Michael Moore, whats your opinion????

Environmentalists want human activity to suffer in order to “save” the earth–they view humanity as a parasite, and not a part of the earth.

Sorry to say this, but WRONG !!!!!!!!!

Environmentalists think very economically. They think the human race should have the right to use the environment for their own use. Not much difference between the real word of western economy so far. However, they think we should save some of the natural resources for later generations so they can have a human life style as well.

The “whacko’s” you mean are deep ecologists. They think the human race is just a part of nature and hence, we have no right to exploit resources what-so-ever, because it’s not proven that we, as mankind, have a fundemantal right to exist (they say).

I’m an environmentalist (tree hugger you may say), from a very egocentric point of view. If there aren’t any trees left, the human race is not going to survive. We live in a post-modern era, if one still believes that we can go on like this forever, you are naïve as well. At the same time, I’m a hypocrit, as I don’t really want to change my lifestyle (like sitting in the cauch watching game shows etc), even though I realise it should be different.

Srr for bad spelling and twisting some sentences, but in a hurry

Yes, possible, but you still haven’t answered my original question: the US constitution is based on liberal ideas (philosopically so no political tree-hugging sh!t): Kant, Montesqieu, Locke, Hobbes (probably Kant most of all, even more than Locke). The founders of the constitution were ‘liberals’, which meant they took distance from the Judeo-Christian values, which they found themselves to be backward and fundamentalistic (I’m not saying this, in contrary). Religion is allowed, but has no “constiutional meaning”, and is restricted to the private level, to ensure state and religion are sepperated.
So theoretically, ‘conservatives’ in America who don’t want to change the constitution are actually ‘liberals’. Paradox: Bush is considered to be a conservative, however, he wants to change the constitution to disallow gay-marriage. Same with Reagan.

The Constutition hasn’t changed since 1783, only ammendments have been made. But times have changed indeed, as you pointed out. The people who want to change the constitution though, are politically conservative. The US constitution is quite socialist in this matter: everyone should have the right on social aid (not the duty of the gov’t!!). Semantic crap you say, maybe, but this proves that the US in theory is not a a-social state where people are not to be helped by the gov’t. The people who want to change the constitution are the conservatives, not the liberals.

The same here: liberal means right wing (even ultra right wing).

I think the definition of right wing and left wing varies depending on what the culture/history of the area is.

Extremem right wingers(the furthest) in the US are people that have disowned the government, live independenly from it, and uphold the values in the constitution–or at least that’s the basic idea, some have twisted it, like the “neo-nazis”… a $$holes they are…

In our society, the MOST conservative people are usually constituionalists, they do not want it changed, and they want to lower taxes, and try to help people avoid government dependence.

In the US, th eMOST liberal people are Ultra left wing, like Al Gore, who will put the constitution on the side in order to “make things better”. Environmentalist Whackos, Militant feminists,animal rights groups and Labor Union heads make up the most liberal, left wing groups.
Environmentalists want human activity to suffer in order to “save” the earth–they view humanity as a parasite, and not a part of the earth. Feminists had a great purpose in the 50’s when women were second class citizens. Now, they are not, and are on equal footing. As a result, the feminist movement has no real purpose, since equality is now here, legally if not always on an individual basis. Because of this, they take issue with Abortion, gay rights and any other issue to preserve their movement, which, is really no longer necessary.
Animal rights groups have the same agenda as the whacko environmentalists–PETA actally wants ALL domestic anials to be “extinctified” by us, as they are not a natural occurance. All dogs, cats, and farm animals–gone.
Many labor unions bully buisness and governments in order to artificialy increase wages. At one point, we NEEDED unions. Now, they should exist, but only for their original purpose–to keep companies from exploiting workers, not as they are often used now–to allow workers to exploit everyone else! In the NY/NJ area, where there’s no Mob connections, there’s Union connections, and it’s realy no better.

in the end, if you go far enogh to the left or right, you end up doing the same thing for different reasons. Tim Mcveigh, Eric Rudolph, and Ted Kazynski, the una-bomber.

All three of them bombed people–many innocents–in order to push their cause.
Mcveigh blew up the fed. building in Oklahoma city, in order to hurt the evil federal government, which had overstepped the boundaries of the constitution.
Rudolph set bombs at abortion clinics(because he wqas against it) and at the olympics(don’t really know why).

