Michael Moore

[LearJett+]

What does everyone think about Michael Moore?

[»Ducky]

Our opinion right?

 

 

http://www.globalwatchwalmart.com/photos/uncategorized/moore2.jpg

http://images.ashley.hosts.rumandmonkey.com/memes/!@#$%^&*got/Fabulous.jpg

[MonteZuma]

He is entertaining and thought-provoking.

[Manus Celer Dei]

He's a menace to intelligent debate.

[MonteZuma]

He's a menace to intelligent debate.

So is this forum.

[Manus Celer Dei]

He's a menace to intelligent debate.

So is this forum.

 

I disagree, while this forum does not have the resounding intellect one could possibly find elsewhere, it is not expected of a forum attached to an MMOG to provide such. Neither do the debates of this forum influence or attempt to influence the opinions of the public at large. I conclude that this forum provides no more menace to intelligent debate than drunken discussions on Middle-Eastern politics do in small, dingy bars that serve bathtub vodka in the siberian wastes.

 

[edit]This is one of the few times I have to disagree with you monte, as light-hearted as your previous post may have been [/edit]

[»i88gerbils]

I have never read nor watching anything by Michael Moore. I think back when he did "Bowling For Columbine" people were all excited about it. I did not think any of his movies would entertain me so I simply have ignored him.

 

From all the hullaboo about whatever liberalism he spouts I think of one thing - people must be pretty dumb. That is all.

[LearJett+]

I think he's a fact-twister that uses exploitation to make money. Even the liberals I know don't like him.

 

He is a hypocrite, too. Did you know that he owns stock in Halliburton, and films movies in Canada as to avoid union charges?

 

And he's a fatty.

[AstroProdigy]

Learjett's right. We don't like him. Foreigners seem to like him because he criticizes the US government.

[MonteZuma]

Astro. To me, you are a foreigner.

 

People outside the US don't care about the US government per se. They just hate GWB and his foreign policy. They tend to like Moore because many share his views about US foreign policy, neoliberalism and gun culture. If Michael Moore was born in Europe, he wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.

[Aileron]

Yes, but Europe doesn't, on the most fundimental level, claim to have US interests at heart. (And they shouldn't)

[SeVeR]

I have the interests of the whole of the Western World at heart including America. I wish we could form a western government and gradually include other countries as their views become much the same as the West. Lets face it Britain and America would very easily become the same country although currently there are too many Nationalists for this to happen. I don't understand the need for a National Iden!@#$%^&*y as it only serves to fulfill our psychological desire for some personal iden!@#$%^&*y in the most basic way possible. It is so primitive to be proud of living in your country because there are so many better ways to establish personal iden!@#$%^&*y which do not discriminate between birth-place. Nationalism (and on a milder form Patriotism) only serves to distance us from other peoples and puts a value on the heads of every person in the world who should ultimately be of equal value to ourselves when only birth-place is used as identification. I find it quite amazing how pro-american and feck-the-rest-of-the-world a large amount of Americans are... i can't help but correlate this to the extroadinary amount of American flags i see here as a sign of patriotism. Ramble Over.

[MonteZuma]

I agree on one level SeveR, but nationalism isn't just about birth place. At least to some extent it is about culture. US culture and British culture are different and the people in each country aspire to different things. Diversity causes problems but it isn't all bad.

 

Europeans, like everyone else, have their own interests at heart, but they also think that the invasion of Iraq was bad for the US too.

[Aileron]

Marxism doesn't work. All historical attempts at true sovreignty-affecting international cooperation instantly dissolved into effective empires.

[MonteZuma]

All historical attempts at true sovreignty-affecting international cooperation instantly dissolved into effective empires.

Not really. The European Union works.

 

Australia was comprised of 6 different colonies that each decided, by referenda, to federate.

 

I'm sure there are other examples.

[Aileron]

True, the EU is indeed taking longer than "instantly", but only because it keeps skirting along the lines of affecting the member nations' sovreignty. Really, all its doing is simplifying trade agreements that probably would be occuring anyway. I wouldn't really count the EU as a sovreignty affecting international organization.

[MonteZuma]

I wouldn't really count the EU as a sovreignty affecting international organization.

Then you don't understand the EU. When you give up your currency and give up the right to control immigration, and voluntarily submit to a multi-national legislature and court you are giving up a lot of sovreignty.

