Michael Moore

[Dilly_D]

He should run for president of the USA

am I rite?

[Kurashima]

No

Because to do so would completely and utterly destroy the image hes been attempting to portray. And because when you look more closely into his books, you can pick them apart without much effort.

Hes good for pamphleteering on behalf of others, but hes nowhere near heavyweight enough to actually do politics. His books and his actions work for shock value alone. Hes the "nice guy champion of the underclass" type of dude, a dyed in the wool liberal who occasionally goes off on a left or right wing tangent, but hes neither corrupt enough or has enough contacts to sway the people in his favour.

[Sunday8pm]

He's sometimes the complete opposite of Oprah, at least appearance wise, cept when Oprah starts eating the ham again.

(also as plausible as making Oprah President...)

Dr Phil should run, purely cause he's got hypocrisy in the bag with his Dieting books.

[Summanus]

Chomsky > Moore

Chomsky for God

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Chomsky > Moore

Chomsky for God

Chomsky is incapable of doing anything but presenting rhetorically strong points. In particular his stuff about McNamara was pretty unreadable.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

Chomsky is incapable of doing anything but presenting rhetorically strong points.

Why do you say this?

And in a simplistic fashion he is clearly "capable" of much more, but I'll leave that. What's your main problem with his writings?

Originally Posted by Kurashima

but hes nowhere near heavyweight enough to actually do politics

heh. Have you seen some of the jokers they've got running for President over there? Moore is probably as smart as any of them. His arguments are facile and ridiculous in a lot of cases, but this puts him right on par with the Democrats and Republicans nonsense about whether Bush showed up for parade or whether Kerry really did save someone's life and other crap like that.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why do you say this?

I think I already answered this*. The disclaimer is that I haven't read much more by him. I've read a few editorials and I've seen a lecture or two he's held.

And in a simplistic fashion he is clearly "capable" of much more, but I'll leave that. What's your main problem with his writings?

Yes, he's capable of plenty, but when he talks about politics he regresses into 'how do I use language to make the most poignant, humanist statements possible?' mode. Mind you it's not like I cringe every time he opens his mouth/moves his pen.

* It was the McNamara stuff that put most of what he said in this perspective.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

* It was the McNamara stuff that put most of what he said in this perspective.

OK, what about it didn't you like? Specifically I mean.

Yeah I find some of the moral condemnation a little tiring. But it's necessary most of the time. When people can still, even today, talk about (say) the Vietnan war in terms of the tragedy of how many Americand died and not even realise what they're doing I'd say it was completely vital for someone to point out in as strong terms as possible the error of their ways.

[Jester]

Except McNamara says that 'you can't talk about success in war in terms of proportionality' and 'if we'd understood our enemy, we wouldn't have gone to war in Vietnam, and the current administration made the same mistake going into Iraq.'

And then Chomsky proceeds to tear him apart for not apologizing, and for war being the standard modus operandi for every American government ever.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

'if we'd understood our enemy, we wouldn't have gone to war in Vietnam, and the current administration made the same mistake going into Iraq.'.

But this is the point. Going into Vietnam is seen as a mistake. Yeah, it can be seen as a mistake, but I think this is a strange way of viewing it. A crime is more like it. The fact we can look at crimes against humanity as "mistakes" is illustrative (and this is the point Chomsky makes).

If I was to rape some girl and then have my ass kicked later on for it, it wouldn't exactly impress the court if I was to say "Well, if I had understood the girl and her family, I wouldn't have raped her."

Maybe I'm strange, but if I was involved in the murder of tens of thousands of people I'd be a bit more apologetic than merely reflecting on intelligence failures, or mistakes in strategy or whatever else.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But this is the point. Going into Vietnam is seen as a mistake. Yeah, it can be seen as a mistake, but I think this is a strange way of viewing it. A crime is more like it. The fact we can look at crimes against humanity as "mistakes" is illustrative (and this is the point Chomsky makes).