The unabomber killed people because he wanted to stop them from destroying the environment–just like the people at the earht liberation front, or the animal lib. front. WHACKOS!!!

You have a problem? why? Do you not understand that Americans use certain words differently than even the British? Liberal and Conservative mean different things in our country. There’s the basic definition, lieral meaning generous, conservative meaning in a manner that conserves–liberal spender, someone who isn’t careful with their money, conservative spender; someone who is frugal.

The same here: liberal means right wing (even ultra right wing).

He wasn’t the best James Bond though, that goes to Sean Bean

I always have problems with Americans using the word “liberal”. Liberal doesn’t mean “leftist”, ok? AFAIK liberalism is what the American society represents, namely freedom. Moore is not a communist, he’s a liberal, but so is Bush. It’s true that liberals want to increase the succes of their company, but not at the cost of society. Liberalism, which is economically nothing more than “utilitarism”,.

You have a problem? why? Do you not understand that Americans use certain words differently than even the British? Liberal and Conservative mean different things in our country. There’s the basic definition, lieral meaning generous, conservative meaning in a manner that conserves–liberal spender, someone who isn’t careful with their money, conservative spender; someone who is frugal.

Then th epolitical definition:
A conservative is one who wants to maintain the original intent of the founders of the country, and uphold the constitution.

A liberal is usually someone who feels more free to alter the constitution, as they feel things are different now, and that warrents different values.

That is the basic definition fo what they are in the US.
In more detail, the idealogy of a conservative in america is as follows:
Uphold the constituition, the declaration of Independence, and all the ideals put forth in those documents. The founders of the US understood what was just and right, and what mankind required to be truely free, and set that as the basis for the constitution–regardless if they themselves followed them or not. It is understood that the basis of our laws were judeo-christian values, and as such, the country should uphold the morals set forth in such values.
The primary goal in the US is for the individual to hold the power, and to keep the government in check. True conservatives favor minimal taxes, and less government control. A true free market is not possible, but as close to free as possible is a goal of true conservatives.

A liberal in the US is usually someone who feels there needs to be change. The rules of the country were written over 200 years ago, and for that fact, we need to re-interpret the laws and their intentions. Most liberals favor taxation, and increased government jurisdiction over all aspects of life. This increases the size of government. Liberals tend to use government money and power to do more for more people. They are big on social programs. Liberals are usually less apt to hold the government to the judeo-christian values that conservatives do. They are more open to things that have been, historically frowned upon by those of christian faith: homosexuality, abortion, and now cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

conservatives want to the government to have as little to do with their lives as possible, understanding that the original intent was for the government to be involved in interstate trade, and national defense, and not much else.
Conservatives believe that you are on your own. do not rely on the government. It may help you, but ultimatly, you future is dependant on your self-determination.

Liberals want the government to do what it can to help as many people as possible. They want people with more money to be taxed more, in order for the poorer people to have a better life. They favor redistribution of wealth in order to make life better for more people. Some people are borninto a better situation than others, and that’s not fair. They do not start the race in the same place, so the government should give them a head start.

ALL the way to the right is anarchy, all the way to the left is socialism and communism. The American conservative is on the right side, the American Liberal is on the left.

The primary reason for me to resent many liberal agendas is that they often wish to infringe on rights that I hold to be inalienable–they CAN’T take them away. The fredom of speech, the right to bear arms. There are many of them who would take the constitutional rights away if given the chance.

‘Roger & me’ is still one of my favourite documentaries (the only one i think better was The Atomic Café), from that one and TV Nation i think Michael Moore is one of the more gifted documentary-filmers around. But i think he went astray with Bowling for Columbine. It was just too over-the-top. It really looked like it was made to fit a certain agenda rather than film-first and conclude-later. Never mind i agree with quite a lot of Moore’s points, i do like to think that they are my own opinions rather than having them laid out for me (or stuffed down my throat).

I will definately go and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Not as a documentary, but as an essay. Unfortunately, i don’t think Moore will return to making real documentaries because he’s too busy with being an Angry White Guy himself. Which is a real shame.

PS – Does anyone know if the team behind The Atomic Café did any more docus? Even though it was in fact just a collage of 1940s and 1950s nuclear agitprop, i’d love to see more of that. Besides, i think the time would be right for a Soviet-variant of the Atomic Café… i still have a photo somewhere of me buying kvas in front of a four-story mozaic showin little children to be happy because of Mister Atom, in Rostov i think (no, not Chernobyl 😉 ).

