Michael Moore Vs. America...

Michael Moore aroused a lot of acclaim and a lot of controversy for his last documentary "Bowling For Columbine", and it looks like he aims to do it again with "Fahrenheit 9/11". My question to you is, what do you think of Michael Moore?
I viewed Bowling For Columbine recently. It was somewhat humorous and shed some light on important issues. However, I find Moore to be a total whiner. I'm only 15, I don't vote yet, and i don't know enough about politics to make a solid decision, so I'm not a Bush supporter or hater. I'm just trying to learn all of this stuff. Moore purposefully set up all of the people he interviewed to look like total morons. It has been stated in many reputable publication sources that Moore fudged the facts or carefully edited things to support his points. Bowling For Columbine was a worthy rental but i don't understand why anyone would buy it or how it got so much critical acclaim. He didn't make fun of the NRA as some suggested, but he commented on how much of their policies are contradictory or dumb, even though he says he's a member. If Moore hates all this stuff so much, why does he put up with it? He doesn't agree with the NRA but he's a member and he hates the hypocrisy of the US yet he still lives here. He never seems to grasp that, even though America has it's problems like any other country that we are still way better off than most other places. I wonder if he has ever experienced firsthand what REAL hypocrisy is in a place like South Korea. Moore seems to hate America, and that's his opinion. My question is, why doesn't he movie to Canada? Nobody's making him live here and he says how much he loves Canada all the time. The thing that really got me about Bowling is, even though he brought up some good points, he never offered a possible solution to the problem. He merely complained about how much this country sucks, and then it ends with no resolution or feasible solution to the problem. He won the Oscar for best documentary, which he probably deserved when compared to the other nominees, but his speech about "a fictional president" was totally absurd and inappropriate. The Academy Awards are an honor to films and actors, not a place to spew unsolicited political opinions. Love or hate Bush, you don't say crap like that at th Oscars. I was so mad about that. He also blames all of America's problems on Bush, as if we didn't have problems before he was elected or as if there wasn't a commitee, Senate, etc. of elected officials that helps make decisions with the President. I don't know, I have a lot of problems with Michael Moore. He has books as well, and all of them are 300 page manifestos on how much Bush sucks, and it's getting real old. We get the point, he hates Bush, move on. I'll probably see Fahrenheit 9/11 out of curiousity but I'll wait till it comes to DVD. All of Moore's films thus far have been about exposing how much America sucks, and it's getting tired. I'm sure Fahrenheit will make lots of $ nd raise just as much controversy and acclaim.
What do you guys think about Michael Moore? I'm sure people have other opinions...

As an addendum to my last post, about Americans believeing the spoon-fed media, just look at diets. This is non-political, but here in AMerica the low-carb diet craze is everywhere. Commercials and labels mention that all of their products now have a low-carb version, from everything to bread, burgers and soda. I laughed when I read a poster at Wendy's that said "Order your burger without the bun if you're counting carbs" and that poster was NOT a joke. If one doctor says that lower carbs decrease your chance of cancer then all these Americans will go off and do it because their anorexic 80 lb. bodies are too fat. Diets are fads that come and go. One day eggs are bad for you and the next day they aren't. Many dieters were healthy and they feel a need to be skinnier for one reason or another. Any food in moderation with exercise is okay for you to eat. Not a political topic, but it's another case in which Americans generally believe everything that is written in a biased, one-sided or incredible media source. Michael Moore is only pouring gas on the flame, as is Rush Limbaugh or any other biased political activist.

Actually, I believe that the world would be a better-balanced place without either Michael Moores or Rush Limbaughs. However, that's not possible, so we have to deal with people who represent extremes.

That being said...

Moore makes some good points, but his delivery is reprehensible. I would've been more receptive to "Bowling for Columbine" had he not done what he's done with every one of his movies:

1) Neglected to mention how he got his "facts" and "statistics";
2) Neglected to place his "facts" and "statistics" in proper contexts (for example, his lists the number of gun murders in various countries, but he doesn't list the years during which those murders took place...for all we know, he could've been comparing Japan in 1950 to U.S.A. in 1995);
3) Reversed cause-and-effect situations so that he makes the effects looks like the causes (VERY misleading and atrocious, even if certain events are linked).

By the way, Sasha, no rational person would consider you to be a U.S.A.-hater. For the most part, as has been noted in another thread, people who visit DVD Town are nice and respectful. I agree with TGP and his assessment of what you wrote.

TGP--it's very refreshing to find a teenager who acknowledges that he needs and wants to learn. I remember being 15 and being pooh-poohed by my colleagues when I suggested that they find out about more than just what trucks to buy.

[Post edited by posters5 on Oct 10, 2004]

It is true, many Americans are gullible or they just believe everything that is spoon-fed to them by the media. Why are we still in Iraq if Bush said almost two years ago that the war was over? What are we actually doing there? It's become practically common and even expected for an American President to cheat on his wife. It's so lame that we have sunk that low. But, I still have faith in America. After all, like all countries we have our problems but we are MUCH better off than a Thrid-World country that has REAL problems. I just went to Mexico for a trip which included helping out at a boys orphanage, and let me tell you, what we take for granted is unbelievable. How many of you actually think about what you are doing when you turn on your sink to cool, clean running water? Or flushing your toilet? Or eating at McDonald's? I doubt many of you have, and I often don't either. I won't lie to you and tell you that I know everything about the war and why it happened. I don't know everything about chemical weapons or Bin Laden or anything. No Sashaofspain, you are not an America hater. What you say is very true.

I once spoke on this forum against conservative party´s administration, if only in a one line question. I remember that one user told me to shut up, and another told me to shut up politely.

As someone who loves America and having spent there a great deal of time it is more than a little bit disopointing to me that you guys can be so easily brain washed. Your President tells you there are weapons of mass destruction, so a preemptive strike is necessary. Then it turns out he knew there probably were none, so he tells you your men and women, (what is it, like 18 to 20 y.o.?) are liberating the country. Yeah, well. That´s nice. A lot of countries need liberating, but not many of them are oily ones. The people of the United States once made a big fuss about a President who lied about his mistress, but it does not bother very many of you that another President sent your neighbors and relatives to die in a war started on false pretense.

And let me tell you something else. John is absolutely right about the balance. If there is Rush Limbaugh, there should be a Moore. If one guy says that it is no big deal the guards torturing prisoners who "shoot at them for trying to help" (conveniently forgetting the fact that many of those prisoners are actually innocent fathers and sons, who were arrested because thay "might know something" or mistakenly) --if one guy says that, perhaps another one should voice his doubts about a lying President.

I hope I will not be considered a hater of the U.S.

Remember that business about a "balance in the force" in relation to "Star Wars"? There needs to be a balance in democracies, too. Whether Moore is a fair and honest observer, a biased reporter, or an outright liar is beside the point. The fact that he and others like him exist is necessary to a balanced society. If the present administration can lie about their reasons for doing whatever they do (going to war, inflating energy bills, lowering taxes for the rich), then we need people like Moore on the other side to counterbalance it.

Whether Moore is right or wrong is immaterial. He and his kin rattle cages, wake minds, remind us that we don't have to accept everything we're told, (not even from him). It's why free speech was invented to go along with a free country.

