Ranting to /dev/null

I tend to think that Moore is often self-righteous, when he doesn't have any right to be. And he does have a certain tendency to gloss over important facts -- when most of the time he really doesn't need to. The reality is just as absurd.

But compare him to Ann Coulter, who claims that Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was a great American hero. That's far scarier than Moore's knee-jerk liberalism.

I do agree with Moore that America has a culture of fear, and that it needs to go away. The current terrorist scare is a great example; I've lived in the Middle East and studied terrorism extensively, and I don't believe the average American is in any more danger from terrorists than he or she was in, say, 1987, to pick a random date. In fact, you're probably a lot safer now than you were before, because the terrorists in question have played their hand.

Is there anything wrong with protecting people from terrorism -- even if that threat is only nebulous? Not at all. Is there something wrong with curtailing the Constitutional rights of Americans -- and the human rights of innocent foreign nationals -- to do so? Absolutely. The current administration is playing off of American fear to control American life. Personally, I find that contemptible.

Moore doesn't need to make stuff up to prove his point, and it's unfortunate that he does, because he undermines the valid points he does make. It's too bad he sees himself as a crusader instead of a comedian, because that's clearly what he is.

Bill Hicks was funnier, though.

I certainly don't think Coulter is any better than Moore - though I will give her the grudging admission that she's probably a shade closer to the facts of the matter than Moore will ever be. Hers is, as far as I've been able to tell, an exercise in excessive rhetoric, but not downright fabrication. Yes, many liberals, especially on the far-left, exhibit tendencies that are at best counterproductive and anti-American. But treasonous? The Constitution has a pretty clear definition of that, and it requires more than posturing and asinine legislative activities. Now Jane Fonda, there's a traitor. The Congressmen who went to Baghdad are traitors. But on the other hand, Tom Daschle isn't a traitor, he's just poisonous. The liberal press aren't traitors, they're just not doing good journalism (and FoxNews isn't really either, for that matter). And the BBC can't be traitors because they aren't American, though if they were American, they probably would traitors as well. But these are clear cases of actual activity to aid the enemies of the US. Simply opposing American activities and taking a negative stance on the country does not make you a traitor. It doesn't necessarily make you wrong either.

If you'll read back a bit in my blog, I've expressed significant uneasiness about the way the current administration is handling things, fiscal policy and civil liberties both being problem areas. Yet I do not believe that Moore is on to something most of the time. Culture of fear? Maybe. But there are multiple ways of spinning that, and I don't like Moore's spin. I'm pretty convinced that the administration is using popular fear to achieve their ends, but I don't think it's a corporate conspiracy. I believe their ends are good, which means that now I only have to complain about the means, not both means and ends. Nor do I have to take an entirely paranoid position like Moore does.

I also really don't like the egregious omissions and fabrications he engages in. As far as I'm concerned, those things mean that his being right about anything is totally irrelevant: talking about Michael Moore's credibility is like talking about Bill Clinton's fidelity. Both would be entirely fictional, though oddly enough, held to with surprising fervor by their followers.

I also believe that terrorism is more of a threat now that it was during the Cold War. Back then, either the US or the USSR had influence over most of the Third World and would keep their lackeys in line. Mostly anyway. This is not the case today.

I don't believe that the government's scare tactics are a big corporate conspiracy either. But I also don't believe that their motives are good.

I mean, it's hard to ignore the fact that the two companies making the most money off of the Iraqi war are Halliburton and Brown & Root...and that the Vice-President is the primary stockholder in the first company and the President a stockholder in the second.

Halliburton did not follow federal bidding procedure to get the Iraq contract, though other companies did. In fact, Halliburton did not bid. Period. They got the contract anyway. This is all a matter of public record, by the way, unlike Moore's ranting -- which I agree can be spurious at best. This isn't a question of liberal media spinning things. Do a search on Google for it, and you'll see. It's simple fact. The only question is whether it violates federal law.

And I would respectfully disagree with you that terrorism is more of a threat. America and the USSR were both backing terrorist forces in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Again, this is simple fact. Al Qaeda's money and training came directly from the CIA when they were being utilized as anti-Russian forces in Afghanistan in the late 70s and 80s. The Commies had Shining Path down in Peru and God knows who else -- there's always been suspicion that the USSR was backing some of the boys in Northern Ireland, for example, but I don't know that any of that has ever been proven.

You simply hear a lot more about it these days. But think about it: other than 9/11, when was the last time you heard about an American getting killed by terrorists? Bali? There's no evidence that that attack was intended for the couple of Americans who were there...and there's no real evidence that it was terrorists, anyway. Could have been local crime.

You never hear about the people who don't attack Americans, like the Kurdish People's Party in eastern Turkey or the Lord's Revolution Army in Uganda, which consists almost entirely of cannibal children (and no, I'm not kidding; do a search for the name Joseph Kony and you'll see what I mean).

It also depends on who you call a "terrorist". Were the Chechnyans terrorists? We call them "rebels"...but, like the Muslim factions in Bosnia and Herezegovina, many of their leaders came straight outta Afghanistan, remnants of the mujahideen factions that we paid and trained. But those boys aren't interested in destroying the Great Satan anymore; these days they're too busy selling smack and stolen Playstations to the Third World. They're gangsters and black marketeers...not just in Chechnya, but in Russia, Central America, and Africa. We call them "warlords" when it's convenient to do so, and we call them allies when nobody else is watching. Even the boys in the IRA have faded away quietly, leaving only Gerry Adams to smile for the cameras. They're too busy dealing X to Belfast ravers to bother much with Home Rule anymore.

