Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:Well, sure. And when there's a way to step around a wall and challenge the poster's assumptions in an indirect manner, then that should be done. But when a poster just hops in to say Moore = Reifenstahl there's really nothing to be done but call it for what it is.

I am not concerned with the fact that their is opposition to my ideas (as that is a given in most situations), and the ideas that manage to provide beneficial changes to the populous at large. What I am concerned with however, is how severely divided the U.S. is, and how little is being done to change that. Both sides of the aisle push to separate people, and then special interests jump in and finish the job.

I see people ready to fight over where they get their coffee, I see riots started by little more than a thrown bottle and a harsh word. I see a future where the anger of the nation is directed at the President, ultimately ending in martyrdom, and leading to an even more divided nation.

Hopefully, you know that I am little more than a satirist, and I try to see the situation from both sides. The "whole" matters to me a lot, but at this point, I do feel that I am somewhat pushing my perspective onto you.

Wrexasaur wrote:Hopefully, you know that I am little more than a satirist

You run around in the forest playing a pan flute?

Indeed I do... but only when I have time off.

WHEEE! WHEEE! WHEEE- dammit, fell down...




BACK UP AGAIN WITH A... wait... with a calm and relaxing melody?




And the power of the non-word... in it's form of having the ultimate.

sebster wrote:It is the implication behind John's claim, 'therefore ignore it entirely, never watch it and never let your worldview be questioned' that really needs to be challenged.

Note that isn't a quote - I never said that.

Also, I have no issue with questioning one's worldview, and I do that occasionally. I'm willing to look at rational information from time to time, simply to fulfill some amount of personal curiousity. However, I'm not paying $10 to be hectored by a heavily-baised propaganda piece.

I want to see this Moore movie but with Zombieland coming out the same weekend---Moore's movie is going to wait til a DVD release.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot have a debate if both sides ignore what the other says.

Sure you can, because really when you are debating you aren't going after the other debater, but the audience.

That's not a debate. The basic concept of a debate is that the audience has enough of an open mind to be convinced by well constructed arguments and rhetoric. Modern political discourse probably doesn't count, because modern political audiences seem to be so polarised.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot have a debate if both sides ignore what the other says.

Sure you can, because really when you are debating you aren't going after the other debater, but the audience.

That's not a debate. The basic concept of a debate is that the audience has enough of an open mind to be convinced by well constructed arguments and rhetoric. Modern political discourse probably doesn't count, because modern political audiences seem to be so polarised.

Again, want you want it to be, and what it is are two different things. You are talking about the idea of what a debate should be. I'm saying what it actually is. I am not saying I am happy about it either or endorsing that way of thinking.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, I have no issue with questioning one's worldview, and I do that occasionally. I'm willing to look at rational information from time to time, simply to fulfill some amount of personal curiousity. However, I'm not paying $10 to be hectored by a heavily-baised propaganda piece.

That is very well said. I might catch the film at a later date, though i doubt I will desire to pay for the privilege since (at least from the clips I have thus seen) his film on 'Capitalism' seems to be more about the basic concept of 'Greed' which he sets up as a straw man for anyone who disagrees with his take on how the economy should be run. Y'know, because there's a huge glut of politicians and voters out there demanding more greed (besides me).

Wrexasaur wrote:I am not concerned with the fact that their is opposition to my ideas (as that is a given in most situations), and the ideas that manage to provide beneficial changes to the populous at large. What I am concerned with however, is how severely divided the U.S. is, and how little is being done to change that. Both sides of the aisle push to separate people, and then special interests jump in and finish the job.

I understand what you're saying, but I feel there's a basic limit to bipartisanship, and there's a basic limit to meeting in the middle. If one person says it's raining and another says it isn't, the solution isn't to decide it's is somewhat raining, the solution is to go and look outside and see if it is actually raining. At the end of the day, if one or more parties are building political views around grossly incorrect facts, then a genuine, productive middle ground isn't possible. Better to challenge that stuff, and aim to produce something as close to a practical consensus as possible by getting rid of as much of the dodgy input as possible.

If I see a problem, it's with the fuzzy notions that everyone's opinion is equally valid, and that all opinions should be equally considered. Sometimes, some people really are genuinely wrong. Sometimes, some people's opinions are generally better researched and better considered than other's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Note that isn't a quote - I never said that.

Fair point, I apologise if anyone got the impression it was a direct quote. It was meant as a description of your POV, or at least a description of the mindset that I feel your POV ultimately produces.

If you think it's a problem I'll go back and edit my earlier post.