Besides, his films are funny as well as controversial. They're not meant to be "documentaries," which is the contradiction in his getting an Oscar for Best Documentary; they're thoughtful entertainment. Taken as such, they stir up thought. Nothing wrong with being stimulated intellectually and entertained at the same time.

John

TGP,

Of course he'll find something else. That's what he does. Moore was writing books and making movies long before Bush came along and will continue to do so for years to come.

There's no denying that Moore tips the scales both in weight and liberalism, but I think folks give him too much credit. When we see somebody speaking out against something we believe in on the news we often think he/she is just a loon. Chalk Moore up to a loon with a budget.

Moore gets so much attention because people allow themselves to get whipped into a frenzy over what he says. This is exactly what he wants. From that perspective, he is a very accomplished and talented instigator.

If nothing else, one should be able to admire the fact that he is involving himself in the system moreso than the vast majority of this nation. One of our basic and most valued freedoms is our unfettered ability to speak out against those in power or speak up for those in need. Considering that less than 1/3 of this country's citizens actually take the time to vote in general elections (forget primaries), Moore is at least raising his voice and taking advantage of the rights that so many Americans squander. Hate him or love him, there's something to be said for that.

Sean (...me, I just keep myself quiet...oh, wait...that's my other personality...) :o

Answer me this:
Should a 320 lb. man be warning us about overconsumption?
Should a man living in a beautiful studio apartment be advertising himself as an average working stiff?
When Bush isn't President anymore, what is Moore going to do? He'll have to whine about something else for once... I'm sure he'll find something.

Michael Moore, eh? There's a can o' worms.

It's funny to me that so many people get up in arms over Moore. He's been doing the same thing for over a decade, but with each new film or book, it's like he's fresh on the scene. I just expect this kind of stuff from him.

I think the best thing to remember about Michael Moore is that he is NOT a documentarian. He is an activist, plain and simple. His venue, however, is mainstream media which elevates his profile. Rather than a picket sign, he uses a camera. He definitely tries to blindside his interviewees, and his reason is not to be a fair journalist but to shore up his side of the issue. This is also the reason he uses very selective numbers to back up his claims, but then again so do news outlets and politicians.

What we all have to remember is that anything we watch, read, or listen to is automatically tainted with bias either by the writer, speaker, director, or all of the above as well as various others including the listener. Moore is anything but fair and biased. As mentioned above, his intent is to press his side of the issue.

Having said that, I think it's best to view his "documentaries" as entertainment. Do not go into his films expecting a view of all sides of a situation, but rather anticipate a set of building blocks that lead up to his already decided conclusion much as you would a piece of fiction.

Moore is a political activist. He puts forth his ideas in a hope that others will investigate further and urge their lawmakers to do something about things relating to his agenda, just as any activist does. However, his approach and lack of including ALL facts often leaves something to be desired. Take him not as a purveyor of truth, but as a showman above all else. He's certainly entitled to his opinion, and I think we can all agree that it's pretty easy to predict the stance he will take in his films.

That being said, there is a big difference between hating America and hating America's current state of affairs. I'm not so sure Moore hates America as much as he feels it's not living up to its potential. But then again, could it ever?

Do I agree with some of Moore's ideas and insights? Yes. Is it because of Moore's work that I believe so? No.

If you like him, great. If you don't, remember that overzealous grumblings only lend to his notoriety, and thus many more people will be interested in figuring out what all the fuss is about. Thusly, they will be more interested in hearing what he has to say. As the saying goes: there's no such thing as bad publicity...

If you don't like Moore, make sure you steer clear of Al Franken!

Sean (...we're gonna need a blowtorch to seal this can back up!...) ;)

Michael Moore is a liar.

My name is Tim. I'm actually more interested in music than in politics. I'm active in two High School Bands (Jazz and Symphony) and 2 High School Choirs (Jazz and Concert). I play trombone, piano and guitar. That may be the direction I go after High School. My oldest brother was, however, very good at arguing and convincing people to do things and he is on his way to being a lawyer. Maybe he rubbed off on me... My grandpa was also a senator, but now he is very stubborn and grouchy. He fought in the Korean War and he is incredibly racist. Contrary to popular belief, I don't know a whole lot about politics. I just read the paper and learn in school. I don't know a lot about the politics behind the headlines or the details of government. I am interested in learning about war, so I keep up to date in the paper with the latest news. That's about it. I probably wouldn't be a good President because I'd bash my opponents too bad in political commercials... :)

TGP,

In agreement with so many others here, I would like to echo that it is great to see someone so young taking a real interest in learning about these things for himself and forming his own opinions. I recall when I was your age that most of my friends simply sided with whatever beliefs their parents held and kept those into adulthood. Kudos to you for deciding for yourself!

I think most of what you refer to as the "spoon-feeding" of the masses comes from an incongruous disillusionment of Americans in the last half century. Americans are so confused that they latch onto whatever they are told without question. I think it's important to keep some things in mind in today's society:

1) Freedom does not equal Want
Many in America have come to associate freedom with getting whatever you want whenever you want it. This leads to a feeling of entitlement. While we are entitled to certain "inalienable human rights" as outlined by our forefathers, we have misconstrued this to mean that we have a right to have our Big Mac and fries in under 3 minutes without the worry of clogged arteries. We have the right to not only drive our SUVs, but not have our rampant overconsumption of oil affect gas prices. As John Stossel says, "Gimme a break!"

2) Patriotism does not equal Nationalism
These are two terms that are easily confused, and that confusion is often used by an administration to support its platform. Patriotism is having a love and respect for your own country. Nationalism is blindly ascribing yourself to whatever your country does simply because you are a citizen of that nation. Patriotism tends to breed loyalty and contentment whereas nationalism tends to breed contempt and fear. Patriotism comes as a personal choice whereas nationalism comes as a mandate.

This country was founded by men and women seeking to get out from under the heel of oppression, but today many feel that if you don't support the administration you are "unpatriotic." This is inherently opposed to what the founders of this nation strove to build. This country was envisioned as a place where people could question their leaders without fear so that those same leaders would be kept in check. There is nothing wrong with speaking out against our leaders when we feel they are not operating in the best interest of this nation; as a matter of fact, it is defined as a duty. It is when we work to subvert this government that we become unpatriotic.

Republican is in office = we'll hear a lot from Michael Moore. Notice he was pretty silent under Clinton's administration.

Democrat is in office = we'll hear a lot from Rush Limbaugh. Again, notice he's been pretty quiet through Bush's administration. Save for his whole painkiller fiasco, Rush hasn't been a loud voice. (Bush...Rush? Creepy!)

I'm so pleased this discussion has come up as the political conventions are coming up pretty soon, and the election is closer than most of us realize. Now, you're really gonna get my two cents:

I completely understand people not liking Bush, I fall into that camp myself, but I keep talking to people who want to vote in Kerry simply because they feel he is the Anti-Bush, not because they know or care about Kerry's platform. Let me put forth that it is inherently irresponsible to vote for someone simply because they are of a different political affiliation than the incumbent you are disappointed with. If the pendulum keeps swaying wildly, then this country can make NO progress. The cycle will repeat: 4-8 years Republican, 4-8 years Democrat; the preceding is destroyed and rebuilt only to be destroyed again when the parties change.

