see, though masklinn, what i said was no worse than the way you phrased your original question, and THAT's the problem i have. what i said was no more insulting than what people say about america and yet people think thats a bannable offense.

and you're right, i AM stubborn. hypocracy ticks me off to no end.

I am yet to see anyone who "questions the virtues of the French"as you put it, honestly discuss the virtues of the French Promethius. Their idea of questioning has usually been to slag off the people rather than to challenge the government and its actions. Even when the topic gets reasonable treatment for a few posts it degenerates into the farcical along the lines of "the French are only good at one thing - retreating" and "thank God we have Freedon Fries now".

It is a clear violation of TOS to slander a people (nationality or race). It is within the TOS to discuss, agree, disagree a governments actions. As long as you are doing the latter, and not trying to score petty points with the former you won't have people calling you out.

FWIW, there is a lot of love and respect for the American people on this forum, but not a whole lot of love and respect for GWB. The world feels more duped by this war than the American people do. Those are simple statements of fact.

<font color=deepskyblue>Gosh, I must have missed the last few "documentary films" put out by FOX NEWS.

While it's true that Faux News presents itself as "Fair and Balanced", nobody believes that any more than they believe Pro Wrestling is real. Even most hardcore conservatives will admit to the obvious slant Fox puts on their news.

On the other hand, Moore still insists that his films are "documentaries" that present the whole and unaltered truth and his supporters parrot the same line. His own statements regarding the Disney Distribution SHOW beyond any doubt how he "spins" the facts to make it look as if he is being perpetually victimized, but many people here still refuse to see or acknowledge it.

What's really funny is that many of the members who defend Moore and deny his antics so strongly are same ones that level those very same criticisms at conservatives for their failure to "acknowledge" these same traits in President Bush.</font>

Well, despite the stances we take during debate or during jokes, or in the midst of insult-trading, I'd like to think that there is actually a lot of love and respect for ALL people on this forum. If we really didn't care about the world, and what is the "good" thing to do, would we really come here to debate it so regularly? While I will surely shamelessly deny this sentiment later, I gotta say that the group of people I see coming here are extremely well-read and well-versed on the state of affairs in the world. True, we have VERY different views on what may be good for society and the world: the people who disagree with gay marriage don't normally do it just to hate gays, but rather because they want to see traditional values hold firm; and the people who support gay rights don't do it just to piss of the establishment, but rather because they want to include other people in our list of "who gets respect and rights" -- and that is just one small issue.

It's not the people who disagree with me and link articles from other cultures opposing my viewpoints that I fear. It's the ones who can't be bothered to read the news that I fear.

And, that's too bad. I firmly believe that we elect our leaders to do more than just bow to the whims of society in the moment. I think one of their KEY jobs is to look to the future and take decisions that may hurt in the present, but will provide a better life for us all in the future. GWB is exploring a new path and attitude in American policy toward the terrorism and Middle East issues. Whether history proves him right or wrong, we will know, eventually, whether or not this path was a good one to take -- and we can react/readjust accordingly.

well, everyone knows my sentiments about the war in iraq. i firmly believe that it was saddams time to be brought down... and that since that happened iraq has become (not was before but is now) a central theatre for the war on terrorism.

i think that is one think we can agree on. so, lets get iraq settled and the terrorists there ousted so that the american soldiers can come home

If only that had been offered as the primary reason, Promethius, if only....

well, timber, it would be hard to offer that as a primary reason because before the war it was not a central focus in terrorism. its a huge symbol to take over and convert to democracy, so it became a cental focus of terrorism only after the war began. at any rate, i couldnt vote for a politician who would just get our soldiers out of their, we NEED to win now.

NO, promethius. What I meant was that "it's time for Saddam to be brought down" was not offered as a primary reason, and it could have been. If you will recall, despite efforts to rewrite history, the primary reason was "Saddam has WMD."

I for one would have had a lot more respect for Bush and Blair if they had said they wanted to take down Saddam on human rights grounds. I still wouldn't have supported the war, and I still wouldn't have believed them, but I'd have had a lot mroe respect for them for at least trying to come up with a compelling reason.

Of course if they had tried this tactic then it would beg the question of why Saddam had become so horrible just then, and why we hadn't gone after him all those years ago when all evidence suggests he was worse and we were actually supporting him...

Either way it doesn't matter now. The structure of the power exchange and what we're hearing from Iraq seems to indicate, to me at least, that the human rights of the Iraqi's was the last thing on Bush and Blair's minds.

The pragmatist in me supported his ousting on human rights issues. The WOMD was always a line to justify it to the selfish self interested, only concerned about self protection. Use fear instead of justice. You can see the retorts now from fat-cat Americans and British "but what do we have to do with brutalised Iraqis? Let them kick out Hussein himself"

All the while Russian, French and Chinese dollars ensured he never would have left, as his pockets were filled while his people were "starved" due to the US sanctions (of course).

