> But if you ask me, Moore pretty much hates everything
> America stands for.
Come on, that’s overstating things. About half of that column is a very reasonable complaint about how sloppy the airlines were with security in the past. Then about a quarter of it is a poorly thought-out mish-mosh of doubts about whether Bin Laden is behind the terrorists. It’s stupid and confused but not hateful. Then there’s a cut-and-paste rant about how the U.S. has sometimes chosen its allies badly in the past. I assume that this part is the one you’re really objecting to. Look, one may object to the very existence of the C.I.A. and yet not hate everything about America. I think he’s wrong too, but that doesn’t mean I think he hates America. Moore may be stupid and naive and not even trying to carefully think about recent events, but that’s not hatred.
I don’t base that opinion just on what he said in that article. Have you listened to him when he’s in his ‘pundit’ mode? Have you heard him rant about businessmen? Or business in general? Or the rich? Or anyone in the Republican party?
And he didn’t just say that American picks its allies poorly. He makes the flat-out claim that America is a terrorist country, that goes around indiscriminately killing innocent people. He says, “We abhor terrorism — unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing”, and later, “our recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been conducted by a guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple of ex-military guys who hated the federal government”.
This is a guy who hates America as it exists. He hates capitalism, he hates businesses, and he hates the government.
Looking at the links offered close to the bottom of the http://www.michaelmoore.com front page we see news reports linked to suggesting that:
Bush gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in return for their help with controlling the opium trade (a downright lie, as revealed in Zenster’s thread)
The US may be to blame due to war crimes it has committed
The US may be to blame due to laws it didn’t enforce against Israel
The US may be to blame because Bush has rejected the US’s role as a peace broker
Nothing suggesting that perhaps the terrorists really don’t have a valid point at all.
Well, I would imagine so – otherwise, why would he be a pundit, if not to try and change the policies of the US government?
As for the charges that the US created Osama bin Laden, backed terrorist groups in other countries, and that the recent attack has boosted support for military spending and increased George W. Bush’s ratings in the public eye … well, all of those things are objectively true. If they make you uncomfortable, Sam, I think Moore’s done his job.
Oh for pete’s sake. The U.S. no more ‘created’ Bin Laden than it ‘created’ Lee Harvey Oswald. Yes, they provided aid and tactical assistance to Bin Laden, back when he was engaged in a military battle against enemies of the United States. They are not responsible for his current behaviour.
And the U.S. didn’t ‘create’ him because he was already a powerful leader at the time (which is why he came to the U.S.'s attention in the first place), and he already hated the U.S. If anything, getting assistance from the U.S. should have caused him to moderate his views. You could make the same claim that the U.S. ‘created’ him if he had asked for help and been refused. Then at least you could say he had a reason for hating the United States.
And there’s a difference between disagreeing with your government and wanting to affect change, and having a genuine hatred for people who don’t share your views. I’ve been listening to Michael Moore for a long time, and you can just hear the acid in his voice the minute he starts to talk about the people who disagree with him. The man has hatred, or at least bitterness, burning in his soul.
What is wrong with this? It’s all true.
There was a big scandal in the 1980s when a how-to terrorism manual was found-written by the CIA and sent to the contras in Central America.
For that matter, we have our own little Terrorism U in our very own country-the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia.
Sam Stone,do you feel that when one loves their country, they must love everything that their country does? And to disagree with the government means hatred for the country?
First, you accuse the “Hollywood Lefties” of “near hatred of America” and now Michael Moore of full-blown hatred of the country. My guess is that anybody who disagrees with you gets labeled as a America-hater.
bin Laden has his cronies do the killing for him. It is not too much of a stretch that Falwell and Robertson have some terribly angry and misguided “fan” run out and do some gaybashing or bomb an abortion clinic. They may not approve of it or ask of it, but the rhetoric is clearly there to incite any misguided viewer, and I don’t believe Reverend? Jerry’s apology was driven by his desire to seek higher ground any more than another Jerry (Springer) is motivated by a desire to enlighten.
Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, ad infinitum I can forgive since my chosen divine spirit would and I try to follow His teachings. I suspect I reacted in decidedly un-pacifistic ways myself that day (of course I’m not in the media). These guys keep it coming every day–and the scariest part is, they aren’t evem close to the worst.
