Michael Moore Statement on Canadian Election

[Birdy]

I love Micael Moore' date=' and I pretty much think he is on point 99% of time. Someone please explain why some people dislike him/find him annoying? (assuming your not consevative/republican). I don't see the negative to this guy.

[/quote']

because he doesn't really know shit and talks alot. especially during those moments when all you really want is quiet.

The Chameleon said, "assuming your not consevative/republican."

i'm not conservative or republican.

He has an army of researchers working for him to get him the data he works with himself. He also has an army of lawyers making sure that he doesn't spout just any sh!t, because there are some enormously high-powered lawyers out there with rifles trained on him for the first slip-up. This was all especially important, for reasons of sheer gravity, when he was making F9/11.

if he truly does this kind of information, he really doesn't use it. i mean watching his movies, reading his books and reading various 'letters', it's blatantly obvious that he only skims the surface of things in order to be 'reactionary'. read the letter above. "you declare gay people have equal rights -- and then elect a man who says they don't?" even though i don't agree with social conservatism, the right wing view on gay marriage is NOT about "rights" but rather about various institutions and 'protecting' them. "you give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens"-- what is this crap? it's like he refuses to recognize the history behind our politics and why we are the way we are today. he sees things in black and white and completely turns a blind eye to the grey, to what makes us the way we are.

Moore's whole schtick is, as I think Mencken used to say, to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. Power works most seamlessly in conditions of silence, when no one speaks out against it. Bring on the noise, I say.

why do we judge "comfortableness" on a wealth basis? because of duvets and feather beds? martinis? hummers as compared to pintos? is that what "comfort" is? every person has the devil inside of them, their own demons that they need to fight on an extremely individual level. 9 times out of 10 the wealthiest fight a greater demon than the poor man. you know what they say about the virtue of a poor man. comfort should be a state of mind.

the whole money scale has created some serious evils in society-- one of them and a damn important one, being the way we view those who 'have' it.

michael moore to me is fluff and superficial. he allows noone the chance to really 'learn' anything and rather plays on people's emotions to bring about the kind of change he himself is hoping for.

i'm all for noise, but do it in a way that actually can create change, a way in which people will 'learn' and will form an opinion based upon their own knowledge of any given situation. if you want to bring about change, don't become a michael moore, become a teacher.

[Tooly]

i dig the michael moore stuff, shit i wouldnt have known alot of details if it wasnt for him, im sure alot of folks can say the same

yes i have dual citizenship,

when i said id be voting for 2 parties, i was under the impression id get to vote federal(the PM vote) and provincial(my riding), i was really really baked. also, i dont know that much about politics, but my boss wants to "have a talk" with me today because he found out i hate conservatives and im not voting for them today.

my bad, flame away lazlo

[meggo]

even though i don't agree with social conservatism, the right wing view on gay marriage is NOT about "rights" but rather about various institutions and 'protecting' them.

i have a problem with this. what about equality rights? am i way off?

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

wouldn't marriage be included as part of this?

[ollie]

All is fair in lover and war. Whatever tactics work to damage/cast scrutiny to the republicans/conservative right is fine by me.

Ugh, no, no no!! Don't you place any value on the truth? It's this type of attitude that pushed me away from the "left". Part of the big problem I have with the "right" has to do with their disingenuous rhetoric. Why should I accept that from the "left"?

[Birdy]

even though i don't agree with social conservatism' date=' the right wing view on gay marriage is NOT about "rights" but rather about various institutions and 'protecting' them.[/quote']

i have a problem with this. what about equality rights? am i way off?

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

wouldn't marriage be included as part of this?

you're not far off at all meggo and i agree with you bringing up this point, exactly why i don't agree with social conservatism; however, right wing views on gay marriage are not about a person being "gay", it is about the institution of marriage and the recognization of marriage under federal law and in the eyes of the "church". true right wingers don't believe that gay people shouldn't have the same "rights" as straight people, but rather that the institution of marriage itself should be kept the same as it has always been, under the eyes of the state and the church. where all of this gets muddled and confused is in such things as the charter of rights and freedoms and the direct conflict that these things bring about. what enrages most liberals is that every country bumpkin out there or racist latches on to conservatism because it is the only prominent political party that 'appears' to 'hate' gays, but in all actuality, it doesn't. these people are twisting the ideologies of the party to suit their own purposes, just as much, as say michael moore, twists to suit his own.

[bradm]

The problem I have with the "keep marriage the same as it has always been" argument is twofold. First, nobody has explained to me exactly why we'd want to keep it the same; in other words, why is it bad to change the definition of marriage?

Second, when people talk about "keeping marriage the same", what they really mean is having the definition remain as exclusive (as in excluding) as it's been. When the definition of marriage was changed to include same-sex couples, that was an expansion, not an erosion: anybody who was to be married before the expansion, or who got married before the expansion, hasn't been affected, in any way, shape, or form. (The fact that same-sex couples can get married may be disliked by some people, but that's not an "effect".)