Also, I have no issue with questioning one's worldview, and I do that occasionally. I'm willing to look at rational information from time to time, simply to fulfill some amount of personal curiousity. However, I'm not paying $10 to be hectored by a heavily-baised propaganda piece.

Fair enough. I'm saying that comparing a basic opinion piece to Riefenstahl makes that process considerably less likely. And again, propaganda needs to be tied to a political party, otherwise everything is propaganda.

And I wouldn't pay $10 either. I don't really understand why anyone would pay $10 to see a 40 foot tall Michael Moore. Just catch it on video or download it or whatever.

jackalope is an animal.. cant expect foreigners to know the name for local animal..

Know what a magpie is?

On topic: Michael Moore is a magpie he swoops down and generally is annoying.

sebster wrote:I don't really understand why anyone would pay $10 to see a 40 foot tall Michael Moore.

So, 50 feet wide?

Trust me... the calculations are time consuming for that one. We will have to figure this out piece by piece, taking into account the gravity involved in such complicated orbits.

Oh gawds, now all I can think about is physics class and that damn orbiting bodies equation. I condemn thee to a less then pleasant afterlife of your chosen religious denomination Wrexasaur!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Oh sweet, a naked chick!

sebster wrote:And again, propaganda needs to be tied to a political party, otherwise everything is propaganda.

I don't think it needs to be tied to a political party, but it needs to be tied specifically to a political ideology. You don't have to join the neo-nazi's to be a fascist anymore than you need to be a card carrying member of the Communist party to carry communist ideals. I think your definition is to narrow and misses to much.

No worries, the free market will take care of it.

sebster wrote:I understand what you're saying, but I feel there's a basic limit to bipartisanship, and there's a basic limit to meeting in the middle. If one person says it's raining and another says it isn't, the solution isn't to decide it's is somewhat raining, the solution is to go and look outside and see if it is actually raining. At the end of the day, if one or more parties are building political views around grossly incorrect facts, then a genuine, productive middle ground isn't possible. Better to challenge that stuff, and aim to produce something as close to a practical consensus as possible by getting rid of as much of the dodgy input as possible.

If I see a problem, it's with the fuzzy notions that everyone's opinion is equally valid, and that all opinions should be equally considered. Sometimes, some people really are genuinely wrong. Sometimes, some people's opinions are generally better researched and better considered than other's.

I understand what you are saying as well, but I simply cannot agree that if it is raining, you need to check. If things are that goddam hard to understand, there is a much bigger problem that you are facing. When no facts are straight, and all sides claim to be right... but only one side actually keeps pushing their agenda (so far as I can see), there is a massive problem. Sorry, not a massive problem, a practically catastrophic one, where anything goes, so long as you have the "voices of the people" behind you.

Scream louder than them, or ignore them. Simple as that. The need to check for rain, is only indicative of the fact that you doubt the possibility. It rains all the time, and more so on the people who "need" that situation to begin with. Sure, things have gotten better, but by how much, and by who's measurement?

But wait!!! OH NOES!!! That is propaganda... and since it is so obvious, nothing else can be propaganda. Yep, indeed. Not everything is propaganda... until politicians get ahold of it, and start changing all of their views to benefit themselves further, just a bit further.

Sorry, what I meant was that these politicians are all upstanding citizens, that do nothing but good. But wait... that means no one is right? That makes no sense, let's expand this definition a bit more, so we can all be a bit more comfortable in our assumptions about these types of situations. That should help us all quite a bit, just make sure you don't ask too many questions, and if you do, expect to be slapped down with enormous amounts of information designed to make people look incredibly stupid.

Problem is... a lot of people don't care in the slightest how they appear, they just want things to be taken care of. They want solutions, not cross-chatter designed by both sides, in order to keep us all arguing. Then one day, good ole' Joe the politician shows up, and starts to talk about how he is tired of this nonsense. Problem is that people don't believe him, and overall, will never believe him. They are tired of this crap, and they should be, it gets nothing for no one; perhaps a few cases that can be easily publicized, but no more than that, it would be dangerous. So you got your hard line Reps, and your hard line Dems, but in the long run, they are not interested in anything besides appearances, and because of this, every little change takes decades. This helps people feel apathetic, as they very well should do, that is, if they want to receive their U.S. opportunities; among these opportunities is the right to go bankrupt, and the right to die a miserable death because no one gives a good god damn anymore, and you end up with innefective change, that does little more than provide anecdotal hope.

If you choose to cite any volunteer organizations, please for god's sake start with ACORN. That evil ACORN, that helped make a dent in this whole mess. That evil ACORN that so easily went down to the pits. Goddam spineless freaking politicians... burn... in... hell.