I'm not going to tell you to vote for Bush, Kerry, or Nader. I'm not going to tell you to vote Republican, Democrat, or Green Party. I'm going to tell you to find out what these people stand for apart from their opponents and make your choice based on this. Far as I can tell, Kerry is just as pompous and out of touch with my middle-class station in life as Bush is. Both have led very priveleged lives and probably can't relate to my week-to-week worries, so my true candidate simply does not yet exist, and I do not forsee one until we get out from under this cyclical two-party system which was never intended under the Constitution.

So my perfect candidate isn't out there, am I gonna vote? Bet yer sweet little bippy I will. Disenfranchising myself only hurts this nation. To me, that is the first step to becoming unpatriotic.

Well, there it is. The blowhards rule, and if we all act like sheep and don't stand up and do something about it, it will continue. I offer up heartfelt gratitude to all who have the gumption to stand up for their beliefs and speak them proudly regardless of the situation or who is in power.

Sean (...my manifesto will be released shortly...Ted Kaczinsky has already endorsed it...) ;)

Yes, TGP, I will also vote for you for President in twenty years (that is if they let me have an American citizenship one day). I don´t know any other 15 year olds who are this intelligent and articulate. What are you going to do after high school?

Do you have a name?
Sasha

>>>>1) Neglected to mention how he got his "facts" and "statistics";
2) Neglected to place his "facts" and "statistics" in proper contexts (for example, his lists the number of gun murders in various countries, but he doesn't list the years during which those murders took place...for all we know, he could've been comparing Japan in 1950 to U.S.A. in 1995);
3) Reversed cause-and-effect situations so that he makes the effects looks like the causes (VERY misleading and atrocious, even if certain events are linked). <<<

OK, OTHER THAN THAT..........

>>>we need people like Moore on the other side to counterbalance it. <<<

I thought Rush was the counter-balance to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, most "news"papers, our radical-left schools, Time, NewSpeak, and Useless-snoose.
I find Rush to be talking about the same things all the time. Try dennis Prager if you don't like Rush. Mike Moore is more like Michael Savage's evil twin, than Rush's-in my opinion.

>>>>I hope I will not be considered a hater of the U.S. >>>
If I had a nickel for everytime my beliefs have been held up as being pure evil!([:.(]

>>>Michael Moore is a liar.>>>
That's what I hear. He should try one of those diets too.

TGP, in 20 years, I'll vote for you for president.
____________________
|...***...TGP'24...***...|
----------------------------
~~
-Matt~~~
another worm heard from~~~~~~:p

"After Mr. C. was elected by millions of votes less than G.W. Bush..." --mra

In the 1992 Presidential election, Clinton won with far more votes than the incumbent Bush the elder; but because it was a three-way race with Perot in the running, no candidate received a majority of the votes cast. It was in the 2000 election that Gore received more votes than Bush the younger but lost anyway.

Fox News likes to write its own history. I only watch the "News Hour" on PBS with Jim Lehrer, a program that goes so far out of its way to be completely fair and balanced that the paranoid right thinks it's a conspiracy against them.

John

>>>>>...Fox News shoving their conservative and biased views in programs that they label "fair and balanced" down our throats...<<<<<<

Hmmmm...
When they say "fair and balanced", I believe this is sarcasm at the other networks who were the only guys in town for DECADES. They always claimed to be unbiased, but when you see that almost all of the reporters for those networks actually voted for the twice-impeached ex prez, well it is such a breath of fresh air to have a second opinion on TV for once. I don't see how they are shoving anything down our throats when 99.99% of the people with FOX News can get something else by pressing a button on their remote from the luxury of their couches. This is why Rush caught-on so quickly. When he started, he was the only conservative voice in town. This is also why FOX News is pounding CNN in the ratings. CNN has to share their TV audience with CBS, NBC, and ABC.
I remember, when President Reagan was elected, the next day there were 3 million homeless suffering on TV every night. After Mr. C. was elected by millions of votes less than G.W. Bush, they just remakeably vanished. Yea-hah!

I remember watching Rush on his TV show around ten years ago. He usually had a segment where a Democrat would say something, then, less than 24 hours later, would be saying the exact opposite to another group of people. 8)

Moore represents a counter balance to the conservative voice of this country. Call him a liberal or call him a liar but as this is America, every voice should be heard, whether you agree with him/her or not. When you have Fox News shoving their conservative and biased views in programs that they label "fair and balanced" down our throats, it is good to see someone else shove back.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal came out, Rush Limbaugh actually defended what the soldiers did and glossed over the true facts on his show. Now any idiot with half a brain knows that what happened there is wrong. So when you have an influential voice like Limbaugh saying things that are skewed contrary to logic, it is essential that someone else should put the majority perspective back in place. I'm not saying that Moore is the right person to do it but at least someone is.

As John said, there must be balance in the "force".

Moore's goal with Farenheit 9/11 is to bring down Bush and with his win in Cannes, it will certainly give the film a big push. Go watch it and make up your own mind. "Bowling for Columbine" did not bring down the NRA and the influence of "F 9/11" might not even matter in the upcoming elections. Who knows.....

People with REAL health problems on a diet is perfectly acceptable; that's what diets were designed for. But you can imagine how, in High School, every football jock and insecure girl whether healthy or not practically starves themselves to shed a few vanity pounds. All they can talk about is how fat they are when I'm looking over and I'm worried that their muscles will cave in and they'll collapse if they don't eat something. Low carbs is one that they've all been adopting as if it'll solve all their problems.

In all respect to everyone, I don’t have an opinion of Moore either way. I’ve never seen any of his films and I don’t follow a lot of either him or Rush. I respect that people have diverse visions of what we see as a society. Moore is entitled to his opinions as much as the American President is entitled to his belief of weapons of mass destruction, even though it has no proof.

I do watch the media, however, I’m not brain washed into anything I’m being told. That being said, truth is in the heart. It’s in the reactions and opinions of my friends; like John, Sasha, TGP (Tim), Eddie, etc…

So what was this war all about in my opinion? . . . Oil!!! Plain and simple, Geogre Jr wanted to finish what his Daddy started. He took a dictator out of office, and maybe for the best, who knows? However, did it focus the light away from the terrorist of 911? . . . yes it did. As an American, I saw more attention for some dictator that actually had a country than the man who brought mass terrorism to the US. Go figure? And for what?

Gas prices at their highest ever in the US. Americans should be more pissed off at US oil companies for raising their prices at the levels of Arab oil. If US oil companies kept their prices low, they’d make an Fn fortune!!! But No! they’re a bunch of Fn idiots! Which reminds me that our countries are all run by idiots! Want proof? . . . well, look who’s governor of California as of now.

Sasha,
I don’t think you hate America and I love your opinion. What’s in your heart is respected by me. ;)

John,
You are always the man of true wisdom. I’m very proud to be your friend.