If I was to rape some girl and then have my ass kicked later on for it, it wouldn't exactly impress the court if I was to say "Well, if I had understood the girl and her family, I wouldn't have raped her."

Maybe I'm strange, but if I was involved in the murder of tens of thousands of people I'd be a bit more apologetic than merely reflecting on intelligence failures, or mistakes in strategy or whatever else.

Except McNamara has already admitted that he took part in what basically amounted to warcrimes in Japan in WW2. Where he was involved in the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In a much more direct fashion as well. Maybe he felt that what he was doing then was worse.

If you were to say to the court 'I didn't realize then, but I do now, that it was a mistake. In the future I will keep this in mind, and I hope others will as well.' Then you might make some sort of impression.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

heh. Have you seen some of the jokers they've got running for President over there? Moore is probably as smart as any of them. His arguments are facile and ridiculous in a lot of cases, but this puts him right on par with the Democrats and Republicans nonsense about whether Bush showed up for parade or whether Kerry really did save someone's life and other crap like that.

It wasn't Kerry or Bush making those particular arguments, however.

Both Bush and Kerry have said some stupid things, but anyone who speaks extemporaneously is going to put their foot in their mouths eventually. In prepared speeches/texts, both Bush and Kerry are lightyears ahead of Moore rhetorically. Of course, both Bush and Kerry undoubtably got help; but so could/should have Moore.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Of course, both Bush and Kerry undoubtably got help; but so could/should have Moore.

I think it's reasonable to assume if he was running for President* and had a campaign budget in millions he'd probably get help. Comparing what he says during a comedy routine and what he might say during a campaign speech is a little unfair (imho).

As for direct responsibility, I think both Bush and Kerry need to bear some responsibility for what their respective camps have said during this election. I know that some of it is generated by third parties, but both could have easily disassociated themselves fully with all negative campaigning. Has Kerry or Bush done this (genuine question, I don't follow American politics)?

I think Moore would appeal more than people think. He's reasonably smart and has a certain rapport with working class Americans (I would imagine, I'm not one obviously).

* = I don't think he should run.

Originally Posted by Jester

Except McNamara has already admitted that he took part in what basically amounted to warcrimes in Japan in WW2. Where he was involved in the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In a much more direct fashion as well. Maybe he felt that what he was doing then was worse.

Huh? I fail to see the connection. So if you've committed worse crimes elsewhere, it's OK to not apologise for other crimes? What is this, guilt fatigue?

If you were to say to the court 'I didn't realize then, but I do now, that it was a mistake. In the future I will keep this in mind, and I hope others will as well.' Then you might make some sort of impression.

Well, yeah it depends what context you're talking about a mistake. Statements I've seen regarding Vietnam being a mistake rely on it basically being a tactical blunder made by a benevolent superpower trying to do good. That kind of attitude is pretty disgusting, and that's all Chomsky is trying to highlight.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think it's reasonable to assume if he was running for President and had a campaign budget in millions he'd probably get help. Comparing what he says during a comedy routine and what he might say during a campaign speech is a little unfair (imho).

Moore's films are hardly comedy routines (well, maybe the first one was). The budget for Fahrenheit 9/11 was reportedly about $6M and it's grossed over $100M. He's a Big Business[tm] now and could certainly afford to hire some help.

As for direct responsibility, I think both Bush and Kerry need to bear some responsibility for what their respective camps have said during this election. I know that some of it is generated by third parties, but both could have easily disassociated themselves fully with all negative campaigning. Has Kerry or Bush done this (genuine question, I don't follow American politics)?

Well, Bush said that he thought the 'Swift Boat Veterans' ad slamming Kerry was inaccurate, but the situation is complicated by recent laws on compaign financing. Third party organizations are required to be outside the control of the candidates and it would technically be illegal for Bush or Kerry to try to tell a third party organization to stop running an ad (yay government intervention!).