In fact, I see the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to be strengthening to marriage (and society), in much the same way (albeit to a lesser degree) as the expansion of the definition of voter to include women helped strengthen democracy (and society).

Aloha,

Brad

[Hartamophone]

All is fair in lover and war. Whatever tactics work to damage/cast scrutiny to the republicans/conservative right is fine by me.

Ugh' date=' no, no no!! Don't you place any value on the truth? It's this type of attitude that pushed me away from the "left". Part of the big problem I have with the "right" has to do with their disingenuous rhetoric. Why should I accept that from the "left"?

[/quote']

A men brotha. When Bill O'Reilly does it, it's sneaky and backhanded. Why, then, when Michael Moore does it, is it called for in the name of the cause? That doesn't work for me.

[The Chameleon]

Beacuse Michael Moore has always painted himself as a satarist, not an objective newsmans or program host. People always seem to forget that. Michael Moore has never pretended to be objective.

Bill O'Reily on the other hand speak from the right (a side whioch already has most of the power and al the voice) and presents himeslf as a reputable reporter/host etc. He does not paint himself as a satirist.

It would be like criticizing Jon Stewart for being too flippant and taking things out of context (which the right has done from time to time). what they miss is Stewart is on the comedy network and his show is comedy/satire. It only looks like news.

[djmelbatoast]

The main problem I have with Moore is that even when he is saying the "truth" most people tune out because he is such a pompuse ass. Also his books are sensationalistic and rather dull witted. I prefer my political comentary from someone I can respect regardless of their personal convictions.

I feel all in all that Moore is merely the left wing version of Bill O'Reily, a polarizing jackass who gets rich off of the fact that the situation in the world is so fucked up today.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Marriage a Church institution?

Pardon me, but fuck the Church on this. Marriage was always a State institution until the late Middle Ages when the Church muscled in on it; in other words, Church mediation of marriage is, in the history of marriage, a blip. Now it's slipping away from (some of) them, and they're upset. I've said it before - a real conservative might be said to be one who wishes to restore the institution before the Church hijacked it. Who's to say?

I do know that some strains of religion really bring out complex insecurities in people, and see no reason why society as a whole should pander to that (let alone a political party, like, say, the CPC). Straight people feeling threatened by gay marriage suggests to me people that haven't thought their own relationships (or orientation) through, and are reacting with infantile rage.

I mean, hey, let's conserve ourselves back to the time women didn't get the vote, which really wasn't that long ago. Why should some people get disrecognised and not others? Tell you what, let's leave this whole project of modernity behind and stop trying once and for all to extend full human recognition to none but ruling class, colour-appropriate males. The rest can be slaves (suiting the tendency of the marketplace), or rendered suitable for target-practice (talk to some of folks at Church and Wellesley about that one when someone from the suburbs drives by whipping bottles at them).

I should be putting that in purple font, but I hope the point comes across. I'm feeling particularly stroppy right now (and this is after having voted).

Edited January 23, 2006 by Guest
Minor softening of rhetoric

[djmelbatoast]

My dad is a Anglican preist and he has a strange view on this issue. He would like a system similar to what they have in France, where marriage is not a legal term. The legal term for what has been called marriage for centuries is now Civil Union. Everyone who wants to spend their lives together and receive tax benefits for that, needs a Civil Union. Marriage is done in the churches.

He is fine with this system. To me it seems like an awefully big hassle to change the legal wording to something else that means the same thing.

[ollie]

Beacuse Michael Moore has always painted himself as a satarist, not an objective newsmans or program host. People always seem to forget that. Michael Moore has never pretended to be objective.

[snip]

It would be like criticizing Jon Stewart for being too flippant and taking things out of context (which the right has done from time to time). what they miss is Stewart is on the comedy network and his show is comedy/satire. It only looks like news.

I thought Michael Moore made documentaries. I see few similarities between what Moore does and what John Stewart does.

[d_rawk]

To me it seems like an awefully big hassle to change the legal wording to something else that means the same thing.

For sure. This was the same position that Paul Martin was originally toying with, but it seems he hadn't been properly schooled on matters of constitutional jurisdiction at the time. I've been hearing/reading a lot of people looking at what has just happened in the UK and saying "see? Civil Unions ... why can't we do that?", but it forgets that we have a federalist state with a number of Parliaments/legislatures and that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over marriage alone and no other type of union. The UK is a unitary state with a single Parliament and is able to play these games of semantics in a way that we are not.

The amount of trouble to open up the constitution and solicit the necessary inter-provincial support for such a minor quibble simply wouldn't make it worthwhile. Plus, as we've seen in the past, once constitutional ammendments are proposed, everyone piles in with their own personal hobby-horses and suddenly the whole project goes to shit.