Eddie,
So, Michael Moore may not have proof behind his convictions, but, where does NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or FOX have theris? Yeah dude, it's all a matter of what you believe and what you consieve as the truth my friend. ;)

TGP(Tim)
I don’t want to break your rein of “fad” things, and I do agree with you on some of them, however, the low carb thing is a reality. I am a person of high insulin levels and am a borderline diabetic. The Atkins diet is no fad my friend; it is the real deal. Carbs are as much of an addiction as smoking and only time will prove my point (as soon as you see “say no to carbs” on a poster). Fact is, a low carb diet does help with high blood sugar levels and has proven to keep cholesterol down. I know I’ve done it with very little exercise and it’s helped me keep trim and has lowered my blood sugar level. Trust me, when you get to my age that is a very important thing. Now . . . if you want to pick on “Infomercials” I’m all ears! :D

skspence,

>>>Political discussions always seem to degenerate into "this side, that side" arguments<<<
It seems that much of the voting in this country is negative voting. Republicans were so scared of having Gore as president, they voted for Bush jr. in the primaries because of his name recognition. Then they voted for him because the four letters in his name did not spell Gore. I assume it often works the same for the Democrats. If Bush loses this year, it will be because he was nominated for his electibility, instead of who was the best person running.

>>>politicians don't have to worry about anyone in an income bracket under Upper Class. <<<
Then why are they always spending more on newer, and "bigger and better" social programs? However I do see a HUGE problem with corporations (and unions) giving huge sums of money to parties, sometimes to both parties. I think that's why "health"care has been on such a wild ride.


TGP,
>>>I always liked CLinton because he was, at times, painfully honest. <<<
I always hated Clinton because he was, at times, painfully dis-honest.

>>>His affair with Lewinsky overshadowed all of the good things he did and no one remembers anything else. <<<
It will overshadow all the bad things he did.


As for voting...
While I agree voting is important, and I do it, some just aren't interested in, or have the time for these issues. It's sad, but I don't think flipping a coin is the answer. In addition to voting, writing your representatives, handing out literature, serving in the military or other government agency, giving time and money to chairities are excellent ways to be good citizens.

hogster17,

>>>If Fox News' use of "fair and balanced" is sarcasm, it is totally lost on me<<<
As I said earlier, the big networks always claimed to be impartial. So Fox doing the same thing, but being conservative, looks like sarcasm to me. Maybe I am wrong, but that's what it looks like.

>>>mra wrote: "He usually had a segment where a Democrat would say something, then, less than 24 hours later, would be saying the exact opposite to another group of people."<<<
>>>In the wake of 9/11, Bush opposes setting up Dept. of Homeland Security. Months later, he embraces it like it was his own idea. About-turn, you say? <<<<

I am not a big Bush supporter, but changing your mind or being persuaded over a period of time, is much different than saying one thing to a group, and saying something else the next day to a different group. As far as embracing it as his own idea, I think its nice we can talk about this over the "Al Gore information super-highway"!;)

mra wrote: "it is such a breath of fresh air to have a second opinion on TV for once"

>>>From what you have written, right now you seem to be listening to only that one side. I think we should all hear from both sides and make up our own minds. I hope all of us will not degenerate into being a lemming as it will be detrimental to the future of democracy.<<<
So you are calling me a "one-sided lemming"? THANKS!:@
I believe I am up to speed on what many different people are saying. Of course, once someone has made up his mind on an issue, he looks one-sided to others.

I just think that the people who didn't vote shouldn't whine about whoever was elected, because they didn't do anything to encourage the election of someone else.

Just a question (I've close to zero knowledge on the statistics of voting in the US), but from the exchanges here it seems like some are making a rather big assumption that the people who whine about the government are the ones who don't vote. Could it be that the people who don't vote also don't care enough about the country, and the ones doing all the complaining are mostly the ones who did vote since they involve themselves in this?

-Chin

ps: Yes I also believe in one person making a difference :) If everyone believed in themselves, the sum of the individual efforts will amount to something significant. Or else, like TGP said, a single person can inspire enough people to make a difference.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, voting is important and I will be sure to vote every year when I'm old enough. And you're most CERTAINLY right when you say that one man can make a difference. My 7th grade teacher was an arrogant witch with a capital B and she tried to convince the class that one person can't do anything by themselves. I hated her to begin with so I launched into a debate and shut her down. Although significant people have followers, they sparked the flame and made their intentions/goals widespread. Examples I mentioned to this teacher were like Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., Stalin... They didn't affect and change history by themselves? Of course they did! So, with that mentality, one vote does make a difference... but it doesn't make ALL the difference. Great leaders need followers and votes must be in the multitudes. It is shameful that a large percentage of America doesn't vote, and then they feel free to whine about our elected officials. The key word there is "elected"... it's our responsibility to elect someone who fits most/all of our personal values and concerns so they can do something about them. Since this is a democracy, the majority rules and the largest portion possible of Americans can get their concerns immediatly addressed. Unless, of course, the President turns into an A-hole or something... It reminds me of Bill CLinton. Bill CLinton was not a bad President at all. I always liked CLinton because he was, at times, painfully honest. He was once interviewed on a teen TV show where teen asked him questions and he answered (this was either when he was a senator or after his terms in office). A kid addressed his arrest for smoking weed, and they asked, "if you could go back and do it again, would you inhale?" In a surprisingly honest response, he thought about it for awhile and said yes. His affair with Lewinsky overshadowed all of the good things he did and no one remembers anything else. Clinton will always be "the guy who did Lewinsky in the Oval Office." Of course, no mention was made of the countless other presidents who had affairs with their wives, even the best presidents (JFK, anyone?) and with a wife like Hillary who could blame him? JK, that was terrible. The point is, all presidents have made good decisions and bad decisions, some have made more of one or the other. In order to elect a pres. with the greatest possible likelihood to satisfy the greatest possible number of Americans, you have to VOTE. Let your opinion be heard. Nothing changes if you don't take the initiative.

-TGP

Sean:
to vote is not a duty, it is one´s right. That is why one is free to take advantage of it or ignore it. Like you I incourage anyone to vote. And I know we all heard this before, but in other countries people fight and go to unbelievable risks to use up their right to vote. I know a person from Ukraine who went to Presidential election under a risk of being arrested. (His candidate lost.)

mra:
yeah, Rush is real clever. I used to teach his book to my English students. They would entertain themselves by counting how many pages it is before he contradicts his statements.

John:
you are just so cool!

Sasha



[Post edited by Sashaofspain on Jul 18, 2004]

Chin,
(not to you specifically, but all who would share your mindset)
Better to make the choice best you can than do nothing and be stuck with who everybody else voted for. We can't make anyone do anything, but if we don't help in the decision, we don't have much grounds to complain if things don't go our way.

Tim,
While I understand your statement, it's exactly that type of acidic cynicism that brings us to where we are. On the one hand, you're right, but you have to start somewhere to get the momentum going.

The more people who actually take the initiative and vote, the more politicians HAVE to listen to their constituencies. Right now, voter turnout is so low politicians don't have to worry about anyone in an income bracket under Upper Class. Middle-Lower Class voters are scarce percentage-wise to say the least, so politicians pander to the masses on TV and in public appearances, but do their real campaining at the $5000 a plate dinners. These are the folks who have a vested interest, usually monetary, and therefore wish to protect that interest by voting for someone who is like-minded and more inclined to protect said interest. Can you see a cycle here?

The rich vote for the rich, so the rich remain in power. You and me? Not as big a deal when less than 1/3 of us who are registered actually fulfill our duty.