Keep in mind, too, that the Taliban’s interpretation of the Qu’ran is decidedly off the mark of most Islamic scholars–and I mean way off. The same holds true of the Jerry and Pat show, IMHO. I’m no Bible scholar, but God knows, neither are they.
Revtim, you are being disingenuous. First of all, I made that comment about ‘hollywood lefties’ off-the-cuff, and immediately retracted it. I also, in the very same message, expressed my admiration for all kinds of people that do not share a single political belief of mine. Rosie O’Donnell, for example, who is a ‘Hollywood Leftie’ but a class act and a genuinely nice person.
If you want to quote from me, you’d better damn well do it in context. You might want to go over to the pit, where I just finished telling people to stop attacking Hillary. Then you can stop into the Bill Clinton thread, where I expressed my admiration for how he has behaved. Next, you can drop in on the latest economics thread, where I stated that I really like Paul Krugman, a liberal economist, because he generally has very sound analyses of issues, even if I disagree with him as a matter of philosophy.
I have no use for Michael Moore, or any other people who walk around spewing hatred. The same goes for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
But if you want to try and slam me as someone who hates all liberals by quoting only the negative things I have to say while conveniently ignoring the positive, why don’t you start a new thread about it in the pit, where we can take the gloves off?
Guinastasia, is this the same manual which advised guerilla fighters to do things like calling in sick to work and leave their taps running to sabotage the water supply? Because if it is, then I can honestly say that the manual’s pretty much a joke and certainly didn’t include anything about hijacking a plane and crashing it into civilian buildings.
This isn’t to say we haven’t done some pretty f*cked up things. But I think that everyone realizes that Bin Laden took things a little too far this time. Had he not done it, the Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, and any other group you want to name which seems to have nothing better to do than kill members of the neighboring population, could have “happily” continued to do so, and no one would have paid much attention to them. Now, however, if you’re going to be considered a terrorist, you’ve got to do something spectacular that involves the killing of thousands of people at one whack! Simply strapping a couple of sticks of dynamite to your back and blowing yourself up in a school yard isn’t going to cut it anymore. You’re going to have to do something big. Which means that anytime someone takes in their head to do declare themselves to be a terrorist, the world’s going to come down hard upon them.
Guys like Falwell and Robertson would like to be the Taliban, but they don’t have the balls to actually go out and order the killings, which is a good thing I suppose, since it means that more people won’t have to die in the name of religious intolerance. But it also makes it harder to convince people that half-wits like Robertson, Falwell, et. al. are dangerous individuals, since they rarely come right out and say what they would like to see happen.
> Have you heard him rant about businessmen? Or business in
> general?
I’ve heard him rant about big business a lot. He seldom mentions small business. He exaggerates a lot, but basically he’s right. A lot of big businesses take advantage of the public.
> Or the rich?
He’s frequently right there too. Most rich people are blind to the problems of poor people. Many middle- to upper-middle-class people are also.
> Or anyone in the Republican party?
Sometimes he does. Sometimes he rants about people in the Democratic party who aren’t as far to the left as he is.
> This is a guy who hates America as it exists.
So do most people who want to change America. I think that what you’re saying is that he hates what you think of as the basis of America. He doesn’t think of that as the basis at all. You’re trying to impose your definition of America as the only one.
All this doesn’t mean that I think he’s a good political commentator. He isn’t. He has a reasonable knowledge of domestic economic policy, but a poor grasp of international affairs. He’s an entertainer, not a pundit. He’s the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Both are funny even though they’re often mean-spirited. Both frequently get their facts wrong. No one should rely on either one for their political news. Both truly believe that they are doing what’s best for the U.S., but that doesn’t mean we should blindly follow either one.
Sorry if you feel I was quoting out of context Sam, I don’t see it that way. The fact is, you called two seperate groups/people “America Haters” in the same thread, and it’s not much of stretch to say that’s a pattern. And I assumed you retracted your critisism of the “hollywood lefties” not being at the benefit, and not your idea that they have a “near-hatred” of America. If you did in fact retract the “near-hatred” statement, then I apologize. And, I applaud you for having the class to retract statements at all, which most people lack on this board.