It's easy to slag off someone when they attempt something. Much harder to attempt something yourself.

I detest war. WOMD was hypocritical considering the nuclear bomb ownership situation. Yet Hussein is gone, and for that I am relieved.

Well, WMD situation was a sales position, nothing more. The real causes of those planning the removal will likely be unknown. What they feel personally is of no importance.

It would be rather crass to call me a conspiracy theorist, as I'm more preoccupied with other things. What's more, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen. If the notion of people being inherently evil is sound (which would raise serious questions about depending upon a government full of those evil people for anything, or wanting to do business with them) or if Australians aren't somehow superhuman (though you made it sound like your culture was one where violence and bad things plain don't happen) I'm going to say your country is just as much open to the windfall of evil conspiracy (remember, in that particular debate, I shrunk it to 2 people, not hard to find two evil people anywhere, much less 2 evil people who network a little) and good conspiracy.

My perspective in that discussion wasn't uniquely American, and Australia's situation wasn't uniquely non-American.

Also, for the record,

Moore has not responded to the serious criticisms levelled against Bowling For Columbine, and he's been not responding to those criticisms for two years.

Here's a short interview with Michael Moore done by someone of conservative ilk (or that's what I suspect) - Moore's got some interesting things to say, even encourages conservatives to make their own documentary-style editorials. Worth watching.

http://brain-terminal.com/video/mich...icktime-hq.php

[ 06-01-2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Heh heh, oooooh, philosophy sneaks in, excellent!
I'd say that people are inherently people. And that they invent their own notions of good and evil and apply them to the world as they see fit. Religious doctine is also choice. So, for example, the Catholic chooses to believe the Catholic notion of original sin; that all people just subconsciously evil and need to consciously follow the bible scriptures and church officials in order to save themselves from themselves, which I choose to interpret as bollocks [img]smile.gif[/img] It's all just human choice [img]smile.gif[/img]

---off-topic rant over---

Yeah, Dave Hardy is working on it at this time... Lack of funding though... The vast right wing conspiracy isn't very concerned...

To The Heirophant -- My point was, if everyone is looking to screw you over, and apparently the corporate world is doing this at all times, why should there be a large and powerful group of mugs looking to do the same, with legal power and authority to do so, with little or no accountability whatsoever?

[ 06-01-2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

Sure, you bring your spinsters, I'll bring mine. Moore is just a Rush Limbaugh working for the other side -- hefty, annoying, lying, pig-headed, and respected by the wingnuts. Moore should try his hand at Radio, and Rush should try a documentary.

[quote]Originally posted by Oblivion437:

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick: Australians aren't somehow superhuman (though you made it sound like your culture was one where violence and bad things plain don't happen) I'm going to say your country is just as much open to the windfall of evil conspiracy

Until you go and visit the place and see for yourself, your words are a waste of energy.

NB. Many Americans have moved to Australia purely because of the low crime rate.

Again, get out of your country and see for yourself things are very different beyond it's borders.

Crass is often a label levelled at Australians by British and Americans, so I'm fine with that. "Blunt" is another way of putting it. You are a conspiracy theorist. You give credence and weight to conspiracy theories, and publically support these ideas. May as well call a spade a spade. No use beating around the Bush.

On a positive note for Aussies, an Australian Ms. Universe was crowned tonight, and if this blonde beaut is indicative of the whole of the island, I'm packing my bags tonight! [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

<font color=deepskyblue>Gosh, I must have missed the last few "documentary films" put out by FOX NEWS.

While it's true that Faux News presents itself as "Fair and Balanced", nobody believes that any more than they believe Pro Wrestling is real. Even most hardcore conservatives will admit to the obvious slant Fox puts on their news.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I think you're overestimating the intelligence level of Average Joe here...
Face it, in every single country in the world, a majority of the populace don't really care about politics and purely base their opinions on what little they read in the paper or see on tv. And when they're suddenly goaded into having an opinion, they stick with what little they know or are easily impressionable by whatever the next charismatic moron tells them to be the truth. Call me cynical or whatever (I know I am), but the media influence should never be underestimated, however silly its output may look to people who *do* take the trouble of staying well-informed.

Um ..... yeah - what he said ;) .

Seriously Cerek, you might see through Faux News (good for you), but there are thousands and millions who surprisingly enough - don't.

<font color=deepskyblue>A good example of my "seeing through" Fox in general can be summed up with Bill O'Reilly.