I know I sound idealistic, but the reality is that the more people that are involved, the better the government runs. So this year, maybe your vote doesn't make much of an impact, but because you voted five of your friends vote. Next time all six of you vote, and you each have an additional five friends who vote because of your example, and so on, and so on. Where are we fifty years from now in this scenario? Better off, to say the least.

The whole popular vote/electoral college dilemma is more crucial now that so many people don't vote. This is why Bush won the 2000 election with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. You spoke of "millions" of votes, and while it is true that millions are voting, those millions still only represent a small fraction of registered voters.

Our only way to truly impact the way this nation runs is to vote. If we decide to throw that out the window, then we leave it up to other voters who WILL vote to make up our minds for us. I don't know about you, but I like to make up my own mind.

What if the founders of this nation simply thought there were too many British for thier voices to make a difference? Where would we be then? I hate calling TV the "telly" and I don't think kidney pie is my cup of tea.

On a more common note you and I have, what if Paul's thought was that Jesus was just one man?

How can one man make a difference? Just food for thought.

Sean (...but pick yourself up a Value Meal...not much thought to chew on if it's from me!...)

While voting is important, and I certainly encourage it, the statement that "every vote counts, your vote matters" isn't nevessarily true. In this day of recounts and Bush allegedly winning with less votes, one vote in the pile of millions really doesn't matter. They can ultimately make the vote's outcome into anything they want.

TGP aka Tim (Where's the love for Ralph Nader? Honestly...:))

Sean wrote:

"Vote. Plain and simple. Vote, and do something about what's in your own heart."

Yeah. And hope your candidate of choice (I'm not into politics much, but the candidates with good chances of winning Election 2004 are :p)doesn't turn into an asshole.

Political discussions always seem to degenerate into "this side, that side" arguments. The truth of the matter is that BOTH of the major political parties have railroaded the country into this boxed-up mindset of either/or. The pundits on the Hill have gotten us all to think only in terms of conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat. This is not sufficient.

I would urge anyone to base their decisions on FACTS as much as possible. I know that's extremely difficult, but I feel that John and Hock have hit on a couple of outlets that consistently prove more reliable than those labeled liberal or conservative. NPR and NewsHour are very good shows and, as stated, try vigorously to keep an unbiased standard.

Watch Fox News, CNN, or whatever simply for entertainment value. Laugh along at the jibes and gashes, enjoy the slant toward your political affiliation, but please do NOT use these as your sources for getting the facts.

Every politician wants to stay in office. Every politician wants his or her agenda to come to fruition. And, naive as it may sound, I still believe that under all of this lay the hearts of people who really do want to do good in the world. As buried as it may be, I feel it's still there. But, power corrupts, and America's apathetic attitude toward truly being involved in the process has let that power get out of hand.

Speak up and speak out. Bash Moore, Rush, Fox News, CNN, etc. all you want'at least they are taking advantage of their rights in this country while the majority remains silent except when they wish to complain about something they didn't even care enough about to become involved in.

Vote. Plain and simple. Vote, and do something about what's in your own heart.

Sean (...anyone know where I could get a bigger soap box?...)

mra,

It is true that you can change the channel anytime you want. That's why I don't watch TV news anymore. I get my news from NPR now. They are not perfect and they usually try to get diverse point of view on all their topics.

If Fox News' use of "fair and balanced" is sarcasm, it is totally lost on me. When does a news network use that term and not mean it? Hey, they even tried to block Al Franken from using it!

mra wrote: "He usually had a segment where a Democrat would say something, then, less than 24 hours later, would be saying the exact opposite to another group of people."

Talk about a one-sided opinion! I guess Republicans are saintly politicians, huh?
Eg. In the wake of 9/11, Bush opposes setting up Dept. of Homeland Security. Months later, he embraces it like it was his own idea. About-turn, you say?

mra wrote: "it is such a breath of fresh air to have a second opinion on TV for once"

From what you have written, right now you seem to be listening to only that one side. I think we should all hear from both sides and make up our own minds. I hope all of us will not degenerate into being a lemming as it will be detrimental to the future of democracy.

I've been trying to stay away from this thread because I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, being the patriot I am, and the fact that this is a HUGE can of worms (thank you Sean). However I felt it better to attempt contributing.

As much as I don't like Michael Moore, he has just as much right to speak, and put forth his opinions just as much as you or I. I agree with Eddie however, that Moore distorts the facts to prove his point and to manipulate his audience. There are those out there that would be "spoon fed" anything that comes out of Moore's mouth as well.

In as much as I identify with the whole "if you don't like what you see here... get the funk out" philosophy (to quote the band Extreme) it's also very much a "Cromagnon" and unintelligent response. We may not like the views of some of the people around us (Michael Moore in this case) but we need to remember that Moore is an American as well. Which brings me to my point. While we love to be individuals, and celebrate that fact, we also need to remember that we as individuals are part of a greater whole of the United States Of America. If we don't learn to come together as a comunity, and as a country, an old addage "united we stand... divided we fell" will be the inscription on the epitaph of America's tomb. As a country that celebrates our independance and individuality, and as much as we "preach" that we should be accepting of people of all races, creeds, colors and religions, we as Americans don't "practice" that philosophy as well as we'd like to think we do.

It's unfortunate that there are those people that would blindly accept things that Moore would say, or for that matter, what Limbaugh would say. We all have to be responsible and research versus be reactionary with information we receive.

So that's my contribution to the can. Hopefully it's an objective attempt at sealing it.

- Josh :)

I can accept his narrative or point of view with an open mind, but if you purposely leave out anything that could possibly contradict or impose a second thought you have no right making such a film in the first place. Support your ideas with facts, don't avoid contradiction.

I mean... the portrayal of Iraq being a happy go lucky place with the kids flying their kites and all of the sudden America comes in and it's raining chaos from the skies. I love how he neglects to mention the fact that the buildings within the shots used were saddam and military related right?

Personally I just see him as a big attention whore. I'm willing to assume if these invasions hadn't taken place he would be making a film on why the Bush Administration is sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Tim,

The difference between ABC/CBS/NBC/The New York Times/etc. and Michael Moore is that the others are "reputable" news sources with their own fact-checkers. Michael Moore is NOT a news source--he's just another guy.

Eddie

mra,
Your statement about negative voting is exactly what I'm talking about. That is why it is so important to endeavor to leave party affiliations out of it. Most people vote for a party and not a candidate which is why we have the pendulum swinging constantly. This is exactly what has lead to the mired-in beauracracy that we call government. If we continue to vote for a party we will have political puppet after political puppet holding the highest offices in the nation.

As for the "social programs," remember that more social programs mean more committees. More committees mean more politician involvement. More politician involvement means more money greasing the wheels. Social programs are cyclically beneficial for politicians; they look good to the public and allow for further lining of politicians' pockets.

Though my outlook on government and politicians is rather cynical, I feel it is America's apathy that has lead to this. To say that people "just aren't interested in or don't have time for the issues" doesn't make for much of an argument. It's been said that the easiest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Inaction is not an alternative, it is a way of affiliating one's self with and condoning the very thing that can take away freedom and destroy Democracy itself. The other examples of good citizenry you listed are more than appropriate, but when filling out a ballot is easier than any of these, why is voting the first to be tossed to the wayside by the public?

