quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoramir:
My wife/MisterNiceGuy, Micheal Moore, John Kerry, etc.

---

Thor being marooned on an island with Micheal Moor couldn't be all that bad ... think no witnesses

My teachers

A Delta Team

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fyredawg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoramir:
My wife/MisterNiceGuy, Micheal Moore, John Kerry, etc.

---

Thor being marooned on an island with Micheal Moor couldn't be all that bad ... think no witnesses

---

hmmm i wish i would ba abandoned too to see the outcome

That guy (Moore) is a waste of good breathing air. I am glad the election is over and we can get on beyond it but I would have love to have been around him when he realized that not only did Bush win the election but the popular vote as well.

Who the heck is Moore? More politics?

I disagree. Michael Moore speaks for the informed people. Look at the states that opposed Bush. The east and west coast states, the big urban cities, the areas of melting pot communities, diversity and culture. These are the communities that fight to change what's wrong with this country. These are the communities that voted to remove Bush.

Bush is a war monger. He is sending our military brothers and sisters to their deaths to pad his own pocketbook. He is alienating our country from the rest of the world. He is making our country more hated, more unstable, and less secure.

Four more years of a brainless dictator tearing away at our country. You should be proud.

Ok lets review here .....

I said....

...I am glad the election is over and we can get on beyond it...

Simply put that mean beyond all the political mubo jumbo my canidate is better than your canidate. Enough is enough give it a rest allready. OK?

You said

I disagree. Michael Moore speaks for the informed people. Look at the states that opposed Bush. The east and west coast states, the big urban cities, the areas of melting pot communities, diversity and culture. These are the communities that fight to change what's wrong with this country. These are the communities that voted to remove Bush.

Which honestly i find insulting, you mean to tell me that because I dont live on the west or east coast I am uninformed? That I have no diversity, no culture. Aside of this race that as I said is over, thats simply assinine. You can support the current administration, or you can contiune to fuss about it, thats the neat thing about being American, but dont lump groups of people into something just based on your biased opinion of where they live or dont live. You should be proud.

Hear Hear. I agree Dago.

hurray for no more politics!

I think you mean misinformed people. I am well aware of just about everything Micheal Moore has to say. His films are blatant propaganda and anyone with the brains to do some actual reasearch knows that.

In an incident that took place recently on a college campus here in the North East (Yes, I'm in the Northeast, unfortunately) a woman called out to M.M. telling him that her brother was fighting in Iraq to protect his right to free speech. Moore's response, "I hope your brother gets shot in the head." His security guards (local cops in this instance, not paid security) were disgusted and reported it to the local news. How can a man like that even make a pretense of having a noble, if misguided, cause? And people compare Bush to Hitler?

To Thoramir, I quote, "a woman called out to M.M. telling him that her brother was fighting in Iraq to protect his right to free speech. Moore's response, "I hope your brother gets shot in the head." His security guards (local cops in this instance, not paid security) were disgusted and reported it to the local news.

Come on. And Michael Moore is the one creating the propaganda?

To Fyredawg, I quote, "dont lump groups of people into something just based on your biased opinion of where they live or dont live.

People lump themselves into groups. It's called safety in numbers. It's called not being informed enough to create your own opinion.

And to clarify my statement about urban areas being more informed, "more" is a relative term.

The more diverse a community is, the more ideas that community is going to generate. If there are more ideas available to a person, they can't help but to have more information by which to make a decision.

Use the example of a city filled with hundreds of ethnic restaurants. Wouldn't you say that a person that dines in a city like this on a regular basis would have a better appreciation for the varieties of cuisine that are available? That person would be unhappy and would feel a loss if they were forced to have to move to a city where less food choices were available.

The same applies to ideas. If you are surrounded by hundreds of religions, ideas, biases, and arguments, you have more power to make an informed decision.

If you are surrounded by ONE PARTY, one PUBLIC RADIO STATION, even ONE RELIGION, you are going to be more apt to follow the croud. Do you disagree?