[Aileron]

But then in the aspects of currency and immigration the EU is empire-like, isn't it?

 

What I said was true...it just wasn't very profound. If individual nations put power into a large international en!@#$%^&*y, then the international en!@#$%^&*y will have power equal to the sum of all the donations.

 

To that end international organizations scare me. Wheras national governments are elected by their citizens, international organizations are not. Thus, all they do is take power out of the hands of voters and into the hands of whoever is running the international organization.

 

In this particular case, the EU controls little. Currency isn't as important as the hard products that back up the currency, and immigration only matters if there are large-scale migrations of people. Still, the summation of economic control is changing Europe from a group of national economies to a single continental economy. All I did was slap the "empire" label on that single economy.

[MonteZuma]

But then in the aspects of currency and immigration the EU is empire-like, isn't it?

No.

 

To that end international organizations scare me. Wheras national governments are elected by their citizens, international organizations are not.

The European parliament is elected. The EU is a democratic ins!@#$%^&*ution.

 

In this particular case, the EU controls little. Currency isn't as important as the hard products that back up the currency, and immigration only matters if there are large-scale migrations of people. Still, the summation of economic control is changing Europe from a group of national economies to a single continental economy. All I did was slap the "empire" label on that single economy.

The EU controls a lot. The Soviet Union may have been an empire, but the European Union is not. It is more like a commonwealth.

[Aileron]

Empires have one common currency throughout and allow citizens to immigrate all over their territory freely*, so yes, in the aspects currency and immigration the EU is empire-like. The tricky part is that most empires controlled many more things than basic economics. The EU doesn't look like the USSR because the USSR controlled practically everything, and the EU only controlls a handfull of unimportant things.

 

Suppose you had seven men each holding a full gl!@#$%^&* of water. They each pour half of their glasses into a bowl in the center of the room. Now the bowl has water in it.

 

The seven men represent different nations, and the water represents political power. An empire is when one nation has political power over another, so in this example all it would take to create an empire is for someone to pick up the bowl...and since political power can't just be set down someplace, someone has to pick it up.

 

As I said...there's no way I could be wrong here, because the statement I'm making isn't that profound. Its a direct corollary to "Power cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one body to another." "Power" is not a natural physical object, only a man-made concept. Thus I cannot prove this statement by anything other than axiom.

 

 

*Many empires had racial definitions for "citizen". Thus, whole populations were not given the right to immigrate, but only because those populations were not considered true citizens and were denied a mul!@#$%^&*ude of rights.

[MonteZuma]

Empires have one common currency throughout and allow citizens to immigrate all over their territory freely

Where are you getting these ideas from? What is your definition of empire? The British Empire (for example) did not have freedom of immigration or a single currency? Nor did the soviet 'empire', if you can call it that. In any case, this whole discussion about 'empires' seems irrelevant to me.

 

the EU only controlls a handfull of unimportant things.

This is patently wrong. At this point, it seems to me that you would argue that black is blue.

 

Suppose you had seven men each holding a full gl!@#$%^&* of water. They each pour half of their glasses into a bowl in the center of the room. Now the bowl has water in it.

 

The seven men represent different nations, and the water represents political power. An empire is when one nation has political power over another, so in this example all it would take to create an empire is for someone to pick up the bowl...and since political power can't just be set down someplace, someone has to pick it up.

WTF?

 

As I said...there's no way I could be wrong here, because the statement I'm making isn't that profound.

In that case, I must be really dumb, coz I don't have any idea what you are talking about. glasses of water? A bowl? Someone must pick it up?

 

Its a direct corollary to "Power cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one body to another." "Power" is not a natural physical object, only a man-made concept. Thus I cannot prove this statement by anything other than axiom.

Point being?

[Ophie]

personally I think michael moore is overrated and I think liberalism now is overrated. I really don't like his style of reporting and exaggerations, it's typical of liberals

 

not that i like conservatives like bill o'reilly though..

 

personally i like jon stewart and stephen colbert - they might seem liberal, but it seems like they don't care, and they make everything hilarious hahaahh

 

blah im on crack

[AstroProdigy]

Start a new thread about the European Union . I'll start it...

[Aileron]

Well, we weren't really talking about the EU in particular...more like arguing over the definition of "empire".

 

Really though recent events opened a new line of discussion.

