"Until the fairly recent arrivals of Rush, the internet, and FOX (news), there wasn't much conservative opinion..."

Perhaps you are too young to remember Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Hollywood black list that existed for the better part of a decade in the late forties and early fifites. The press pretty much supported the ultraconservative nut-case right wing back then by not standing up and countering it.

By the way, I do believe there is a liberal bias in the press today because so many news people today are thinking human beings willing to look at more than one side of a story.

Interestingly, the greatest accomplishment of the Republican Party is to have turned the word "liberal" into something synonymous with "vile" or "hateful." Kerry is "liberal," says Bush, meaning he's "evil." The Republicans have actually brainwashed a good portion of the American public into believing that to be "liberal" means to be soft on defense, soft on crime, soft on terrorism, soft on personal values, and big on taxation and government spending. Kinda silly when you think about it, especially as Bush has run up the biggest national debt in the country's history.

I'm proud to call myself a liberal in its original context: generous, bountiful, tolerant, and not narrow in opinion or judgment. As a Christian, it's the only way I ever considered Jesus would be, certainly not the mean-spirited, ultraconservative exemplified by so many of today's right-wing hate mongers.

Doggone it, you got me started again. Politics and religion, what are you going to do?

John

>>>Since when do we as citizens move when we do not like our government?<<<

We were settled by immigrants, many who moved because...they didn't like their governments. And what of those (ultra) liberal actors who said they were moving out if Bush became president? hmmmm???


>>>Moore is just a radical left point of view which should balance out the radical right point of view from media stations (and you know which ones those are--perhaps FOX?). <<<

Until the fairly recent arrivals of Rush, the internet, and FOX (news), there wasn't much conservative opinion unless you really looked for it. I consider the teachings of the public schools, TV news and other programming, radio shows, newspapers and magazines, to be slanted FAR to the left most of the time. I consider Rush (and lots of newer radio shows), the internet, and FOX News to be a good START at balancing out all that other stuff. (I guess you would disagree with the above paragraph, that's fine.) I believe there are careful and intelligent liberal broadcasters out there, but not M. Moore.

>>>I, like Moore, am an extreme leftist.<<<

"A wizard should know better!" ;)

Howdy neighbours!

I have been following this interesting thread since its creation and I'd like to add my two cents. I am a Canadian, so I hope my opinion is a bit more objective and insightful for you from someone who is can sit on the fence and observe.

I've noticed that many of you have made the statement: "If Moore hates America, why doesn't he move to Canada?" My answer to that is this: Why should he? As Canada and the U.S. have two of the most advanced democracies in the world, it is our job as electorates and citizens to actively scrutinize the government on a regular basis. Believe it or not, Moore is a patriotic AMERICAN and loves AMERICA--he does not love the current makeup of AMERICA THE STATE (GOV'T). Since when do we as citizens move when we do not like our government? Let me remind you, American friends, that you can still be extremely patriotic and side yourself on the contrary to Republican values.

I, like Moore, am an extreme leftist. Our right-wing party (the Conservatives) was expected to win last month's election, but this was not the case. Had the Conservatives won, would I simply pack up my things and move to a liberal country? No! Because that's not what a good citizen does. I love this country too much for me to give up on it and the same goes for Moore.

So whether Moore stirs up anger, fear and shame in your government or makes a fool of your president is irrevelant: respect and be grateful that the man is getting you excited about politics at a time when it matters most! Political life (especially one that claims to be democratic) should not be stale...Moore is just a radical left point of view which should balance out the radical right point of view from media stations (and you know which ones those are--perhaps FOX?). Use Moore's documentary IN ADDITION to all sorts of other media info surrounding the election.

Hope this helps 8)

p5
Telling the students about some of the most common criticisms of the theory of evilution isn't exactly my idea of "riding "roughshod over everyone else".
I'll add "fool" and horses___" to the list...:(
I agree we should R & D new and undeveloped forms of energy. Until we get another energy source developed maturely, shouldn't getting the oil we know about, from areas of the world which are not political & military "powder kegs", be a good idea?
BTW, which new (or undeveloped) forms of energy do you see as being the most promising? I assume you mean electricity and hydrogen?8)

John John John John John!!! Politics and religion man!! Every time I 'tink I'm out, dey keep suckin' me back in!! Umbriago! lol :D

Well, congrat's TGP. You've finally done it. (insert confetti & streamers here) Why do I get the impression that 15 years from now we'll STILL see "Michael Moore Vs. America..." on the message board and "This topic has 2,154,268 replies" ;)



- Josh

Yeah, Moore would show that Jesus was cheating on taxes to keep everyone else poor so he could start his own personal war with the Palestinians and call it a documentary...

Can you imagine how many responses the topic would have gotten if Michael Moore had directed "The Passion of the Christ"?

John

That's it, we broke 100!

I give myself and sashaofspain the official "controversy encouragement" awards! We will be signing autograph in the lobby immediatly after the show. :p

TGP: Tim, if you do get an award I expect to get at least an honorable mention because it was I, really, who shifted this discussion to controvercy. I now sit back and enjoy reading the fight, as I am sure you do.

John,

I agree with what you wrote, and in the study of literature, the Christian Bible simply can not be ignored since it is the source of so many stories that have influenced generations of writers. However, religion is dangerous when it comes to non-humanities fields. Most science, math, etc. teachers simply don't know enough about theories beyond evolution and creationism to give equal time to all of the big/important theories, which is why while it's permissable to mention creationism in the context of "there are theories other than evolution", non-evolution theories need to stay out of secular public schools.

Eddie