I think Moore would appeal more than people think. He's reasonably smart and has a certain rapport with working class Americans (I would imagine, I'm not one obviously).

That's a really scary idea.

[Weeks]

No, no and oh, no.

He's an excellent grass roots person.
Should he ever get in office he's **** everything up.

He's far too hippish. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I like him. But it's not particually effective to be that left when you're running the most powerful nation on planet earth. Due to the fact he'd make too many radical decisions. Which is fine in mainstream society as it balances things out and enriches society, but in government you need to make sensible decisions.

And I'm not saying Bush is great either, just that Moore would mess things up. But feel free to pick something out of my post to try and troll me on.

[Nondescript Human]

**** no.

[Sandsnake]

No, Michael Moore has managed to alienate a decent portion of the left with his antics as well. He is neither "nice" nor overly respected unless you happen to be one of the hollywood elite...you know, those people who we all enjoy watching like some World Cup of Shallow Stupidity, Trashiness, and Drugs? Moore has more the "Angry, fat, rich guy with a HUGE chip on his shoulder" image, definately not presidential material.

As for Chomsky, the only problem I have with his arguments there is simply that he seems to take the approach that we should all fall into weeping fits whenever we think about Vietnam. This is neither practical nor realistic and tends to fall into a cycle of apologetics where we spend more time being remorseful of past mistakes and being afraid of future ones than actually accomplishing anything of value.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Moore's films are hardly comedy routines (well, maybe the first one was). The budget for Fahrenheit 9/11 was reportedly about $6M and it's grossed over $100M. He's a Big Business[tm] now and could certainly afford to hire some help.

I'm not referring to his budget, I'm talking about his approach. This is a guy who in one of his biggest selling books advocating not hiring white people because they were naturally lazy, and other similar types of comments. He's not being serious 100% of the time. Hell, he's not being serious 50% of the time - even when it's on a serious comment. In his TV show "TV Nation" he did a segment where a guy in a chicken outfit tried to arrest corporate criminals. The subject was highly serious (he started the piece commenting on the Americans who die everyday in workplace accidents and such) - but the approach was not.

Again, those sorts of tactics are legitimate in comedy / entertainment and it's vaguely silly to try and compare that to what might be said in a presidential race. Do we trawl up quotes from Arnie movies to discredit him next?

Even in his documentaries, he still has an odd-ball approach which isn't supposed to be taken as some kind of sworn affidavit. The bit in Bowling from Columbine with the animation springs to mind, or the school instructional videos, or when he's randomly opening Canadian's door, etc, etc.

Well, Bush said that he thought the 'Swift Boat Veterans' ad slamming Kerry was inaccurate, but the situation is complicated by recent laws on compaign financing.

Would it have been illegal to say something like :
"I am ****ing embarrassed by the shitty arguments put forward in this campaign. I don't really care what my opponent was doing thirty years ago, and neither should you unless you're a ****ing 'tard."

Cos that's what they should have done. They don't need to have control of anything to completely disassociate themselves with certain tactics. And I think we all know that underhand tactics are tacitly supported by both campaigns.

That's a really scary idea.

Really? I don't think so. Moore may be a moron sometimes but he's infinitely preferable to someone like Bush.

Originally Posted by Weeks

Due to the fact he'd make too many radical decisions. Which is fine in mainstream society as it balances things out and enriches society, but in government you need to make sensible decisions.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Moore would win...

Anyway, I find your "radical" vs "sensible" distinction to be ridiculous. Ending the war on drugs, embarking on redistributive policies, implementing (in the median-term) some kind of improved national healthcare, cutting defence spending - these are all highly radical policies in America. They are also highly sensible too (in the existing state structure we have of course).

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Huh? I fail to see the connection. So if you've committed worse crimes elsewhere, it's OK to not apologise for other crimes? What is this, guilt fatigue?

