Michael Moore at RNC — Page 3

namo, fortunately i'm not a progressive republican but a throw back neo-con war mongering mccarthy-ite, so i don't feel qualified to contribute to this other than to say, sec. hhs rick santorum.

---

We can (and likely will) sit around and debate the effectiveness of Moore's film and whether or not the conclusions he draws are fair. But any way you look at it, the most damning things for me about Bush in that film are the things that Bush says and does without any help from Moore to make him look bad.

What THE HELL was he doing sitting in that freaking classroom after being told, "America is under attack"?

And, yet, enough time has passed since the film has been in the headlines that it has basically disappeared from the general debate. (Thank God for a dvd release). And now, if Bush's people SAY he is a good President and SAY that the economy is better and SAY this and SAY that, people start believing what they are TOLD.

MAYBE, Moore's film isn't the greatest argument against Bush (though I think it is pretty damning), but the discussion has to take place.

And, I am getting tired of being told that I am mean and cruel and what not for saying that I hate Bush. That I do not understand how anyone could vote for him. I am tired of this subtle return to a time where you couldn't criticize Bush without being labeled various dirty words.

Well, call me anything you please, I stand by my hatred of the man and of his administration. And, it's ok that I literally hate him and his administration. I'm an American. I have a right to my opinion. And, I am gay--and I have a right to not settle for second class citizenship.

---

Sunfish...I know he is writing a column...I still say 'what the heck is he doing there?' He took the gig to write the column but his strong stance against this administration seems to indicate to a reasonable person that he would want to stay out of this mix.

The guy makes no sense most of the time anyway, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

---

Interestingly, I found that particular article to be one the few balanced and objective things I've seen written by him.

Knowing your enemy is one thing but a) Moore has had more than enough time and research to know his enemy by now and b) the spectacle that was made of his being there last night both on his part and on the part of the people on the floor was just ridiculous.

It's hard to take him seriously when he uses what would otherwise be an invaluable intellect to twist the work he does and thereby invalidates the work and beliefs of a lot of other people by giving the hard line right wing Republicans the inaccuracies and credibility gaps to which they can point and sneer.

He would have done everyone a much bigger favor had he just stuck to the facts. He's done this with Roger and Me and most of all the rest of his work with the possible exception of Bowling for Columbine.

---

I'm all for you having your own opinion of Moore, but the way you are twisting his appearance at the RNC into something that fits your view of him makes you seem unreasonable.

---

See, Plum, I think you're falling into that profoundly American technique of seeing things as either/or. As W said, "Either yer a fer us or agin us."

I believe that Moore is very much "for" the troops. You can be absolutely for the troops and be repulsed by their blasting of nu metal songs as they kill. You can be for troops and repulsed by Abu Ghraib. It's sad that in our culture we can't hold contradictions and live with the dissonance they cause because in that dissonance we can find solutions.

---

And it was clear that he got under the GOP's bootstraps. They are not happy with him.

"the inaccuracies and credibility gaps to which they can point and sneer."

The film holds none of these--this is what pro-Bush (anti-Moore?) people what you to think. You may not agree with how Moore paints the picture or what the picture is, but his paints and brushes are all fair game.

---

jrb, I hope you weren't referring to this board because you certainly aren't being told here that you're wrong for hating the current President and administration. On the contrary, you are in the vast majority.

---

Namo, just for the record, I'm against them, have been from the start, and have never been ashamed of that fact. But Moore still aggravates me, perhaps because I'd had plenty of exposure to his work before this election cycle and he isn't a novelty to me anymore. And I really didn't appreciate that clip about soldiers' musical tastes.

The average age of an American soldier is about 19- my age. I have several old friends and cousins my age in the Israeli Army right now. They- we- are kids. And you'd be bored out of your mind, too, as well as scared, if you were out patrolling for hours looking out for danger that could come from anywhere.

papa - while your point is taken - again with the goose/gander thing - I think we're talking about different things here. Your feelings about Kerry are brought on by your impression of his personality and your critisism of his political history. But Bush has actively and agressively spear-headed an outright attack on the liberties of a sub-group of citizens that he supposedly is in charge of. This causes a reflexive defensive posture, and engenders an entirely different type of emotional response. While I find Kerry distasteful - primarily for the reasons you listed - I can honestly say that there is an element of hate in my response to Bush - because that is what I feel we are being shown to us. Animals we are, and the instinct for survival is strong indeed. Having made the choice to attack us where and how we live, I think the enormity of the emotional response is understandable, if not justified.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but even this pacifist knows how to use a gun. You don't scare me papa