a good job of fact checking, and many of his statements are just plain old wrong. That isn't mendacity so much as ignorance, on the other hand. What really got me was his constant use of inuendo and insinuation to argue for points he knew would never stand up to scrutiny if said outright. The whole method of that movie was flawed. All it shows is that a few anecdotes and a few people willing to make strong statements, but doesn't establish a general trends. By his methods, you could convincingly establish that America is beseiged by neo-Nazis, and that is what causes our violence. The only problem being, it simply isn't true.
In short, if you want information on violence in America, don't watch that film. If you do watch the film, check every fact before you reference it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I doubt if Bush knows what "nuanced" means.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
The federal government grew exponentially in the 20th century, and stuff like the Patriot Acts I and II will deny future Americans their civil rights.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)