No. McNamara has plenty of reason to feel personally responsible for the outright slaughter of several hundred thousand Japanese civilians. During the Vietnam war he hardly played the same kind of part. He often disagreed with the choices Johnson in particular made, and holds that the situation would never have escalated the way it did if JFK hadn't died. I'm not saying that he's necessarily right in not apologizing, but it makes sense that he doesn't feel the same way about it. He seems genuinely interested in trying to prevent mistakes of the past from being repeated, and as such parading around like a born again Christian* wouldn't really help much.

Well, yeah it depends what context you're talking about a mistake. Statements I've seen regarding Vietnam being a mistake rely on it basically being a tactical blunder made by a benevolent superpower trying to do good. That kind of attitude is pretty disgusting, and that's all Chomsky is trying to highlight.

Yeah, it's disgusting. And it was an ad hominem attack by Chomsky to bring it up in this case.

The quote in question is this:

QUESTION: ... [In Robert McNamara's #1 bestseller In Retrospect, he] writes, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgment and capabilities."

(notice how this isn't actually a question, it's just a talking point)

CHOMSKY: Actually, he's correct about the values. If somebody tries to disobey us, our values are that they have to be crushed and massacred. Those are our values. They go back hundreds of years, and those are exactly the values they acted upon. His belief that it was a mistake -- personally, I agree with the hawks on this. He's been criticized by the doves who say, You came around too late, and by the hawks who say, Well, it was a victory. And the hawks are right, it was a victory. So, it wasn't a mistake. He doesn't understand that. He doesn't understand very much, incidentally. The one interesting aspect of the book is how little he understood about what was going on or understands today. He doesn't even understand what he was involved in.

OK MISTAR CHOMSKY. IF YOU SAY SO.

I assume he's telling the truth. The book has a kind of ring of honesty about it. What it reads like is an extremely narrow technocrat, a small-time engineer who was given a particular job to do and just tried to do that job efficiently, didn't understand anything that was going on, including what he himself was doing.

From passive-aggresive accusations of dishonesty to ad hominem attacks on McNamara.

Note that I think Vietnam was utterly retarded. More than just a mistake in light of values and blah blah blah. You can not oppress someone to freedom**. And McNamara realizes that trying to force that freedom on people is a mistake that shouldn't be made again. The whole issue comes down to 'we had to destroy the village to save it.' Which any thinking being should realize is just ****ing retarded.

* Peacenik.

** I think it's quite clear that the principles and traditions McNamara cites are basically 'we think everyone has the right to the American consitution.'

[Nusselt]

Only if he took Ann Coulter on the ticket as VP, then the ying and yang would be balanced.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not referring to his budget, I'm talking about his approach. This is a guy who in one of his biggest selling books advocating not hiring white people because they were naturally lazy, and other similar types of comments. He's not being serious 100% of the time. Hell, he's not being serious 50% of the time - even when it's on a serious comment. In his TV show "TV Nation" he did a segment where a guy in a chicken outfit tried to arrest corporate criminals. The subject was highly serious (he started the piece commenting on the Americans who die everyday in workplace accidents and such) - but the approach was not.

Again, those sorts of tactics are legitimate in comedy / entertainment and it's vaguely silly to try and compare that to what might be said in a presidential race. Do we trawl up quotes from Arnie movies to discredit him next?

Moore has certainly positioned his latest movie as being a "serious" documentary on current politics, but if you're suggesting he's not very serious and just pretends to be a fool then I'm confused--in what way does that make him qualified to be a good candidate?

Would it have been illegal to say something like :
"I am ****ing embarrassed by the shitty arguments put forward in this campaign. I don't really care what my opponent was doing thirty years ago, and neither should you unless you're a ****ing 'tard."

Illegal? No. But it's probably a bit idealistic to think a candidate is going to complain too strenuously about unfair attacks on their opponent(s).

Cos that's what they should have done. They don't need to have control of anything to completely disassociate themselves with certain tactics. And I think we all know that underhand tactics are tacitly supported by both campaigns.

