I will boycott anything that pig Michael Moore does

Well, I would like to offer a political opinion.

Michael Moore is fat and ugly.

That sort of thing is what often passes for political dissent in this country.

I'm all for dissent. I think it's healthy and important. I participate in it myself, though mine is usually directed at the Dallas Police Department and Dallas city leaders.

But true dissent is about the issues. I'm not saying that Michael Moore's speech was not on issue because you could argue that it was, but people do get offended by what is seen as personal attacks.

It's one thing to debate and discuss. It's another to insult and degrade. And I think that's what often makes the difference.

For example, on this board, there are several people with whom I disagree politically most of the time. One prominent example would probably be Jeff. But I can't remember ever having a contentious conversation with Jeff because he lays out his opinions in a well-thought out manner and while we may argue about the issues, it's never about anything more than the issues.

If I ever made friends with anybody, I know I could be friends with Jeff because I respect his opinions (because I know they are well-thought out and aren't expressed in an attacking manner, etc.) even though they so often disagree with my own.

For the record, my mother is the same way. She's about as far away from me politically as is possible. But we can have debates and discussions of issues while still being polite, etc.

But there are many (on both sides of the political spectrum) who do nothing but attack. And so often, it's about attacking the person behind the issues, rather than the issues themselves.

Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh has been one of the biggest offenders over the years, which is why I can never listen to him. And a not insignificant bit of similar distribe has come out against Bush in regards to the war.

And I think that's often what has made the difference in what does or does not anger people.

 

Oh, I'd like to also point out that I'm actually not as good as many others as not being attacking, etc. when expressing my opinions, and I do sometimes offend.

So, in a way, I'm something of a hypocrite.

But at least I can see it and acknowledge it.

 

these stupid celebrities think they are god, or they were elected to lead or something. I couldnt give a rats a$$ what they have to say. Morons....War has started...it is inevitable.

Now is the time to support your troops, pray for them. Dont mock what they are dying for.

 

There's no better way to support your troops than to bring them home.

No one condemned the troops, so stop assuming things.


How many times do I have to say this?

Anti-war is not anti-troops. Anti-bush is not anti-america.

 

Current projections, based on the number of us that post this and the number of times people keep ignoring it:

371,845 times.

 

First off, Michael Moore is a political activist first and an entertainer second. He chooses the entertainment field as a means to activism. That's always been the case. He's never made a movie or TV show or written a book that wasn't political in nature. I agree with those who say Willis or Robbins (or frankly even the Dixie Chicks) shouldn't be boycotted for having or expressing opinions, but Moore has always been about expressing opinions. The only new thing about last night was there was a wider audience. If you're about to launch a boycott of his work based on that, you've never seen his work and your boycott will be irrelevant.

Next, on the far more important point, as has been said so incredibly many times, there is nothing paradoxical WHAT SO EVER about supporting the troops and opposing the war and the person who chose to wage it. And those of us who oppose the war don't blame the troops for it -- it wasn't their decision. We blame the person who made the decision. Are you anti-Iraqi because you oppose Saddam? I don't think you are. The same thing is true of those of us who oppose the current administration's war and love our country and our countrymen. I will never mock or trivialize their deaths, but that doesn't mean I can't find absolute fault with the person who made the decision to put them in harm's way. I live in America so I get to do this. Even outside of businesses or army bases. Even, were I a successful film maker, in an awards ceremony. This outrage about "appropriate" places to condemn what one believes to be unnecessary death is petty. If you actually believe this war is wrong and people are dying for wrong reasons, being "appropriate" is the last thing on your mind. My opinion on this is not a fair weather thing -- it's a passionately held belief. And the fact that it is actually happening now does not weaken my resolve. It strengthens it. If it didn't, my feelings on this issue wouldn't be worth a damn.

 

If you are bashing the President, then it is anti-America. You are disrespecting our leader. I have no problem with you not agreeing, just show some respect for the leader of the USA.

So I do agree with you, anti-war doesn't mean anti-troop and anti-Bush doesn't mean anti-America. But in the manner that most have been anti-war and anti-Bush, it is disrespectful and comes off as being anti-Bush/America. When someone is wearing a t-shirt that shows Bush as a terrorist, it is appauling. That doesn't mean anything to me except that he is slandering the President of the USA. The message doesn't get through when you cover it in filth.

 

Of course if it is Clinton, even before Monica, it doesn't count.

 

Of course not.

(T-minus 4 minutes until someone clarifies that bashing the President during wartime is anti-American)

 

Tell it, Oski. In this country we are not obligated, as citizens, to support the president. The military are though. He is their boss and they're under orders to support him. How many military men openly opposed Clinton during his administration, mostly on grounds that he was a "draft dodger?" Political affiliation counts for plenty apparently. Bush got a sweetheart gig due to his parentage and STILL went AWOL. And now, not only are the troops obligated to support his actions, but the citizens are too. And if we don't, we're anti-American. Four years sure makes a lot of difference. Any one of you who didn't go around admonishing people to support Clinton every time he launched a military action but does so now has ZERO credibility.

 

I don't understand why he felt the need to make an arrogant speech at the Oscar's. I mean, he had a best- selling book, a movie that was released across the country, and appears on tv shows all the time. Most people already have access to his opinions.

I hate the attitude he has, like he is somehow voiceless or oppressed. Come on, this guy is a millionaire and can get his name in print anytime he wants. He acts like he's some Iraqi that swam across the Atlantic Ocean and this is his only chance to get his opinion out.

 

Ummm, no. I did not support all of what Clinton did militarily because the actions themselves were often mistakes and I opposed them for that reason. That is different than saying things like "Bush isn't our President.... he is pResident Bush who was selected..." which is just mind-numbing stupidity. I have no problem with people opposing the war (that is not only their right, but really their duty in a democracy) but I do have a problem with the tactics used by some of the extremists.

 

A lot of those same people have been saying "Bush Isn't My President" or "President Select Bush" since 2000. Hell, they probably just dusted off old signs. Are they supposed to change their opinion now?

 

That's a non-sequitir, goopers. Clinton clearly won 92 and 96. Bush didn't and some people need more than three years to get over that. As Bill Hicks said, "If we're talking shelf-life, don't talk to me about Jesus. It was a long time ago."

 

Right. And conservatives would've no doubt shut up about it had it happened the other way around. (I'm not saying it's right to continue b****ing...it's not...just pointing out the hypocrisy)

 

You guys that have such a problem with the elections, talk to the Supreme Court, they decided the matter. The issue is dead but people are still harping on it. Bush won, get over it.

BTW, what's the makeup of the Supreme Court? I thought it was pretty even, wouldn't that rule out bias?

 

As far as I know, only two of them wear make-up.

But let's see:

Thomas, Renquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republican Presidents.

Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.

 

Have you seen the film? It actually does mention the death of at least one African American. He includes an interview with one of the students from Columbine who says that the shooter killed a black student just because he was black.

If you hadn't seen the film, and heard that criticism of it somewhere else, perhaps you should cross that source off of your reliable list.

Also why can't people from the left send their kids to private school? Before I was teaching, I had nothing to do with schools, and had no kids. I still wanted public schools and education in general to be improved. Where a persons kids go to school doesn't make him a hypocrite.

 

I don't like to b**** about it, but damn, everytime I read an article about disenfranchised voters (it happened again to some of the same people in 2002), it's hard to fight off the urge. Maybe some day I'll get to do my own research on what happened, write a book after the fact that isn't knee jerk or anything.

But enough about that, it's history.

 

I doubt Sino watched it. They showed plenty about the violence in ghettos and the way it is reported on tv.