This reflect perfectly my point of view…

‘Roger & me’ is still one of my favourite documentaries (the only one i think better was The Atomic Café), from that one and TV Nation i think Michael Moore is one of the more gifted documentary-filmers around. But i think he went astray with Bowling for Columbine. It was just too over-the-top. It really looked like it was made to fit a certain agenda rather than film-first and conclude-later. Never mind i agree with quite a lot of Moore’s points, i do like to think that they are my own opinions rather than having them laid out for me (or stuffed down my throat).

I will definately go and watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Not as a documentary, but as an essay. Unfortunately, i don’t think Moore will return to making real documentaries because he’s too busy with being an Angry White Guy himself. Which is a real shame.

PS – Does anyone know if the team behind The Atomic Café did any more docus? Even though it was in fact just a collage of 1940s and 1950s nuclear agitprop, i’d love to see more of that. Besides, i think the time would be right for a Soviet-variant of the Atomic Café… i still have a photo somewhere of me buying kvas in front of a four-story mozaic showin little children to be happy because of Mister Atom, in Rostov i think (no, not Chernobyl 😉 ).

Pooh 😉 😉 410 N Anna :rolleyes: :rolleyes: WRAP 😀 😀

Michael Moore is okay, I liked her in Gi Jane, good movie.

Moore has one problem. He manipulates wildly: Ex. “Happy people dancing in the streets of Baghdad (under Saddam).” Well, they had better do – or had their heads lobbed off. This makes his arguments all too easy to brush off by his opponents. Guns, drunken drivers – interesting discussion. But my “gut-feeling” about Moore is that his success has caught up with him. Hate GWB – fine! Calling it a documentary. I’m not so sure?

I always have problems with Americans using the word “liberal”. Liberal doesn’t mean “leftist”, ok? AFAIK liberalism is what the American society represents, namely freedom. Moore is not a communist, he’s a liberal, but so is Bush. It’s true that liberals want to increase the succes of their company, but not at the cost of society. Liberalism, which is economically nothing more than “utilitarism”, Adam Smith, means that every unit should be egocentric and think of its own succes, but the calculation of each individual succes should result in a healthy community. Practically this means “true” liberals also have to think about the poor and the helpless to increase their own succes. (if you have nothing, you can’t buy nothing, so the gov’t should give money to fulfill your duties as a consumer, otherwise the whole system collapses). So yes, Moore is a liberal and a utilitarist, more than Bush. If it was up to Bush, society would collapse. Reagan, a libertarian, wanted to scrap the right on social benefits from the federal constitution and leave it to the states to decide wheter they want to organise (or not) a social security. If that would have happened, the “American dream” of a free market would not exist anymore, because you can’t have free acces to the market without a gov’t backing the helpless individuals. Moore is “the Amercan dream”, so in this case, he’s defending the American constitution! He’s a conservative, not a lefty! That the gov’t should not intervene is utter BS! That’s no liberalism, that’s just anarchy. What did Roosevelt do during the crisis of the 30’s. Yes, Keynes: let the gov’t invest in public work. After all, the gov’t is not an “evil” dictator, unless there’s something fundementally wrong with your democratic system.

You noticed that too …. 🙂

One thing moore seems to be against is capitalism. I understand his disdain for roger moore and GM, their actions saed the company billions, but destroyed Flint. You see this all over the US.

the US companies find it impossible to compete in manufacturing with overseas buisnesses. Part of this is because US taxes are ridiculous, and the othe rpart is because pay is so high. It is literally a fact that if these companies DO NOT move their workers overseas, they will lose revenue.

People like moore argue that the companies owe it to their workers to keep buisness here, at the expense of losing revenure. People like moore believe that a company is there FOR its employees, and exists for their benifit.

In reality, someone starts a company, any buisness, to make money. A company that does not make money fails. Companies hire employees in order to increase their income, any benifits to the community are absolutly secondary to the success of the company.