I wouldn't conclude that. The vast majority of ads being run by independent entities sniping at one or the other candidate haven't been particularly unehtical or even controversial. It's only a few that have been over the top and, of course, they are taken as proof that the entire political system is corrupt and has failed. Nothing new there.

Really? I don't think so. Moore may be a moron sometimes but he's infinitely preferable to someone like Bush.

Er, because moron > Bush?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Moore has certainly positioned his latest movie as being a "serious" documentary on current politics, but if you're suggesting he's not very serious and just pretends to be a fool then I'm confused--in what way does that make him qualified to be a good candidate?

I'd say a lot of his work isn't serious, yeah. Similarly, many of Reagan or Schwarzaneggar's films aren't to be taken seriously. What I'm saying is that has 0% impact on whether they make good candidates or not.

Illegal? No. But it's probably a bit idealistic to think a candidate is going to complain too strenuously about unfair attacks on their opponent(s).

I guess, but this still means they're way below even the likes of Moore. This is part of the problem, all candidates see intellectual honesty and integrity as "idealistic". (This is a problem Moore faces too)

It's only a few that have been over the top and, of course, they are taken as proof that the entire political system is corrupt and has failed. Nothing new there.

I wouldn't say that, but if I was campaigning and someone "on my side" did something even vaguely dodgy I'd put 10 miles between myself and them.

Er, because moron > Bush?

Yes, definitely. I've no idea whether Bush is a "moron" or not (to be honest, that's a relatively unimportant issue) but a lot of people say he is. But I'm not interested in whether my candidate is in Mensa or not. Some of the most embarrassing and cringeworthy attacks on GWB has been on his intellectual / academic record, and I'm deeply ashamed that some members of "the left" have been party to this.

I'm interested in a candidates ethical or political positions. On almost every ethical or political issue I can think of Moore is vastly preferable to Bush (not that either of them are particularly worthy candidates).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

** I think it's quite clear that the principles and traditions McNamara cites are basically 'we think everyone has the right to the American consitution.'

Yeah I'm sure he believes that, on some level. But this is exactly the point. If you honestly think that the American government were in Vietnam to "give everyone the right to the American constituion" then I don't think further discussion is possible, and I agree, Chomsky must read very strangely to you.

Vietnam wasn't a "mistake"*. It wasn't "retarded"**. It was an assault on another country. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed completely unnecessarily in, what was essentially an exercise in pure power politics. I'm sure people like McNamara did believe that they were extending freedom and democracy, so he is being perfectly honest. Similarly, many British colonialists really did believe they were assisting the poor ignorant dark skinned natives of many lands. Hell, it was the White Man's Burden after all. The Soviet Politburo almost certainly did believe they were extending socialist freedoms when they rolled in Poland and never left, or much later when they attacked Afghanistan. But all these acts were more than mistakes by well meaning governments. It's not a case of "you can't force people to be free / civilised / Communist" (delete as appropriate) - it's a case of a criminal assault on another country with flimsy ideological motives as a backup.

* = Well, obviously it was on some levels, but not the kind I'm discussing.
** = Ditto

[Inferno]

I think micheal jackson should run for president. That way he will do anything the people want and construct more neverland ranches all over the US.

[JonnyBGood]

Moore is there so stupid people can feel intelligent by criticising him.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Moore is there so stupid people can feel intelligent by criticising him.

And intelligent people can feel like theyre "Interacting with the poor huddled masses" by criticising him.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

And intelligent people can feel like theyre "Interacting with the poor huddled masses" by criticising him.

I don't think many intelligent people take that much time out of their day to criticise Moore. It's like complaining about a broken finger when someone's sawing your leg off.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

stuff

Sorry, but we're talking about Chomsky with McNamara as a specific example of the sort of writing I can't stand. Copy/pasting crap from Chomsky in an attempt to deconstruct this all into an ideoligical debate about the responsibility of people in power isn't going to work.