I understand that Democracy lends itself to choice, but choosing apathy is a choice against the very tenets of Democracy. More on that later.

Sasha,
To answer your response from earlier, though voting is considered a right and a franchisement, I feel that the citizenry has a responsibility to vote. The examples from other countries that you put forth show just how important it is to vote, and it is a pity that when voting is so easy here in comparison to other countries, American citizens choose to disenfranchise themselves. Though a privelege, I view voting as a sacred civic duty and obligation. Since we have the right to choose, it's all the more imperative that we as Americans realize what consequences those choices have for us. If you choose to break the law, you have consequences to face. Similarly, if you choose not to vote, you choose not to be heard, not to be represented, but to have your choices made for you.

In order to fully realize our privelege, we must realize that we are priveleged in the first place. The overwhelming feeling in the US seems to be one of entitlement, not gratitude which leads to inaction and resentment. But that can all change if people actually started to give a flip and do something. Maybe some day.

Sasha, it's great to have an outside perspective to help us all here realize just how blessed we are to live under such freedom. It's easy for us to lose perspective when we don't see first-hand what our situation could be. Thanks for your input and for keeping us grounded!

Sean (...I'm grounded...grounded from the TV...can't go out with my friends...)

P.S.: y'know, I'm gonna bow out on the rest of this thread as I'm sure it's painfully obvious to everyone that I could go on about this subject forever. Thanks to everyone for the great discussion! Once again, you all ROCK!

"It's unfortunate that there are those people that would blindly accept things that Moore would say, or for that matter, what Limbaugh would say." --Josh

May I add: Or what Mr. Bush would say. Fact is, everybody in power lies. It's always been this way. At least Moore's exaggerations, distortions, or truths (take them as you will) don't get tens of thousands of people killed.

John

The truth of the matter is is that Michael Moore whether you love him or hate him is out there speaking his mind, which is what most Americans do not do. It is these people, conservative or liberal, who become the touchstone for change. It always takes these kind of individuals to create an atmosphere in which people debate the issues and then react. There are a number of them out there; most recently, Mel Gibson with his Passion of the Christ and his telling of the crucifixion story. Michael Moore is no more or no less. Take what truths you want away with you. The issue is is that it being presented to you. :D

John,

No matter whom you put within the remark I made, the sentence directly following it, still applies.

While President Bush has made both good and bad decisions, I don't think the decision to go to Iraq (which is what I assume you mean by the "tens of thousands of people killed" statement) was a bad one. Bad things have ensued as a direct result of going to war with Iraq, but that's how war works. You'll never have a clean war. It's sad that anyone has to die on either side of a war. But I ask you this. If we had taken "no action", and left Sadam in place, where do you think we'd be right now? How would the people of Iraq be better off with Sadam still in power? While the Iraqi people no longer want us in Iraq, they didn't want Sadam either... nor do they want the terrorists that are still today killing both Iraqi people, as well as soldiers. I don't believe in "blind belief" of anyone. As I mentioned, it's each individual person's responsibility to research, and get as much information (about any given topic) from as many sources as possible, and only then make the best decision they can. To react to something based off of what "one" person says about it is a dangerous prospect, and can cause the loss of life(lives). We elect people into office hoping that they (and their advisors) will be able to make the "tough" decisions. However, when they make a bad decision (even though it might be a large one) we can't seek to boot them out of office every time they do. I'm sure President Bush made the best decision he could (concerning Iraq) based on the information he was given by our intelligence agencies, and his advisors in his cabinet.

I think the whole debate on Weapons of Mass Destruction is pointless. The fact that Hans Blix and his teams weren't able to find "actual" WMD is beside the point. That country is so large, Sadam's stock piles could have been moved ANYWHERE within the country, or out of country for that matter. We DID find evidence that Sadam was refining uranium, as well as factories that had "recently" been moved that were creating chemicals for war. Sadam had plenty of time to move his stockpiles wherever he needed to.

To get back to the original topic of this thread, I'm sure Michael Moore's "film" will be one sided, and as far from objective as you can get, to manipulate you into thinking in one direction. I will see his film in an effort to have a more objective opinion, but will take it with a grain of salt. To call this movie a documentary is a farce in my opinion. "Documentary" is defined as "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film" - Dictionary.com. Moore has made his political views known, as well as his opinions about President Bush, so why should we suddenly believe that he'll objectively present his film to us?

- Josh

John,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. People in power lie, including the news media ( did not anyone remember the movie "The Insider"?). What you are saying is pretty much the same point I was trying to get accross to Eddie. Only problem is, I don't find the news media as "Reputable" sources any more than anyone else in power. After all, the news media is obviously owned by very rich people which equates to people with power, no?

I think what it comes down to, everyone needs to develop their own beliefs and oppinions based on what they believe as fact. Even when someone points out a fact there's always someone in the wings to disprove them. It's funny how I've watched Bill O'Riley accuse other news medias and news papers accross the nation of mistruths, yet he himself has twisted facts for his own glory. So, you know what I did? I just stopped watching and listening to the crap. Now days it's like everyone wants you to take a side. With that being said, I take MY side. ;)

Tim.

Josh,

While we disagree about America's going to war in Iraq, we seem to be in agreement on one aspect of Moore. He is not a "documentarian" in any sense of the word. As I said in my review of "Bowling for Columbine," there was a question in my mind as to whether that movie should have won an Oscar for Best Documentary when it really wasn't a documentary at all.

But, then, to be fair to Moore, he steadfastly refuses to be labeled a documentarian, anyway. He calls himself, properly so, a propagandist. He has a clear agenda he's pushing, and he isn't afraid to push it hard. That seems no different to me than what Mr. Bush is doing or what Clinton did before him. Politicians have their own agendas, and they aren't afraid of telling people about them in half-truths. It's why everybody should hear and see many sides of every issue. It's why free and open discussion and debate are so important in a democracy.

John

John,

We are definately in agreement on Moore. However we're also in agreement on seeing all possible sides of a given issue. Doing so obviously gives you a more objective perspective. I should appologize for barking out my last post. I didn't mean for it to come off like that. It just seems to me that all too often these days people are pessimistic about "anyone in power" as Tim put it (no offense Tim). It's very easy to fall into that kind of mind set. It's easy to distrust people. I just refuse to be a cynic. I think most people are good at heart, and are trying to do the right thing. Moore on the other hand (in my opinion) is one of the cynical people. Which is usually true of any extremist, or terrorist faction as well. If we stop believing that people are basically good at heart, and are trying their best to "do right", then we should lower our flag in retreat and give up then and there. If you live your life in fear or suspicion of everyone (or everyone in power, as it were), you're not living. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I'm going off on a tangent here.

I will give Michael Moore credit as a brilliant marketer though. He's pulling a "Howard Stern", where the people whom love him are going to see his movies, and the people whom hate him are going to see his movies. You can't get much better than that in marketing a product! But that's all I'll give him.

- Josh

Funny thing about all this is that I want to see Bush voted out of office, but I support the war in Iraq. I think that it was a good thing to get Hussein sacked, and I think that it is a good thing to try to bring a stable secular democracy into the Middle East. However, I loathe Bush's atrocious attitude towards the environment, towards non-Christians, towards people who aren't wealthy, etc.