The first time I even heard of him, he had been scheduled to appear on the Today show, but refused to show up for the interview because Today refused to give a "free plug" for his new book. O'Reilly got angry because it IS pretty much S.O.P. to give the guests a free plug for their latest book or movie or whatever. Anyway, O'Reilly had his publicist appear in his place. As I listened to this guy explain why O'Reilly refused to show up, I though "Geez, what a JERK this guy must be." Then I found out that O'Reilly was a conservative instead of a liberal. During the War, I watched Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" fairly regularly. I did enjoy the way he attacked a lot of the B.S. Spin put out by the liberal side of the media, but the more I watched, the LESS enamored I became of him.

First of all, to call his show the No Spin Zone is akin to calling WWE "Rasslin" the International Greco-Roman Championships. He puts a hard, right spin on every aspect of the show. Even stories that weren't that "liberal" to begin with, still got a strong counter-spin from him. But the biggest problem I had with Bill O'Reilly is that he is sometimes nothing more than a big crybaby. He frequently calls liberals very harsh names and constantly tells any "guests" on his show to "Shut Up" if he disagrees with what they're saying and he wants to put his counterspin on their comments. He will shout them down, talk over them, and eventually tell them to "Shut Up" so that he can be heard without interference. That's all well and good, it IS his show after all. But when other people treat HIM the same way, he gets infuriated and threatens to sue them. I specifically find his ongoing war with they guy that wrote "Big Lies and the Liars that Tell Them" (or something to that effect). The author just happened to place Bill O'Reilly's picture on the cover next to the word "Liar". O'Reilly was <font color=red>livid</font> and the two have had an ongoing feud ever since.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to dish out that kind of grief, then you had dang sure be able to "take it" when the opposition retaliates.

I still like to listen to O'Reilly, but only from an entertainment aspect, not from an "informative" one. </font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with you completely, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. The average citizen in most countries doesn't really care about politics - and that is true for those on both sides of the political spectrum. When they are "goaded into an opinion", they are going to look for sources they agree with for their information.

I'm guilty political apathy myself. I RARELY watch the news and hardly ever even read the local paper, much less a national one. As I said before, I get most of my information regarding Current Events off the internet. I find a good mix of CNN, AP, and Reuters will usually give me a fairly balanced view overall regarding a story or situation.

But despite my lack of interest in things political (and my staunch support of President Bush), I still knew there wasn't a strong connection (if any) between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I did believe Saddam had WMD's, though I didn't really feel the threat from these weapons was as "imminent" as President Bush implied. Still I supported the War and getting rid of Saddam Hussein on general principles because of the atrocities committed by him and his sons.</font>

For those interested, the trailer for the movie has been released - you can watch it here.

By arguing with the notion that Australians are human, you're asserting the notion that they're something else, in this particular case, super human. Defend against the argument or submit to the point that Australians are human, are subject to temptation, and can be just as bad as anyone else. If Australians are so good, why do you need big government?

First, I'd like to know how many Americans have moved there, and then I'd like you to prove that they moved there due to the crime rate. Remember, even if 300,000 people moved there a year, we can afford to lose that many, ten times over, and not even think about the flux.

So what? People are people, aren't they? Or did I miss the part where we vary more than we do from Chimps?

Don't be thick. Nationality is irrelevant. You're drawing comparisons where none exist. What's more, I don't theorize conspiracies. I mention theories others have constructed, and I give weight to them in arguments, to show different perpsectives or whatever, but I wouldn't call that theorizing. I've given weight to mathematical and physics theories in academic discussions, but I doubt you'd be willing to call me a Physics theorist. You're calling a trowel a spade.

Yorick posted:
Really? I had heard it was because for a time during the 80s and perhaps 90s Australia was offering FREE OR CHEAP LAND to Americans, much like the U.S. did when it was trying to draw people to the midwest (e.g. Kansas and Missouri) during Manifest Destiny. I may be wrong on this, but that was the rumor. No offense to Aussies or Aborigines intended, of course.

I've got a desert I can sell ya TL ;) . All the good land is pretty much taken around these here parts hombre [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I hear on the news that they got a distributor for the film - the Wienstein (sp) boys came through [img]smile.gif[/img]

Until you visit the place you're wasting your time writing words rooted in ignorance.

Go there and visit.

Go there and see for yourself.

I never argued Australians weren't human. Humans have different strengths and weaknesses. I am pointing out difference, not superiority. A nations land, position, climate and neighbors shape the COLLECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY of a nation.

The average American is remarkably ignorant of nations outside the USA for example. Stupid? No nothing to do with it. Uneducated? No, nothing to do with it. The collective psychology has shaped particular spheres of interest in individuals.

It has nothing to do with being super human or subhuman, but being different. A factor you would have understood if you went outside America.

Until you do it's pointless discussing this.