Just to make one thing clear, I don't think Vietnam was a mistake because so and so many Americans died. I think it was a mistake because it was aggresive violence that resulted in not only massive harm, but also massive amounts of death.

[JonnyBGood]

On the bright side at least derrida's dead.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

On the bright side at least derrida's dead.

Always look on the bright side of life
*whistle*

[Vaio]

Jerry Springer would get more votes than Michael Moore. Scary thought huh ?

~Vaio~

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Jester

Sorry, but we're talking about Chomsky with McNamara as a specific example of the sort of writing I can't stand. Copy/pasting crap from Chomsky in an attempt to deconstruct this all into an ideoligical debate about the responsibility of people in power isn't going to work.

Just to make one thing clear, I don't think Vietnam was a mistake because so and so many Americans died. I think it was a mistake because it was aggresive violence that resulted in not only massive harm, but also massive amounts of death.

McNamara deserves whatever he gets over the little issue of Cuba. As do McGeorge and even Jack.

Moore is a populist, who, although often correct, engages in far too much mud-slinging. As an historian, Chomsky is probably a bit too biased for some, but there's no doubt he's a far greater intellectual than Moore.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Summanus

there's no doubt [Chomsky]'s a far greater intellectual than Moore.

None at all.

[G.K Zhukov]

Chomsky has been debated up and down, and you can see alot of people critizing him for various stuff.

But in this case I agree with him.
Looking at US history, he is completely correct.
And for the record it wasnt some hundredthousends of civilians who died in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, it was more than 3million.
(The irony is that US killed as many people in Cambodia as Pol Pot&Co)

[Kurashima]

The Crux of this matter seems to be

Would Michael Moore, as a US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would Noam Chomsky, as a US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would G W Bush, as a re-elected US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would John Kerry, as a newly elected US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American.

Moore wins this argument, because Chomsky is obsessive and intellectual and doesnt seem to give a damn about anything other than getting people to believe hes right. Bush doesnt win because hes already proven himself a shite leader, and Kerry doesnt win because he simply hasnt got the balls to force through policies that dont make corporate America richer than it already is.

*Close Thread*

[G.K Zhukov]

Kura in getting the essence correct-shocker!

[JonnyBGood]

Actually the crux of the matter is "should michael moore run for president". I'd say no. Remember who really lost gore the election? That's right kids Ralph Nader!


PS Over here killing a cambodian is just a five euro fine. There's a special on Vietnamese people at five for 20.

[Boogster]

No, please.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

Sorry, but we're talking about Chomsky with McNamara as a specific example of the sort of writing I can't stand. Copy/pasting crap from Chomsky in an attempt to deconstruct this all into an ideoligical debate about the responsibility of people in power isn't going to work.

Fair enough. My only point was that since you seem to believe that Vietnam was a failed attempt to liberate the Vietnamese (or something) then you're going to find his writing to be pretty poor. As an analogy, I find Peter Singer's Animal Liberation to be an example of writing I can't stand simply because I don't agree with his starting principles.

p.s. My point wasn't really about the responsibility of people in power at all, so I apologise if I gave that impression.

Just to make one thing clear, I don't think Vietnam was a mistake because so and so many Americans died. I think it was a mistake because it was aggresive violence that resulted in not only massive harm, but also massive amounts of death.

Well, that's good. But that's really only half the issue.

Actually the crux of the matter is "should michael moore run for president". I'd say no. Remember who really lost gore the election? That's right kids Ralph Nader!

Yeah I think Al Gore / The Democrats might bear some responsibility too man. You know, for not actually being good enough to attract enough electoral college votes to win. Blaming the Greens like most whining Democrat ****s did after the election is pretty pathetic tbh. It reads like the CEO's Statement in a shitty companies annual financial report.

edit : Moore could always try and run as the Democrat candidate.

