by patio34 180 Replies latest social current
Thanks for the civil response, Yeru, instead of ad hominem. If you read my posts, you won't see support of Moore, just an informative pc that he was on TV. If that offends your sense of free speech, then you have a problem. If you don't agree with him, fine, don't look at him. But the rest of us have our freedoms too.
If it's "hate speech" Moore is proferring, then there are courts for that. I think the presidency can take care of itself if that's the case.
Michael Moore is to the Truth what Jehovah's Witnesses are to the Truth...the two have nothing in common. Michael Moore is a loud mouth pig who rides on the shirt tails of the freedoms others have provided for him.
Yeru, that comment made me think of what JW's say about us. "Don't listen to them. They are apostates. They stretch the truth, and tell lies." For that reason alone, I will see the movie, just to see what he has to say. He might be on to something.
That was ust a thought that occurred to me when I read your post.
several months ago Simon called Americans people with "fat arses".
but............it's true
Support of Michael Moore IS IN and OF itself HATE SPEECH....my reply...NO, if you want to Bash Bush, I'll defend him. You ruined your post by supporting Michael Moore. --Yeru
I would appreciate it if he would please give support of that statement in something other than his own opinion. If it's unsupportable by some law or fact, he should stick to facts. That statement is something one would find in a totalitarian regime rather than a freedom of speech country.
Besides, what is "hate" speech about Moore? Does he encourage people to violence? Interesting that it's lumped in. Example: Rush Limbaugh condoned the torture---would that be hate speech in the above's opinion? Yet, he's not prosecuted. I thought that hate speech according to law, would be something that incites to violence.
These charges are very serious and to me smack of a totalitarian society wherein anyone who disagrees with the above opinion quoted is criminal. I'm glad that these views aren't dominant.
It's reckless and irresponsible to throw around charges that anyone who "supports" Moore is guilty of hate speech and only inflames things.
It does give support to what's been said here of the right's inclination towards incendiary speech designed to inflame people rather than a calm discussion of the facts.
Yeru,
From my first post on this thread I asked if anyone could refute with facts what Moore has been saying. Instead only personal criticism has been presented and unsubstantiated charges. I agree with Patio, if you only want to beat on the man then stay off the thread.
I do not hate Bush, and pointing out his lies, misrepresentations, flagrant dismissal of the Geneva Conference rules, and religous fanaticism is a pursuit of truth, not hate speech. As patriots we need to have our eyes open to violations of the spirit and the letter of our own constitution. Anyone, whatever their office, who ignores the advise of his own appointed advisors, such as Colin Powell and the advise of all his military lawyers and pushes an unlawful agenda at the cost of many lives, is not a good American and does not belong in office. (perhaps in jail)
Now that is my opinion, and it happens Michael Moore shares that opinion. What is hateful about it?
Jst2laws
A voice wanting to make money IMO period. In his movie 9-11 he was aware of some of the abuse of Iraqi's far before it was made public, yet he waited to disclose it in his film and tries to makes Bush and Co. look bad because he supossedly knew and did nothing. Moore could have blew the lid off this months ago but because he wanted to make a buck he kept it to himself and did nothing.
Moore is more or less providing a public service as far as I am concerned. He should be rewarded and why shouldn't he make a buck.
Whatever Moore's reasons for not "blowing the lid off" sooner are unknown to me, but he is an artist/film maker and there is something posative about his timing. That the movie is released just in time to perhaps sway those who were teetering on the brink of voting for Bush in this next election. They might as a result of seeing this movie re-think their choice.
I think the "bigger picture" is getting rid of a dangerous person like Bush who does lie and violate international laws. If Fahrenheit 9/11 helps to do that then I think more lives will have been spared than the immediate ones due to exposing things at abu graib (and the pictures came out anyway).
At the moment, the world is spiralling into chaos and old bush boy and his pupeteers are leading the charge. We need a change of direction and we need it fast.
Practically anyone with experience of these matters knows it and have taken the unprecedented step of standing up and objecting to the current administrations actions (visa vis diplomats and abassadors from the UK and US). As they say, they just see 30 or 40 years of hard work and progress being pissed away. What a god awful steaming mess. And unnecessary.
You have to look at why 'the rest of the world' sees Bush as the biggest threat to the world and ask yourself if this is something to be proud of and support.
Corvin,
You are correct the timing of the release is to sway the undecided votes. Just look of how hard the right wing is working to discredit the film and trying to put public pressure on the movie theaters to not show it. They seem to have no counter arguments to what Moore's is saying only that by watching it you are "Un American" and as a good American we shouldn't watch it. As being raised a Jdub I have always been of the opinion that if someone tells me I can't watch or read something, I will deliberately go out of my way to watch it. I don't agree with Michael Moore completely but let me be the judge of what I will believe for myself.
I have to thank Yeru for answering my question. Although just like a previous poster said George Bush being supreme commander and chief in a time of emergency, there was no way he didn't know that they were using the air force one plane to fly the bin Ladens out of the country. Was it because George was still in shock and didn't know what to do? Like he sat for 11 minutes reading a book to an elementary class while the nation was under attack?? Maybe he was in shock like most of us but you have to ask yourself is this what a commander and chief should be doing in a time of national emergency? Should he have shown real leadership and made a public statement to the nation? I ask why did the news networks not ask these though questions?
Will
I am proud that we are killing with the help of the Saudi's Al Queda members who have a hard one for chopping heads off. Did we chop any heads off prisoners in the Iraqi prisons? Did we chop the heads off the 1993 World Trade Center bombers?
We are not violating Geneva conventions becuase these prisoners are not "UNIFORMED" army personnel but guerilla terrosits. If for some reason the 9/11 hijackers some how managed to get caught, do you think they would have deserved "Geneva" convention rights?
In WW 2 our countrys (Europe and United States) were so united battling the common enemy. Well today we have a far worse common enemy that are all around us in OUR countries and they are the ones that want the world to end. And I think during a time of war no real citizen should speak against thier governments. Remember in WW 2 how this country was so united in fighting the enemy, kids even collected srap metal for the effort. Why is America hated so much today, especially from those with in its boundries?
May I ask:
Why is flying the Bin Laden Family out of the Country after 911so bad? I'm sure their family would be in iminent danger had they remained. They are opposed to Osama's mayhem and have stated such publicly. What's the scandal here? It sounds to me like there is some kind of weak attempt to tie Bush in with Osama Bin Laden. There's plently of legitimate arguments against Bush out there. This one sounds pretty shallow.
I hope there is more to the movie that just that.