Sasha,

I agree with you . . . I just hope you don't look down on me because I live in America.

I think oil had a lot to do with it. I also think he was just showing off to his Daddy in finishing the job his father never finished. At least in 1990, the war actually made sense, where as this one was simply about selfish power and politics.

Believe me my friend, there are a lot of Americans who do not agree with what has transpired, and I'm one of them. I have never liked Bush since the time he was elected, or should I say, "the election he stole." The guy is a liar, a cheat and I certainly do not agree with the way he has handled the situation with Iraq. There are many of us here in the US that still feel that Bin Laden was, and is, the bigger threat, yet we hardly hear anything about the progress in finding the Fn rat!

Maybe in the long run we will all see it was a good thing to take Sadam out of power. As for me, I will never forget 9/11, and in my opinion, Bush has completely missed the target by not nailing the true terroists of 9/11. It's just simply bad intelligence and bad leadership on his part. The man has done nothing but let us down and completely tarnished our relationship with the rest of the world.

Josh:
I am going to appologize in adavance for the way my statement will come out.

You don´t think that going to war with Iraq was a bad decision? Going to war unileterally on such shaky grounds and such thin evidence was stupid, irresponsible, and downright immature. It was cruel and it was cocky.

Yes, the world is better off without Saddam. But there is still no proof that he presented any real and immediate danger. Blix and his team did not find the WMDs for one of the two reasons: they are either nonexistant, or inspectors did not have enough time to find them. If the weapons were indeed moved across the board, to Syria as some believe, there is no way CIA would have missed that. And how can you not see Bush covering his a. when the man starts shifting from immediate danger to helping out the folks? The point is that a lot of countries would be better off without their autoritarian leaders, but no single nation should be allowed to police the world. There are international authorities for that. Do you realize how low America sank in the public oppinion of the most of Eurpoeans and in the eyes of all Arab nations as a result of this war? That is why Moore was rewarded so highly in Cannes.

And yes, there are no clean wars. But an Army with that kind of equipment and that strong a leadership should not be making that much mess. And somebody, please, tell Bush to stop saying it was not about oil. Kosovo was not about oil. Afghanistan was not about oil. Iraq is only about oil. I believe in goodness of human character as well. I believe Lincoln was a great man. I believe Churchill was an honest man. I believe all the Ghandis were fabulous. I believe Powell is a strong and honest public figure. I believe G.W. Bush is a liar and a manipulator. Get the man out of the office before he has a chance to fuel more terrorism and spend more money on his dumbo projects.

Sasha

Sasha,

Don't apologize for your opinion. As many of us have stated before, we all (for the most part) respect one another, and that's what keeps us all coming back to DVD Town.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on President Bush. It's easy to criticize someone when you're not in the their position under the circumstances and pressure of the moment. Had President Bush not acted, who knows what other atrocities Sadam would have committed at this point. Iraq would be no closer to being a free country. Oppression, sadism, mass homicide, torture, and who knows how many sick chemical and biological tests would still be carried out today. It was announced today that "AT LEAST ONE MILLION" people are missing as a result of Sadam's regime! ONE MILLION!! Think about one million people in your own country being kidnapped and never heard from or seen again! So we all should have just sat on our hands and debated the situation for another couple of years, making new NATO laws for Sadam to ignore? All the while Sadam moving his weapons where ever he needed to in his own back yard, tortureing, killing, raping and testing weapons of mass destruction on his own people. That makes no sense to me. By the way, if you saw a report on the news about police entering the house of a suspected mass homicidal killer, (that liked to use guns as his murder weapon of choice) and the police found TONS of material used for reloading ammunition for the specific weapons, gun racks, weapons cleaning materials, etc. would you think to yourself... "naaah, he couldn't be the guy"? There were 11 (count them) 11 resolutions Sadam was ordered to adhere to by NATO. NONE of them over the last decade were complied with. Did we all suddenly forget about this? Residue of the suspected chemicals, and biological agents, not to mention the equipment used to do so WERE FOUND!! And we're all supposed to turn a blind eye because we couldn't find the "smoking gun"?!! Excuse me for saying so, but to me that's ludicrous! Having the material and recently used equipment used for creating chemical and biological weapons, not to mention the bodies they were tested on is proof enough for me that he was "a clear and present danger".

I think you give the CIA more credit than they're due. While yes they have some of the best, if not THE best technology in the world when it comes to intelligence gathering, it is still invented, created, and monitored by Humans... and in that, is foulable. It's not "likely" WMD could slip past the CIA, it's also not impossible. Especially when you're the leader of a VERY rich country!

The reason we "shifted" from "neutralize the threat", to "protect the people", is we recognized that Sadam was using his own people as human shields to protect his army. Only cowards hide their armed soldiers in schools, religious temples, and hospitals! The US as well as many other countries adhere to the "Geneva Convention"! (or the rules of war) We recognize that the Iraqi people are not the threat, and President Bush has ALWAYS made that distinction! We provided humanitarian aide, even while the war was being fought!

No "one nation" does police the world. That's why NATO was established. Part of being a good leader however is making the hard decisions that AREN'T going to be popular. Making those decisions that you know are going to have a negative effect on your country's image, sometimes need to be made. When a nation's lives and freedom are on the line, popularity should NEVER play a part in the decision making process!

Think what you will of President Bush, but I think he's done quite well in the circumstances he's been placed. In America's time of need during and after September 11th, President Bush was the rock we all needed to cling to. He was our assurance that this wouldn't happen again, and the perpetrators would be made accountable. So far, he's made good on those promises. Kudo's also to Prime Minister Tony Blair in sticking by his friends in the face of adversity. His actions show that he's got real character, loyalty, and integrity, and reflect greatly upon himself and the United Kingdom.

No offense Sasha, but Terrorism was on the rise when President Ronald Reagan was in office! That's 3 presidents ago! Let's not lay blame on one man for the current state of affairs in the world. Terrorists are attacking many countries around the world, not just US targets, and not to mention "Spain's worst terrorist attack in history" (CNN.com) on the train in Madrid! Terrorists are a plague on the world that need to be systematically hunted down and erased from existance. Countries quibbling amongst eachother instead of working together to innoculate the world of the terrorist disease, only serves the terroist purpose. Sadam had been connected to terrorist aide, and ties with Osama Binladen. If that's not enough reason to "act" for you, then I'd say continue to side with Michael Moore, and sit on the sidelines and do nothing. As Eddie has mentioned, Moore doesn't provide ideas or solutions to the problems in the world. He just sits back and whines and complains about the things he doesn't like, or he's not happy with. There's an old saying that goes "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Moore chooses to be part of the problem while manipulating people into thinking he's part of the solution.

As always, no offense is meant by my opinions, and I hope I didn't offend anyone reading my posts. As a lot of you are probably aware, I am a patriot, and believe in standing behind your country, and what you believe in. While I'll be the first to admit we're not perfect, nor do we have a perfect system, I do think it's the best system out there. I feel very strongly about these issues. I tend to stay away from these types of discussions however, for the mere fact that 9 times out of 10 they become arguements, then bickering, and very little if anything positive comes as a result of them. I'm proud to be an American, and while I may not agree with every decision our presidents make, I will back them up, because we elect them to make those decisions, and as I mentioned before, I believe people are generally good, and make the best decision they can make in the position they're in, with the best of intentions at heart.