I would like to turn on the news, and see good things happening. I would like to do research that proves people care. The fact remains that they do not care, but more often than not, they will try their god-given damnedest to sound like they care. Care about the earth? Well, you should be recycling, not looking into how effective your contribution is; that would be ridiculous. So facade, after facade, after facade, after facade... and the whole house of cards is crumbling. Thank god I live in California, where you would be lucky to live a healthy life; organic veggies... does not make your life healthy, and in many ways, the absolute smugness of the whole goddam thing, is more detrimental to social engagement than lacking those goddam organic veggies in the first place.

Welcome to the future of democracy, where we can't even understand how simple it really is.

I can accept the fact that people don't care about anyone that isn't within eyeshot, but this whole notion that things are getting better is totally stupid. More opportunities... well... no. More false impressions... well... hell... freaking... yes. Saying that things are better than x, does not mean a thing. Saying that we need change, means next to nothing as well. So this rock and a hard place? Getting much, much tighter, and in time there will be more and more problems because of that.

- This has been a Wrex rant. You can zoom in if you really want to read it. Just press Cntrl+the scroll on your mouse.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:I don't really understand why anyone would pay $10 to see a 40 foot tall Michael Moore.

So, 50 feet wide?

I can't wait for the 3D version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I don't think it needs to be tied to a political party, but it needs to be tied specifically to a political ideology. You don't have to join the neo-nazi's to be a fascist anymore than you need to be a card carrying member of the Communist party to carry communist ideals. I think your definition is to narrow and misses to much.

Yeah, political movement is a better term. To be propaganda it has to be tied to a political movement.

djones520 wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Shaman wrote:If I wanted to watch a slowed fat man's opinion I'd watch the simpsons.

So, are you amongst that top 1% who screw the rest of us out of what is rightfully ours on a regular basis? Because that's the way it is.

Are you serious? Please, tell me what you've ever done to earn the money they worked for. Please tell me how it is "rightfully" yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My thoughts on this film are, it's sheer hypocrisy. Moore will make millions more off of the capitalist system that he's lambasting.

He's playing you all for fools. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man. And he's laughing all the way to the bank.

What country in the world has a true capitalist economy that isn't controlled by the government

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If I want to watch a political propaganda film, I will watch this...

Yeah! Because any and all politically charged commentary is equal to Nazi ideology!

Honest to God, what is going on? Has the US political debate get so ridiculous that any media taking an opposing POV is immediately likened to Nazi propaganda? Or is it just a special Michael Moore thing, perhaps based on his little place in history that I mentioned earlier?

you have never watched FOX then, Obama is super hitler from the center of the earth

youbedead wrote:What country in the world has a true capitalist economy that isn't controlled by the government

Most of them?

Or do you mean the country has to have no government control at all?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

youbedead wrote:What country in the world has a true capitalist economy that isn't controlled by the government

Most of them?

Or do you mean the country has to have no government control at all?

Afghanistan, the world's biggest supplier of opium poppies.

WHat im saying is that america does not have a true capitalist economy.

i also realised that Moore ctually seems to support what alot of republicans are saying ( stopspending our money, stop interfering, etc.)

Is this 'true capitalism' a bit like a 'true Scottsman'?

Michael Moore is actually fairly conservative in his private life. Most people don't know that. He's fiercely Christian, his poor daughters don't get to watch a lot of television...

The Christian aspect is something that he's been touting in his press lately, and that's different for him. At least from what I've seen. A new take on why he does what he does.

That interview with Wolf Blitzer was very interesting.


Whenever anyone calls MM a "documentary filmmaker," I immediately raise an eyebrow and say "You really think he's a documentary filmmaker?"

No one's ever chosen to argue the point with me. He produced agitprop, pure and simple - but why that's an automatic reason to discount him escapes me, and seems incredibly ignorant.

Good agitprop is clearly trying to argue a point to the audience. MM is a master of it...but if you're in the opposition I would think you would have as much or more interest in MM's work to see what the other side is saying. He effects a lot of people and garners a lot of attention. He may be the most influential member of the American Left today.


He gave a press conference on the 29th which was fantastic. Basically, he said that Americans have been relaxing since Obama was elected because "Now the smart guy's in charge," and perhaps we were paying the price for it now with this health care issue. Americans aren't mobilizing and pressuring Congress to institute the public option when polls supposedly keep showing 60% of Americans, a clear majority, support it.

If this is truly a democracy, then that means we get the public option...so why the debate?

He also spoke on the inability of the Left to live by an ideology and stick to it, something I've been saying for five years or so. The dogmatic, disciplined approach of the Right, even when they're being idiots, gets results because they march in lock step, whereas the Left is all over the place.