Public Radio? NPR (National Public Radio) does nothing but bash Bush. They are nothing but a bunch of liberal holdovers who have been there since the age of the dinosaurs. It is virtually impossible to remove something from of the federal budget once it is put in. Republicans favor the private sector, we abhor the idea of public radio and television.

Micheal Moore does enough to dig himself into a hole without us. We don't have to make this stuff up, liberals do it for us. Don't believe me, why not go look up Moveon.orgs Bush is Hitler ads. Oh right, I forgot, you probably buy into them completely.

With regards to your Hitler reference, rest assured that I do not think George Bush caused the deaths of innocent Americans by orchestrating attacks on our own country.

I do, however think that he is causing the deaths of innocent Americans by orchestrating attacks on other countries.

Go ahead and call me Liberal. I take it as a compliment. To me, the word means open minded. Or to quote a dictionary definition, BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

EnterTextHere is a big politicans guy.

o, if u wanna see politics, go to the RvS forum, u'll make your head fall off

Some of Moore's criticisms of the Bush Administration are legitimate, but you have to take a look close look at what his motives are for why he is so critical of Bush.

Where was Moore and the liberal press when Clinton Invaded Bosnia on the premise that we would find mass graves everywhere. Sound familiar? We never found the mass graves, and instead we killed innocent civilians with our Tomahawk missiles. Today Bosnia is still a mess that requires constant military presence to keep the place from breaking out into all out civil war!

Moore has levied criticism for the expansion of the "warfare state" as he would view America as being today, but then he hypocritically turns around and supports the expansion of a state that is both a warfare and a welfare state that the Democratic party supports. His criticisms of the expansion of big government would mean more if he was not a socialist supporting the expansion of a welfare/warfare state.

The welfare state takes from the populace (both wealth and rights) and redistributes as it sees fit. I personally do not want government telling me how, when, where, and why, I should do anything.

Look at how many of our rights have been taken away over the years. FDR confiscated gold from the populace, and he instituted the federal income tax without the consent of the people. He knew people would refuse to pay at the end of the year, so on the suggestion of a well known department store owner, he just had it deducted from payrolls. It was only a couple percent, and was promised to be discontinued when WWII came to an end, and yet it has only grown.

Look at Columbine. A tradgic event, but Democrats used it to pass more gun regulations. Why? The year Columbine happened over 6,000 gun violations occurred, but only 15 were prosecuted. Why not enforce the current gun laws rather than putting more on the books?Columbine happened because there were few reprecussions for gun violations up to that point.

Consider the assult rifle ban. Democrats try to scare everyone into thinking that the expiration of the ban will put dangerous guns on the streets, but these gun are already out there. The ban only says that you cannot have a bayonet lug, a collapsable stock, and a flash suppressor. The functionality of the gun has not changed at all, and yet the masses and herds of liberals continue to talk about dangerous guns that are now being sold. I hear it at work, and over and over again, I have to explain how the ban works, and that these guns are rarly, if ever used in crimes.

Banning guns altogether is what liberals want, and why? Not because it makes our streets safer, but to take power away from the people. Look at the statistics. Most gun crimes are not committed with legally purchased firearms, they are committed with firearms that are often shipped over the borders, or from overseas illegally. Criminals will always have a black market to purchase guns, so in effect you are only disarming the law abiding citizen, and making them rely on big government to protect them. I personally do not want to wait 5-10 minutes for a police officer to arrive at my home if I find an intruder in the middle of the night.

Support the welfare state if you wish, but I prefer to have a state that allows me to have more of what is mine, and interferes less with how I should use it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jchung,

Well written, and an easy read. This is EXTREMELY rare in an online forum. I appreciate your response because your points are researched and clear. The only problem that I have with what you wrote, is that there was no mention of Bush. I’m confused as to why, but not surprised, that people attack Kerry or Moore instead of stating what is promising about Bush.