- Josh

Well, Eddie, it’s a higher perspective than what you’re seeing. This war was no different from what we saw with Vietnam. We all were hoaxed into some cause that only burdens us tax payers and it is a price many of us young will pay for years to come.

Countries of great power should lead by example and show compassion along with good will towards others. Bush, being a Christian man himself, should know these values but yet he chose to ignore them just to make us think that Sadam was a terrorist. Sadam, obviously, was no terrorist; just a sick individual that led by the worst example possible. In the end, I will probably see that it was a good thing to rid him of the world but it does not alleviate the fact that our President aggressively missed the target of 9/11.

My concern, along with many Americans, is “where the hell is Bin Laden?”!!! Then again, let’s look at North Korea who is a true threat amongst anyone in the world as of now . . . why the hell does any country stand for their development of nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons were part of what we went to Iraq for, but yet we haven’t found anything tangible to constitute a war. North Korea, however, is developing nuclear weapons, which in my book, is far worse than anything on this earth is. Yeah buddy, go figure?

In the mean time, you and I pay taxes towards the bullshit we have been dealt. No matter if any of us agree or disagree, money is taken out of our pockets. . . .And for what? Business? Oil? Keep the rich wealthy? Take your pick my friend but face the fact that life is unfair and tough! Well, needless to say, get out there and vote this jerk out of office for the sake oh humanity!!!

Sean,

Don't get me wrong. It's not that President Bush can do no wrong in my eyes. I don't agree with a lot of things he's done in office. I just get irritated when people only concentrate on the negative things he's done. He's done a lot of positive things for our country, and some how when President Bush has a "human moment", all of the good things he's done for our country get washed away. What about the slip up in his State Of The Union address, that one of his advisors wrote into the speach, and President Bush stepped up like a man, and took responsibility for it, instead of passing the buck, and saying something like "that individual is not employed with the Bush Administration any longer". People are very quick to portray President Bush as a dishonerable person. It's easy to understand this when scandal (no matter if it's true or not) is what sells in the media, and the positive and good things that can be verified factually are glossed over, and given as little air time as possible. I find it a little comical that we're becoming a cynical nation, but we have our news media to blame. Well... that and the mindless morons out there spreading disinformation on topics they don't know anything about, and haven't investigated for themselves, but rather regurgitate "buzz words" they hear on the news or from friends gossiping "around the water cooler". The dictionary has a word for that, and it doesn't hold up in courts of law either... it's called "hearsay".

As far as Guantanamo goes, I don't know the facts on that, so I can't comment one way or another. What exactly did the military sidestep with semantics?

Patriotism... I know it's good to qestion things, and not to take everything at face value. However, there is such a thing as being a "rebel without a clue". When you "question everything" just for the sake of questioning it, you've lost more than you've gained by questioning. And there are things you should take at face value... lest we all become "chicken little's". We've become a nation that questions everything, even things we shouldn't question, like "weather or not we should remove Sadam from power, because he has just as much right to defend his country with WMD's as we do" (not an exact quote from Tim Robins, but it was something to that effect) . When we start tolerating the intolerable, I think we need to take time to evaluate ourselves as a nation.

As for WMD's... having been in the military in a combat MOS, and having trained in vast land scapes of Germany, Kentucky, Southern California, and Utah... I know how incredibly easy it would be for Sadam to have hidden his WMD's where ever he wanted. As I mentioned before, we shouldn't need a smoking gun, when we found the evidence we did. In any case, enough of that.

Well, I've said more than I ever intended posting on this topic. I don't know about you, but I think we should probably let this can of worms die Sean.

See you on the other topics.

- Josh :)

Said I wouldn't come back, but the topic has gone to the war specifically, so you all are out of luck!

As always, the following is my peronal viewpoint posted with the utmost respect for others and their opinions:

Nowadays, the term patriot is bandied about without a second thought, but we seem to have come back to the incorrect rationalization that patriot = nationalist. Nationalism is blind support of a nation no matter what that nation does or says. The individual does not question that nation's actions or its motives for said actions. Nationalism deals in misinformation and information control. It manipulates the populace's feelings of loyalty. Nationalism is what has lead to Nazism, Facism, and yes, Saddam's own totalitarianism.

This country was founded on the basic principles of checks and balances for our government, particularly from the general public who would not have fear of retribution for speaking their minds freely. If we are to truly be "patriots" in the Unites States of America, then we have the duty to take to task any and every leader in office if we feel and determine that their motives were either unclear or dead wrong in their decisions. More recently, these are the people who have been looked down upon as unpatriotic for not supporting Bush's every move.

Let's not confuse patriotism with liking the fact that our guy is in office. Was everyone who is claiming to be so "patriotic" now that we are in this war just as supportive of Clinton's bombings of Iraq or our involvement in Bosnia? Were they as gung-ho about dropping Clinton's indiscretions in office as they are with dropping the whole Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib issues with Bush? Let's be real here.

Let's look at Bush's "War on Terrorism." When we couldn't find Bin Laden, and support for that "War" waned, we found "ties" that Saddam had with Al-Qaeda. "Ties" that, mind you, have yet to be proved to the public aside from Bush and Cheney saying they exist. These "ties" have lead to the war in Iraq. We supposedly went to war with Iraq because of the WMD issue. Again, this WMD issue has yet to be proved, so our focus went from incursive to humanitarian in a sense.

Here's the deal. Saddam's always been a bad dude. Is it good that he's out of power? Yes. Am I happy that he's out of power? Yes. Do I feel like America in general was duped into a war that Bush felt would bolster his popularity? Yes.

Look, if you want to go in there and say, "Saddam's bad, and we need to take him out," great. You've got my support. But don't crap in my hand and tell me it's roses with this whole WMD thing. Be up front with me. Bush wanted to take Saddam out, and it could have been beneficial to his career as well as the world in general. It could have helped his public rating and a bad guy would be out of the picture, but where would he possibly get the support knowing that he had not yet gotten Bin Laden? WMDs, baby!

It basically comes down to how the war was presented to the people of the US. Bush wanted to win a war in office, and in order to start that war he had to have an excuse. Unfortunately for him, it all blew up in his face, and he's having to deal with blowback from his lack of good judgement.

You know, this country expected an answer and apology from Clinton for his moral indiscretions in office, to the point of bringing up charges for impeachment. I think it's pretty reasonable for people to want the same kinds of answers and apologies from Bush for his own indiscrections that have lead and continue to lead to the capture, torture, and death of many Americans as well as the innocent citizens of other nations.

As for America following the Geneva Conventions, let's not forget Guantanamo, where the US has conveniently sidestepped these basic rights through semantics.

Do I like Bush? I'd have to say that if I sat down with him for a conversation that, though I may not agree with him, I think we'd get along pretty well. It's certainly not that I don't like Bush, I don't like what he has done.

If that makes me less of a patriot, then it escapes me what would.

Sean (...maybe WMD actually stands for W's Middle-East Diversion...)