A large local textile firm recently moved to mexico. People have been complaining like crazy–the move cost thousands of jobs, and ruined the economy of a whole town. People wanted the government to stop them from moving, and cried when they did nothing.

these people are of the same mentality as moore. They can’t see past their own problems and lives. Pillotex “took away their jobs and gave them to mexicans”—-just so they could pay the workers one third of what the americans were getting…..GREEDY$$…

unfourtunatly, Pillotex was going to go out of buisness if they had to compete with other textile firms. their workers were getting paid so much, that they could not make money selling their products at a competitive price. The company has to decide to go out of buisness, or move.

run a buisness and see what you’d do.

Moore is very liberal–so much so that his emotions getin the way of his logic.
He hates seeing the “little guys” stepped on by the “big evil companies”. Bush is big on helping companies and capitalistic growth.
Many conservatives argue that Bush is not doing enough to allow companies to grow. Liberals say he’s doing too much.

Fact is, the money generated by buisness is what runs the economy. You can over or under regulate the economy, either way and things get ugly. OVer regulation leads to high taxes and slows economic growth. Under regulation leads to coperate corruption, and the eploitation of workers.

There are certain things that are WAY over regulated in this country, and Bush has made it a point to lighten the regulations on certain things. People like moore see any lowering of regulations as an open season on the little guys.

What people like moore do not see is that in order for the economy to thrive, buisnesses need to prosper, and to do that, they need to be able to do what’s best for the BUISNESS, not the employees.

In our market, these communities that were left without a major employer will either recover or vacate. People will find other work, maybe elsewhere, maybe start a buisness. Happens all the time. I saw on the news a few months ago, a story of a guy that was protesting pillotex leaving his hometown, leaving him out of work. Within a year, he had started his own buisness

Moore is just a guy who HATES G.W.Bush’s guts…….

that’s all……..

You noticed that too …. 🙂

Moore is just a guy who HATES G.W.Bush’s guts…….

that’s all……..

That’s an other story ….
The good news is that the number of people dead on the french raods dropped drematically since the gov (at last) decided to punish the car psycho’s. A good point for this gov ( at least one)

Noticed that during my lost holidays. French Police are really doing a great job. Strange, for a country ten times the size of Belgium, but still a police which has time to patroll the roads.

Well, certainly based on both culture and history.
In Europe weapons most of time brought death and destruction along many wars.
It’s not part of our culture anyway. Even a 12 gauje for squail hunting requires a license here.
I’m convinced that someone who have a gun in his pocket or under is pillow , under some circuntances will use it: starnge noise in the yard at night , argument with a mad driver etc…

Actually, the owning of a firearm is a tremendous responsibility. The irresponsible use of such a firearm results in very severe punishment. In some states, you can shoot anybody on your property at night, assumption is they are they to do no good. MOST states require you to feel as if your life is in danger, and escape is impossible, and the intruder is IN your home, for the shooting to be legitimate. If someone is breaking into a window in your house, and you shoot them, you go to jail for murder or manslaughter. Of course, in most rural areas, the law tends to be more flexible, under certain situations(they had an axe, or kept coming when they saw you had a gun).

When you have a concealed to carry permit–a permit to carry a concealed handgun–the responsibilities are far greater. You are held to a higher standard, and are expected to use your weapon with more care than even a police officer.

But there are other things different. Many Americans would probably see drunken driving as a form of murder too, in Europe, untill recently, that was not an issue.

That’s an other story ….
The good news is that the number of people dead on the french raods dropped drematically since the gov (at last) decided to punish the car psycho’s. A good point for this gov ( at least one)

Most important of them all is that it’s not written in our constitutions that everyone should have the right to carry arms/guns. Since the US has the oldest constitution, that might have something to do with it. People know their rights, and like to use, sometimes abuse them. So in this case there’s no difference between the US and Europe. However, the US constitution also says that only the gov’t is legitimised to use violence, so threatening someone with your gun is still unconstitutional. You can only use it as a self-defence.

But there are other things different. Many Americans would probably see drunken driving as a form of murder too, in Europe, untill recently, that was not an issue.

Your welcome. Just out of curiosity, why do you think people SHOULD NOT own guns? (If that was your view).

Well, certainly based on both culture and history.
In Europe weapons most of time brought death and destruction along many wars.
It’s not part of our culture anyway. Even a 12 gauje for squail hunting requires a license here.
I’m convinced that someone who have a gun in his pocket or under is pillow , under some circuntances will use it: starnge noise in the yard at night , argument with a mad driver etc…