[Jester]

So what would be a good place to start reading if I actually wanted to understand Chomsky?

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

The Crux of this matter seems to be

Would Michael Moore, as a US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would Noam Chomsky, as a US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would G W Bush, as a re-elected US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American
Would John Kerry, as a newly elected US president, provide a better quality of life for the average American.

Moore wins this argument, because Chomsky is obsessive and intellectual and doesnt seem to give a damn about anything other than getting people to believe hes right. Bush doesnt win because hes already proven himself a shite leader, and Kerry doesnt win because he simply hasnt got the balls to force through policies that dont make corporate America richer than it already is.

*Close Thread*

I can't believe you missed out Oprah Winfrey and Dr Phil.

fag.

[SilverSmoke]

Originally Posted by Jester

So what would be a good place to start reading if I actually wanted to understand Chomsky?

[JammyJim]

Michael Moore is great simply for making people 'rethink' whats accepted by most people as the truth.

While he might not always be 'spot on' or terribly accurate at times. He still makes the masses reconsider and requestion whether their undying belief in politicians may be misplaced.


And for that.
I applaud him.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

And in fact Zmag is a valuable resource in its self. That is not to say that it is an infallable source of all wisdom.

Last time I had a look at zmag it looked like inverse capmag (not in the good way.)

[Jester]

I like rotten.com/library (warning offensive pictures may be found etc and so on.)

Or the dailyrotten for news.

None of those are really political commentary, but most of the time I don't need political commentary. I just want the news. Presented in a non-shit fashion, including stuff that certain parties *cough*murdoch*cough* might not want public. So I follow media-watch, a few different online newspapers* rss feeds and do follow-up research on stuff I find interesting. I also post on another semi-political forum dominated by lefties, so gather up some stuff off the grapevine there.

In general, there is no one online source for information that's worth recommending as 'best.' The internet is so rife with misinformation, cheap error, urban legends and outright bullshit that everything must automatically be construed as suspect. It's not healthy to be exposed to large amounts of that over the long term.

* The quality of online newspapers is really horrendous.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Michael Moore is great simply for making people 'rethink' whats accepted by most people as the truth.
.

That fat people shouldnt be allowed out in public?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Michael Moore is great simply for making people 'rethink' whats accepted by most people as the truth.

While he might not always be 'spot on' or terribly accurate at times. He still makes the masses reconsider and requestion whether their undying belief in politicians may be misplaced.


And for that.
I applaud him.

This, unfortunately, is not really true. Moore simply does not have swaying power. If you agreed with him, you loved it. If you disagreed with him, you hated it. If you were on the fence, it was as likely to drive you in the completely opposite direction because you couldn't stand his arrogance, poor humor, and huge grudge as it was to convince that he was on to something. The only thing it really made anyone question was him.

Basically, the swing is still the swing and all he really did was solidify his opposition by giving them something to hold up and say "See what the left has to offer?"

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

This, unfortunately, is not really true. Moore simply does not have swaying power. If you agreed with him, you loved it. If you disagreed with him, you hated it. If you were on the fence, it was as likely to drive you in the completely opposite direction because you couldn't stand his arrogance, poor humor, and huge grudge as it was to convince that he was on to something. The only thing it really made anyone question was him.

Basically, the swing is still the swing and all he really did was solidify his opposition by giving them something to hold up and say "See what the left has to offer?"

Fahrenheit yes, Bowling for Columbine though?

[Sandsnake]

Haven't seen it. From speaking to people who have, it really seems like more of the same. It still failed to sway anyone who disagreed with him prior to viewing. If they "re-thought" anything, it was only to pick apart his arguments.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah I think Al Gore / The Democrats might bear some responsibility too man. You know, for not actually being good enough to attract enough electoral college votes to win. Blaming the Greens like most whining Democrat ****s did after the election is pretty pathetic tbh. It reads like the CEO's Statement in a shitty companies annual financial report.

Get a social life please.