This was a superb piece of political railroading by the Republicans, as any congressperson who refused to vote for a resolution celebrating the heroism of the victims and rescuers of 9/11 would be asking to be defeated on November 2. We’re into the world of soundbites and nuances again. While a reasoned nay vote on this resolution could only be explained in a relatively complex sentence that brought up the Iraq tie-ins, all the Republicans have to do is yell “He voted against the firefighters! He voted against the firefighters!” and they can step right into office.
I understood that part of it, it was too stupid not to. I didn’t understand why you seemed so scornful that Moore would “drag his nasty ass” there anyway to speak. As if he didn’t have the right to go speak anywhere in public he fucking well pleases. You’re not being a very good Libertarian, it seems to me.
Yep, that’s EXACTLY what it was, which is why I have such intense admiration for the 16 who voted against it. They’re true American patriots.
Good libertarians don’t recognize so-called public property. But Moore apparently believes all property is public, including casinos and colleges.
:smack: Of course! I completely forgot one of the things that makes you guys so damned scary. Pardon me.
Yeah, if we eliminated eminent domain and asset forfeiture, God only knows what could happen.
Wait, “scary” was the wrong word. You’d only be scary if there were any chance in hell that one of your guys would get anywhere near the Presidency within the next several centuries. Since that event falls under the “snowball in hell” definition, the correct term would be closer to “loony-tunes.”
Pardons again.
Liberal: Um, just to remind you of what was actually in the OP, if he came here to Straight Dope, for free or otherwise, blustering about his rights to free speech and how the First Amendment “gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say”, it would be a problem for the mods.
In other words:
The rules of this message board are more restrictive than the First Amendment. Some of the things that Michael Moore is allowed to say in other venues would not be permitted here.
There isn’t a DUH in the universe large enough to respond adequately to that absolutely underwhelming observation.
Liberal: Good libertarians don’t recognize so-called public property.
That seems to imply that good libertarians use only private property that they have received explicit contractual permission to use. Makes you wonder how good libertarians ever manage to cross a street! 
How sad that such things exist. Recognize it or not the law of the land applies you old revolutionary. But you gotta pull off the revolution before the rules get changed.
And your OP contains a fallacy. GMU is public property (admit it). The SDMB is NOT public property.
Besides, I don’t see what the big deal is. He wants to protest let him protest. What’s that line from Dave Sim? “Where opposition is tolerated it becomes quaint. Where it is oppressed it becomes dangerous.”
"Let’s hope Michael Moore doesn’t become a Doper"
Oh, I dunno. I’ve been curious about how the “ignore” thingy works.
And that is why some of the rest of us don’t want to have anything to do with a silly philosophy that would lead to freedom of speech only for those who have the money to afford the property to speak on!
Here’s another Democrat who is saying “Good for him!” We need some people around making sure that the Democrats don’t just become the Republicans-Lite. (And, judging from most of what I have heard him saying, he, unlike Ralph Nader, seems to better understand when it is useful to criticize the Democrats and when it is more useful to focus one’s ammunition more at Bush and Company.)
Oh, goody, I get to cherry pick the pile-on. Oh, here’s a gem:
Yeah, I reckon you prefer a more rational philosophy that would empower people like John Ashcroft and Janet Reno to tell you where you can and cannot speak. You think you have free speech on so-called public property? Take a “Bush sucks” sign to his next rally.
I’d buy a ticket to see that. Hell, I’d buy two! 
I’m not even piling on. I’m just saying that claiming that ‘good’ libertarians don’t recognize something that manifestly exists in the here and now is foolish.
Liberal: Oh, goody, I get to cherry pick the pile-on.
When three people tell you you’re drunk… 
Now, don’t be modest, Kim. You count as three all by yourself. 
Call me when you’ve got the Moore vs. Liberal ticket.
I’d give 5-1 odds on Mike, easily.
I agree that Michael Moore would make a terrible Doper. That doesn’t mean that he’s bad at what he does, and it doesn’t mean that the liberal movement in America isn’t lucky to have him. And it in no way means that he deserves the venom that Liberal constantly spews at him (the best example being lib’s long rant about the deceptive “parallel editing” of the infamous 7 minutes, in which it was claimed that MM took 7 minutes of footage, cut a shorter section out of it, and then edited that section to make it seem longer than it really was!)
Al Franken, on the other hand (from my reading), would make an excellent doper.
Similarly, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly would make terrible dopers, but George Will and (I suspect) John McCain would make fine dopers.
Michael Savage would be banned so fast that it would make his head spin. Except that as I strongly suspect he’s possessed by an evil demon (nothing else could explain his level of hate-spewing ignorance), his head may already frequently spin.
I can’t believe you would equate Franken with the likes of Will and McCain, Max. I can’t imagine either of them writing a book – and making public appearances spewing the viewpoint – that someone on the other side was a “Big Fat Idiot.”
He is much, much more along the lines of Coulter and O’Reilly, although I can’t really imagine even them saying such things either.
Your politics are showing, SA. Franken is a comedian, thus the “big fat idiot” stuff. But more to the point, Franken has not based his entire public career on his skill as a liar, as have O’Reilly and Coulter.