(ack. Marriage debates again! Every time I see the Americans debating SSM on television, I have to tune out ... totally, totally worn out on this topic )

[Birdy]

let's not fly off the handle, i mean i'm with you guys on the marriage issue. i'm all for the separation of church and state.

i think we need to focus on what 'canadian' conservatism is all about and recognize that whether we like it or not, the north americas under the europeans were founded upon Christian principles-- subtract what we know of history and the timeline of political thought and focus only on what our country is comprised of, it makes a difference.

i was only trying to point out that michael moore skims the surface of things, makes rash comments in hopes of getting an uninformed reaction, and really doesn't 'contribute' anything to his cause apart from a fleeting fist pump. the issue of gay marriage is only a case in point, in which my point is proven in the continuing discussion in this thread. there is more to conservative thought than meets the eye, so look a little deeper before you give a 'hell yah' after reading the joke of a letter at the top of this page.

[meggo]

true right wingers don't believe that gay people shouldn't have the same "rights" as straight people, but rather that the institution of marriage itself should be kept the same as it has always been, under the eyes of the state and the church.

see... to me that's kind of a "po-tay-to" -- "po-tah-to" [heheh doesn't come across as well in script eh] line. i think it's more like an excuse that right-wingers use to keep homosexuals from giving that validity to their relationship. meh. plus the whole church-state thing, lordy lordy, i think it's time to get past that.

i also completely agree with bradm - why the heck [that's right i said heck!] would we want to keep it the same? how is marriage any less sacred between people of the same sex? this may just an issue i we will never see eye to eye on birdsy .

[edit - sorry i guess i was a bit blah blah behind on that - i had started the message about an hour ago and just finished now. i was thinkin real hard ]

Edited January 23, 2006 by Guest

[secondtube]

tooly, dont let your boss fool you.

i'm not rich, your not rich, chances are, your boss is.

the majority of conservative supporters are very well off (just take a drive down the mountain brow)...

[Birdy]

ah meggo i don't know the answer.. in my ideal world, government wouldn't have a say in order to be pro or con about SSM. marriage wouldn't fall under gov't jurisdiction. but damn, too much has to change in order for that to happen.

in light of this, if it came down to social issues ALONE and if the past 100 odd years of canadian history and everything i know were erased, i'd probably vote NDP. but it doesn't and hasn't and certain prioritizations do play a large role. you know, economic realities blah blah blah.

i just cringe at reactionary anything.

p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a

especially when it works!

[d_rawk]

i'd probably vote NDP. but it doesn't and hasn't and certain prioritizations do play a large role. you know, economic realities blah blah blah.

Birdy, have you met Paul Summerville yet?

And in some provinces, the NDP is the party that is brought in to balance the books and get the economy straight after the conservatives wrack up their typical debts and deficits. Economic realities, indeed.

[Hartamophone]

the majority of conservative supporters are very well off (just take a drive down the mountain brow)...

Are you sure about that? True, much of the corporate elite are Conservatives, although there are a whole lot of "back roads" conservatives out there, too. In an American context, NY and California (two of the richest states) go Democratic almost every four years, and some of the poorest regions in Canada out East are Conservative strongholds.

[secondtube]

just stating what i see...

its a sea of blue in the half million dollar plus houses, not a Single red or green...

i guess if i had that cash, i'd vote blue as well.

[Birdy]

alan greenspan is a banker too d_rawk, quite the legacy he is leaving behind.

i think what i consider economic prioritization and what mr. summerville consider economic prioritization slightly differ.

provincially, bob rae did enough to scar me forever. which is unfortunate for NDPers in Ontario.

[Diggzz]

I shall be voting against said Paul Summerville this evening in my riding...

[d_rawk]

Diggzz: Yeah, he was placed in a bad riding for him. He doesn't have a hope of taking St. Paul's. Any particular reason you're voting against him?

Birdy: No doubt that your priorities differ. Certainly, I would imagine, do your ideas of what constitutes either a sustainable or a just economy as well. And that's fine. My point was simply that evoking the "NDP doesn't know money from toilet paper" (obviously my words, not yours) strawman with the authoritative and neutral sounding "realities" is (IMO) both offbase and inaccurate.

The card-carrying Capital-L Liberal Bob Rae What can I say ... it's a complicated and deep one, isn't it? As many things as I could say in his defense (and there are plenty), I could say against him (and there are plenty). A shame that the ONDP has to carry the cross of a single administration seemingly forever though, when both the provincial wings of the other two major parties have had more than their share of duds. Many a person walks around with the scars of some Progressive Conservative or Liberal government on their souls.

[Birdy]

all is fair in love and war d-rawk. it is a shame for provincial ndps, that much is true. just as the legacy of brian mulroney is a shame for some pcs. so the way the cookie crumbles.

i really didn't mean to evoke the idea that the ndp didn't know "money from toilet paper", thats why i put the after it. just trying to stir things up a bit your people aren't that bad.

[d_rawk]

It's cool. Agreed and agreed.

Not my people, though. I'm stringently non-partisan. Those people are simply the only ones who I think are making sense at the moment, and the only ones I can stomach. I think that the good times are the times to invest and to strengthen, because the good times never last forever.