My main point was that I back Moore because he points out what is wrong with Bush. I didn't back Clinton during his time in office. I voted for Bush to defeat Gore. In these days of corrupt politicians working for big business, and not for the people, you really almost have to vote against on Election Day. Not to mention that I thought Gore was a schmuck.

So when you say, "Support the welfare state if you wish", "Democrats support banning guns”, “Where was the liberal press when...." I tell you it is not my direct intention to argue against anything of the kind. It is not even in the back of my mind. Of course I ultimately support them when I vote against the alternative, but look at the alternative. In addition, do you really feel that Columbine happened because “there were few repercussions for gun violations up to that point”?

All I need, is for a direct report to Donald Rumsfeld to personally tell me that our government is lying to the American people and sending our men and women to their deaths for Bush's hidden agenda; To tell me that even the military commanders have their hands tied because of Bush’s hidden agenda. This gives me the realization that Bush is evil and needed to be replaced last Tuesday. I am APPALLED that the majority of our country re-elected him, and for what reasons.

All I hear these days is how backwards these tree-hugging hippie liberals are. How they want to get rid of guns. How they want to allow same sex marriages, how they want to save the spotted owl. My reaction to this is rage. Banning assault rifles isn’t banning all guns. Do you need an assault rifle to stop an intruder in your home? Who cares if gays marry? I can’t fathom how this affects you. Do these topics overshadow sending unprepared, unarmored men into an unjustified battle? By the way, has our military ever even created scenarios based upon a WMD threat from Iraq? The answer is no.

We can’t fight terror on our own. If we’re fighting for the good of the world community, we need to have the support of the world community. By re-electing this puppet, we have told the world that we support four more years of our country doing it our way, and screw you if you don’t agree. And then we’ll say, “hey, how come you guys aren’t helping?”

I support our military families, innocent people around the world, a strong United States working with other countries around the world, and the lesser of the two evils on Election Day.

I think that in some ways we are in more agreement than disagreement.

My point with Moore and the liberal press was that there was a lack of criticism that Clinton received for His actions in Bosnia. I am not saying that what is happening in Iraq is a display of good policy. I am just saying that there is a lack of consistency in the media.

The point about the assult rifles is that the liberals are misinformed as to how the ban even works. No I would not use an assult rifle to defend my home. Everyone who knows anything about guns knows that a pistol with hollow points, or a shotgun is the best weapon for tight quarters.

I find that often when I talk to liberals they do not even understand the policies that they are fighting against. This is not to say that all liberals are like this, but you made the point that liberals tend to be more informed, and my experience has been that liberals are no different than the backward rednecks they constantly put down for being ignorant.

Despite all of their "cultural experiences" I am constantly bombarded with the same ignorant questions that "rednecks" ask me (I live in Maryland near D.C., and you can't get too much more liberal than that). People are people no matter where you go, so please don't say that liberals are more informed. It is okay to have differences in opinions, but it is clearly wrong to look at the other side and label them, or look down on them.

I am not sure why you brought up the issue of gay marriages, and fighting terror. I have not said that I support or oppose either issue, but to clear the air, no if a person is gay i am not somehow offended by this. I believe that it is a moral issue, but I understand that not all people share my moral values, so if the person gives me my personal space, and does not try to push their beliefs on me then live and let live. The war on terror? I support closing our borders. This would end the whole issue of terrorism before it starts, and no I am not against immigrants. I am just saying more security, and better screening is a superior policy.

People need to begin to realise that pure liberalism and pure conservatism would lead to total chaos. I see the benefits of both sides, although I tend to side with conservatives, I would hate to see all liberals disappear, because they tend to "temper" the radical far right wing. In the same note liberals need to see the benefits that conservatives bring, and how they keep far left segment in check.