But, I have to admit I don’t see Moore spewing hatred, at least not from what you quoted in this thread. He seems to be protesting things he sees as wrong. He is taking it to extremes I certainly wouldn’t, and I think he’s wrong on several points, but that in no way constitutes, or even comes close to, hatred of America. Maybe there’s something he’s said elsewhere that justifies calling him an America-hater, but I haven’t heard it.
And in case you don’t realize it, flaming someone in a pit thread doesn’t help your argument.
Okay, it looks like we’re all coming a little closer in our points of view about this.
All I can say about Michael Moore is, watch him the next time he is on ‘Politically Incorrect’. I have seen the guy red in the face and almost spitting angry just working himself up with his own rhetoric. I have seen him verbally insult people simply because they disagree with his point of view. He comes across as a very nasty man at times.
And it may surprise you, but I think he’s a funny guy. Even when I’m cringing from one of his blasts I can sometimes laugh at what he’s saying two minutes later. But I really do think he crosses a line that most people on the left or right don’t. There are lots of people on both sides of the aisle who can disagree strongly with each other that I would never claim do so out of ‘hatred’. Michael Moore just isn’t one of them.
Guinastasia, I won’t insult your intelligence by trying to pretend that the US hasn’t done some pretty bone-headed things in the past, and that we haven’t supported some sickos in the past. We have, and it is much to the shame of our nation that we’ve done so. I think that the only thing that separates us from the likes of Bin Laden & Co. is that we’re at least willing to admit that we’re wrong.
Admittedly, we don’t do it until some fifty years or so have passed (re: the interment camps for Japanese during WW II, the massacres of Korean civilians during the Korean War), but at least we do admit it! I can’t picture Bin Laden, or whomever was responsible for the WTC attack, ever admitting that they were wrong.
I know that you’re bothered by what’s happening with the US gearing up for war, and that’s the way it should be. No rational human being likes war, no rational human being likes killing. Yet, some times, it is something that must be done. Cold comfort, I’ll admit, but I can’t imagine a world where the likes of Bin Laden’s ideals and our own could peacefully co-exist.
Tuckerfan*“Guys like Falwell and Robertson would like to be the Taliban, but they don’t have the balls to actually go out and order the killings…”*
Is it your assumption, then, that the Talbian went and out and “ordered” the recent attacks so that, say, if the Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan the US would be safe from further terrorist attacks?
“No rational human being likes war, no rational human being likes killing. Yet, some times, it is something that must be done.”
Actually, I agree, but is this such a time? By elevating the Taliban to the role of Public Enemies #1, you’ve given yourself an incontrovertible foe–worth getting at any cost (whether of Afghani civilians or the lives of US and allied soldiers). That must make things very clear-cut and simple for you. Unfortunately everything I have read, including even Bush’s speeches, has made clear that a “war on terrorism” is far from simple or even definable. Take a look at this link and tell me what you think–if you would.
Jeez, with the latest evidence coming in that these guys were ready to do something with a crop duster, isn’t it clear now that they ARE public enemy #1? The next attack could easily kill tens of thousands of people.
They are literally a bigger threat to the security of the U.S. than the Nazis were. In WWII, America itself was never in danger of invasion or even attack. It sure is now.
And yes, it’s much more complicated than just ‘get the Taliban’, and everyone knows that including Bush, who has said it repeatedly. But complexity is no excuse to shrink away from conflict when your very safety is on the line. If it takes hundreds of billions of dollars and a new war, it’s worth it.
When you speak of Falwell and Robertson, be sure to include the identifiers like fanatic, greedy, selfish and power mad. I have no idea why fools still bother paying attention to them, unless we have a much larger segment of morons in this nation than I thought. Given half a chance, they would probably happily run their version of the Inquisition, and Crusades so long as they could gain money and power off of them.
Here are some excerpts from Micheal Moore’s commentaries about the WTC attack.
Perhaps these were some of the hateful comments Mr Stone was referring to.
Blaming people like Falwell and Robertson for abortion doctor murders and gay bashing is ridiculous. they have never advocated either. People are resonsible for their own actions and statements not those of others. Blaming Falwell and Robertson for the actions of others is reprehensible, they are no more respnsible for these acts than Micheal Moore is for the WTC attacks