The average American is remarkably ignorant of nations outside the USA for example. Stupid? No nothing to do with it. Uneducated? No, nothing to do with it. The collective psychology has shaped particular spheres of interest in individuals.

at the same time, yorick, i would say that (in my experience living in europe) most people in europe are remarkably ignorant of USA and its people. there are so many people here who don't have a clue what america is like. try explaining to a german the idea that there is open land where you can hike fifty miles and never see anything man-made... they just don't get the differences in culture.

im not saying its one way, either. i had to "educate" a few tourists when they got huffy that there weren't lines to get on a boat, but a crowd instead. its something people dont realize, and that failure to understand runs both ways.

<font color=deepskyblue>Which just goes to prove my original point - that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Michael Moore from the gitgo.

I'm quite sure that filmmakers DO have to find different distributors far more often than one might think - the only difference is they usually don't make a national case out of it - especially when they knew a year in advance that they would have to seek a different distributor once the film was finished.

Classic storm in a teacup designed to generate interest and increase ticket sales...oh, and take a potshot at Disney in the process. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

All of which it accomplished rather well, Cerek. Moore is an expert manipulator of the media -- which is why is lies are all the more dangerous. I wouldn't mind what he does if he was up front about his misrepresentations. I'd still watch him if he were just anti-Bush. But taking that bias and then splicing and dicing history and the facts to make them look different they are is what goes over the top. The faux image of honesty kills me.

So I will put you two boys down for tickets then - will I? :D

Well I've got some swampland in Florida and some prime urban property right in prestigious Los Angeles* that you could use...

*In South Central, above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley, and surrounded by gang bangers and crack houses.

Yorick, you said Bowling For Columbine was a great film. Not because it was brilliantly shot, edited and presented (which it was, but unlike controversial films by Orson Welles and Oliver Stone, it just wasn't good in the end) and you also said that I got my understanding from watching TV. That was a gross assumption and you should have known better. Now, I don't know what the hell you've 'learned' in your time in America, but if you think Bowling For Columbine represents any kind of insight into America at all, I'm afraid that you missed something. If travelling to places and visiting them brings this kind of insight, which I would say has the depth of field of a telephoto lens, I'm afraid your demand that I travel to Australia is moot.

Also, if you don't want me to apply my logic to an Australian situation, don't apply your Australian logic through your vote to an American situation. You voting for gun control inconveniences and endagers me and if I get hurt because I was disarmed by the law, I'm going to personally blame you for voting in favor of that law.

Now, the following document doesn't apply to Australia, Britain, Germany, Russia, Jamaica, or any other country, it does however apply to America...

Just the Facts on gun control, in America. I thought this source would be a fitting close to that particular argument.

Finally, quite a few critics who have reviewed the film, including those who gave BfC positive reviews, had bad things to say about Farenheit 9/11, which included sort of a 'wet firecracker' effect due the lack of serious visceral appeal in the film, and a lot of fluff matter that Moore never substantiated. Sounds a lot like BfC, but it doesn't sell something people want to believe in.

[ 06-05-2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

WOOHOO

Actually, to avoid offending bog-dwellers, we now refer to swampland as wetlands.

[quote]Originally posted by Oblivion437:

Quote:

[qb] Also, if you don't want me to apply my logic to an Australian situation, don't apply your Australian logic through your vote to an American situation. You voting for gun control inconveniences and endagers me and if I get hurt because I was disarmed by the law, I'm going to personally blame you for voting in favor of that law.

So, if Yorick gets shot in NY, can he blame you ?

[ 06-06-2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

No, because I wouldn't advocate the gun control laws (NYC is ridiculous, in all practical sense, it is impossible, completely so, to even get a permit to own a pistol, despite the fact that the constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms) that disarmed him and made him unable to properly defend himself when attacked. Suppose he did have a pistol or SBR (Short Barreled Rifle, like a Colt Commando, but semi-automatic) and did draw but got shot anyways. Well, I would have advocated the law that protected his right to keep that weapon on him, but unless that put him in that situation, I'm afraid I'd still be blood-free.

As a resident of New York City, I think the laws of NYC are more my business than yours, and I think I'm perfectly entitled to voice my support for gun controls in a city that, were it filled with guns, would be a much more dangerous jungle than it already can be.

My opinions about Bowling for Columbine have been formulated from the time I've spent in the 20 states of the USA I've been in over the last 3 years, and also from canvassing opinions from the number of Americans I watched the film with.

Unlike yourself, I am living in the nation I am speculating about, you have never stepped foot in my country.

The time when I was mugged in NYC, there was no violence, and I actually got my wallet back, with nothing taken from it. Had I pulled a gun, or attempted a violent response, someone would have gotten hurt or killed.

Violence is not the way.

<font color=deepskyblue>Thanks, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. You summed up my own reasons for disliking and distrusting Michael Moore perfectly. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>