*cough* this thread has one way off course *cough*

Jchung,

I agree Moore does have some valid points, but most of us aren't going to take them seriously in between all the invalid ones. Well said, I think sometimes we get caught up so much in the specifics of our views on forums like this that we don't often articulate why we hold those views in the first place.

Entertexthere,

Also well written, but I have a couple of things I'd like to bring up. If Bush's agenda is hidden then how do you know what it is or that it even exist?

My other point is about Same-sex marriage.
Do you think that just because you can't fathom how it affects you that it will not affect you? I can think of how it will affect me, or more importantly, my family if it becomes legalized. I'll make a long story short (since I started this an hour ago but got interupted by a long phone call). If same-sex marriage becomes legalized private citizens will be legally obligated to recognise as same-sex marriage as the same as traditional marriages in many circumstances. Marriage entails legal benefits and protections. Spouses for one, can not be compelled to testify against each other in court (in some places they aren't allowed to do it at all).

[This is a point that I would bring up later, buy editing gets difficult in a 1.5 by 4 inch window (at least on my PC it is). I think I may be better off next time using the quick reply window). I believe the window is bigger and I can see what I write a little better.]

A pair of criminals could get married to each other (in advance, of course) to keep prosecutors from forcing them to testify (not that this can't already happen with a pair of the opposite sex). This may or may not be likely, but it has an affect. Roomates of the same sex in Canada are already getting married not because they are gay, but to gain benefits both tax benefits and work benefits.

It will affect employers (including private employers) in what kind of benefits they are allowed to give their employees. I will affect property owner who rent out their properties by forcing them to condone certain lifestyles on their own property. It will limit the free excercise of religion, a right garaunteed by the US constitution, by compelling people to act against their religious principles. In Massachusetts, the state supreme court forcibly compelled the legislature to write a law under their same-sex ruling. This was an inversion of the system of checks and balances set up under both national and state constitutions. Courts are supposed to enforce laws passed by the legislature and to review new laws to make sure they don't trample over Constitutional law. The courts were never intended to require the legislature to pass a new law. Once same sex marriage gets established in a place you can expect more of this kind of practice. Regardless of your moral perspective on the issue, courts impose are new standard of living on all of us. Citizens will either be compelled to comply with this new standard or they will be punished.

No one has voted to legalize same-sex marriage, it isn't the will of the people. In fact, polling indicates 70% of the people in the US oppose same sex marriage (and the number is nearly as high in blue states as red). In addition, much of the remaining 30% doesn't support gay marriage, they just don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. How can a new ethic be imposed a populace that does not support it? Look what happened during prohibition which was the last (major) time an ethic was imposed on the popultion against their will. The result was disasterous and is still affecting us today. The law turned the US into a population of criminals. It incited violence, created smuggling, and gave birth to organized crime (which is the part that still affects us today). Prohibitionists didn't see how banning alcohol would affect them either (though they thought they did), but no one could seriously argue that it did not have an affect.

By changing the definition of a marriage you also change the social expectations for behaviour in marriage. In some cultures polygamous marriage is the norm and it's affect in pervasive throughout the culture. [Heck, using the same legal arguments proponents of polygammy and marriage to animals and even objects may be able to impose their practices on society. That is if they remain logically consistent.] In some parts of Canada and either Sweden or Norway (I can't remember which) it is illegal to criticise homosexuality at all, even in a church. People in those places are imprisoned for even saying the wrong thing.

If two guys want to call themselves married, and live like married people I don't care in the least. Have fun, just don't tell me about it at work. . . . . .but when you bestow legal recognition on something that is so out of the societal norm it's going to have a pervasive affect whether it is immediately recognised or not.

Sorry, for the horrendous editing job. Like I said it's difficult to present yourself coherently in a 1.5 by 4 inch window (actually I think it's closer to 3.5).

Edit: By the way, conservatives aren't the only ones who think Micheal Moore is full of ****. Here's a link were they lambast him at Slate which judging by all the "red states are full of stupid people" articles they've posted lately I'd hardly call a conservative source.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/