In terms of bipartisanship...it's a joke. Obama has hopefully learned his lesson by now. If Reid can use reconciliation to get a health care bill with the public option passed with 51 votes in the Senate, then he should do it. It's the right thing to do for the American people, and NOTHING else should matter besides that. Make it work, no matter how hard it is. Without a public option health care reform is NOT "health care reform," and millions of Americans will continue to go uninsured and those of us with health insurance will continue carrying the costs for these people.

The Republicans say that if reconciliation is used then it will lead to partisan warfare for decades...so what? Isn't that the emptiest threat imaginable? We're ALREADY embroiled in stupid, partisan warfare as the idea-less Republicans continue being "the Party of No" and getting in the way of progress.

There comes a time when you have to identify your enemies as your enemies and go to war with them. The Democrats need to target the "conservadems" and get them out of office through running Primary challenges. They then need to start moving in lock step.

And Obama needs to stop compromising first. MM is right - compromise is something you do AFTER you first ask for everything you want. When you compromise on what you want first, you're never going to get it.

He needs to stop being so conciliatory and march off to political war. It needs to happen, and the ramifications won't be so bad. We're basically just waiting out this last generation of American conservatives until Gen X and forward can get into politics. We're going to naturally evolve into a more liberal country in the next 20 years, it's just a matter of waiting out the clock.

Cairnius wrote:No one's ever chosen to argue the point with me. He produced agitprop, pure and simple - but why that's an automatic reason to discount him escapes me, and seems incredibly ignorant.

I would presume most people discount him for his proven and constant track record of lies and fabrications throughout his movies. (at least I do)

Cairnius wrote:We're basically just waiting out this last generation of American conservatives until Gen X and forward can get into politics. We're going to naturally evolve into a more liberal country in the next 20 years, it's just a matter of waiting out the clock.

The Baby Boomers are a generation of conservatives? Also, just as a point, I would caution with using the word liberal in the way you're currently using it - Republicans are liberals too, y'know.

Cairnius wrote:He needs to stop being so conciliatory and march off to political war. It needs to happen, and the ramifications won't be so bad. We're basically just waiting out this last generation of American conservatives until Gen X and forward can get into politics. We're going to naturally evolve into a more liberal country in the next 20 years, it's just a matter of waiting out the clock.

Respectfully, if you believe that, life is going to be a sore disappointment for you in the future.

Thor665 wrote:
I would presume most people discount him for his proven and constant track record of lies and fabrications throughout his movies. (at least I do)

Yet no one has ever claimed the $10,000 he has said he will pay anyone for each factual error they point out from his work. If he's really lying and fabricating, some conservative group would have taken him up on this, proven their case, and then touted either getting paid or his going back on his word.

Cairnius wrote:The Baby Boomers are a generation of conservatives? Also, just as a point, I would caution with using the word liberal in the way you're currently using it - Republicans are liberals too, y'know.

The Baby Boomers were born and raised in a conservative social culture. Social culture is everything. My generation (X) and forward have been raised in a much more liberal social culture, so we're going to lean more politically liberal as a result, and we tend to.

Republicans aren't liberals. "Liberal" in its broadest context means "open to respecting many perspectives." It's why liberals are so politically ineffective - they're never willing to just say "Your opinion sucks, I'm ignoring it and burying what you want to do."

Sometimes you need to do that.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, if you believe that, life is going to be a sore disappointment for you in the future.

Um...if I go into politics, perhaps...

*raises eyebrow*

Unless you mean the "waiting out the clock" part, in which case I am confident in the lessons of history. America is more socially liberal now than it was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago it was more socially liberal than it was 50 years before that, etc.

Liberal social evolution is an inevitable byproduct of living in a free, democratic society. This will naturally pass itself on to politics. Hell, the Joint Chiefs just had an article published in one of the most important military journals about questioning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We may live to see the day when gays are allowed to openly serve in the military.

Medical marijuana is being grown in several states and the Feds aren't really pushing it. Gay marriage is legal in several States and that may be an inevitable Federal change of law, also within our lifetimes.

There's no stopping history. It's just a question of how long it is going to take for all the old minds to die out.

Thats actually incorrect. We are substantially more concservative than the 1800s. You forget all those evil drugs were legal in the late 1800s when no one gave a BLEEP.

Everything is a cycle, except of course the US is getting older. Older people are crankier people, and usually substantially more conservative, because like, they've got their stuff.

Cairnius wrote:Michael Moore is actually fairly conservative in his private life. Most people don't know that. He's fiercely Christian, his poor daughters don't get to watch a lot of television...

At first I was like



But then I remember who said it and I was like

Since we're doing pics I have to chime in to no point in particular.