 

If Michael Moore was born in Europe, he wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.

 

Indeed, but Europe is mostly full of whackos. There have been anti-government riots in France yet again.

 

I don't really have much to back this claim on, but it seems that Europeans tend to hate whoever is in charge regardless of their policy, that in an effort to be counter cultural they have come to disrespect all forms of authority. This is an inherent aspect of liberalism. Its not necessarily a wrong behavior...there are times when those in power are wrong and should be opposed.

 

However, most of the time those in power are just doing the best they can, and just can't make everything perfect for everybody, and the problem is that if there are too many people who are too left wing, they sometimes oppose good governments and sound policies. Politics, like everything, needs balance, and Europe is too far left wing.

 

The major problem is that left and right are relative, and the position of "balance" can often be misinterpreted by point of view. However, the fact that people may have different points of view about where the center is does not disprove the existence of a center. I for one would define the center would be the proper combination of conservatism and liberalism that leads to the fewest non-political governmental disasters and most non-political governmental benefitial events.

 

I will define "non-political" disasters and benefitial events as events in which both sides would agree upon the desirability of the event. For instance, the current war in Iraq would not count as non-political, because some support it and some oppose it. A high crime rate would be non-political, because everyone who isn't a criminal opposes crime. Political events cannot be counted, because doing so would make the balance simply the sum of everyone's opinion...leading to the statement "the majority is always right" which is clearly flawed.

 

So, if we compaire the US to Europe, the exclusive non-political problems the US was the sloppy handling of hurricane Katrina, poorer primary education, and health care. The exclusive problems Europe has is rioting, poorer secondary education, and high crime rates. Overall, I'd say the US is closer to center, because hurricane Katrina was in the end an act of nature, whereas rioting is a correctible social problem.

 

It seems the center is a little to the left of the US and a lot to the right of Europe. So, it is correct to claim that Michael Moore is indeed a left-wing looney.

[MonteZuma]

Indeed, but Europe is mostly full of whackos. There have been anti-government riots in France yet again.

Anti-government riots in France is hardly evidence that Europe is full of whackos.

 

I don't really have much to back this claim on, but it seems that Europeans tend to hate whoever is in charge regardless of their policy, that in an effort to be counter cultural they have come to disrespect all forms of authority. This is an inherent aspect of liberalism. Its not necessarily a wrong behavior...there are times when those in power are wrong and should be opposed.

Europe is one of the most peaceful, tolerant and safest places in the world. It is totally wrong to say that Europeans disrespect authority. The fact that the US president is coddled compared to most other leaders in long-established democracies is not something that demonstrates US superiority. The US is the backward exception.

 

However, most of the time those in power are just doing the best they can, and just can't make everything perfect for everybody, and the problem is that if there are too many people who are too left wing, they sometimes oppose good governments and sound policies. Politics, like everything, needs balance, and Europe is too far left wing.

Most of the world thinks that the US is too far right wing. You are in the minority. Politicians aren't all serial altruists and most can't be trusted. Intense public scrutiny is a good thing.

 

The major problem is that left and right are relative, and the position of "balance" can often be misinterpreted by point of view. However, the fact that people may have different points of view about where the center is does not disprove the existence of a center. I for one would define the center would be the proper combination of conservatism and liberalism that leads to the fewest non-political governmental disasters and most non-political governmental benefitial events.

You are demonstrating cultural bias.

 

So, if we compaire the US to Europe, the exclusive non-political problems the US was the sloppy handling of hurricane Katrina, poorer primary education, and health care. The exclusive problems Europe has is rioting, poorer secondary education, and high crime rates. Overall, I'd say the US is closer to center, because hurricane Katrina was in the end an act of nature, whereas rioting is a correctible social problem.

Your examples are selective and not representative. There have been planty of riots in the US, but how many are you aware of in Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, etc, etc, etc. There is nothing wrong with secondary or tertiary education in Europe. Although health care is more readily available in Europe, and much cheaper, the US has, in some ways, better health care. Any country would have had a big problem managing the aftermath of a Katrina style disaster. It depends on what indicators you use. Your examples are meaningless.

 

It seems the center is a little to the left of the US and a lot to the right of Europe. So, it is correct to claim that Michael Moore is indeed a left-wing looney.

There is no centre. You are culturally biased and out of touch with the rest of the world.