Sound cynical? Maybe. But it's the truth. The only real terrorists are the crazy militants in Al Qaeda...and they aren't nearly as well organized as Bush makes them out to be. Nor are they particularly well-financed. They're not working the black market and their source of heroin in Afghanistan has been shut down (and co-opted by us, if you want my measured opinion, but that's another story). Even "al Qaeda" or "al Qaa'ida" simply means "the base" or "the foundation", and it's questionable to how much of an actual structure it has, or whether Osama bin Laden is actually the leader or just another factioneer.

Most Americans are unaware of these things, because most Americans do not pay attention to the world outside our borders. We'd like to see this whole "War On Terrorism" as something far more clear-cut than it could ever actually be. A better term for it might be "War On Whatever Non-Governmental Organization We're Not Happy With At The Moment". But that's much less interesting in a sound bite.

Anyway, do some searches, see if what you find matches up with what I've told you. I'd be interested in finding out what you think.

Michael Moore is a fat fucking asshole and his book should have been called stupid white man and be just about him

I see that a true genius has graced this page with its presence.

Is that "Jack" from Will and Grace? Can you sing and dance for us?

----------------------------
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
----------------------------

My cat's name is fluffy
:-)

Josha Ellis,
i respect your convictions. If the war on terror made the world safer then i would support it. But it doesnt, it is only escalating the current feelings of hate towards America and Israel. The world is no longer a safer place(if it ever was), and is certainly, without doubt, a more dangerous place than it was before the 'War on Terror'.

I would like to know what Moore has made please show me the web site adress.

Ryan,
Paranoia is generally feeling scared with little reason to do so. Conspiracys are with a lack, or complete, abscence of evidence supporting them.

Michael Moore has reason to feel 'paranoid' as you would put it because the evidence is there. What fabrification in 'Bowling For Columbine'. He had a team of lawyers going throgh each and every fact in that film and the entire film is legitimate. Ann Coulter on the other hand, dont even attempt to pull that thread! Try and disprove his facts. I respectflly await your response.

Terroism is increasing because America, in extreme cases, is funding it (3Bn$ to Taliban) and going to war on the flase premise that it will find WMDs. Did the bush administation happen to mention that America hired Saddam Hussien as an assassin?

Ryan the corperate means to an end:

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care.

Here is an extract of an American general on Iraq

Iraq has been a target of U.S. covert actions since at least 1958, when a popular revolution led by Abdel Kassem overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, which was installed by Britain in 1921. In 1960, the new government helped found the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to resist Western oil monopolies.

1The CIA plotted Kassem's assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a military plan, called "Canonbone," to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil fields.

2 In 1963, Kassem and thousands of supporters were massacred in a CIA-backed coup.

By Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General.

I await the stream of patriotism relating to my 'fabricated article'.

"Conservatism for Life" I understand that the first half of your contribution is a response to others. On the other hand, the latter half of your information is quite useless and probably pulled off the internet (and we all acknowledge how credible sources from the internet are...) The mere fact that you acknowledge Moore's spin signifies that its not as "straight forward" as some of you percieve.

P.S. Your spelling could use some practice as I see it is as flawed as what I percieve as your opinion.

The internet as a "less than credible" source for information is a stupid argument. There's no such thing as getting information on some ubiquitous place as "the internet."

You get it from places ON the internet, so the issue is "where" on the internet did you get it. The NYtimes on the net? The national archives? And on and on and on. Credibility issues are, well, only credibility issues if you're talking about personal or special interest websites. And heck, even then, when you write a term paper you're citing a book, written by one guy, who cited a bunchof other "one guys."

Spin??, Spin??, Spin??!

To claim the internet as a "less than credible" source of information; then using that premise to critize my argument (by using the fabricated knowledge you obtained on the internet) is stupidity, plain stupidity.

The knowledge you obtained is obviously from the internet unless i am unaware of a document successfully slandering Moore. Dont attempt to discredit my piece by critizising spelling because you cant find anything else. Where did you get your 'knowledge' from? Obviously not the internet, so what are YOU doing on it then?

Th content of my work could do with a check but i, unlike you, have other things to do. In the absence of anything constructive to do, i think you should try to disprove what i have said. I challenge you to disprove anything that i have said. Type in the key words (Ramsey Clark) and you will find what your looking for, even though it doesnt comply with your previous convictions.
Michael Moore=false, again, i eagerly wait the disproving of my allegations.

Your website is propaganda.The working man knows the truth.

i can't believe what people wrote on that page!! why are you so stupid??? Michael Moore is an excellent author who tries to reveal the truth, but you guys who try to insult him with cheap statements like "Michael Moore is a fat fucking asshole and his book should have been called stupid white man and be just about him" (by Joshua Ellis) give just another prove that the average american is totally ignorant. Why would he write all that stuff? i guess because it's true! well, bush is not gonna be reelected anyways, and that makes me feel much safer, because the reason for so much terrorism is that the government is being terrorist as well, and all you guys who support the hate against michael moore and support the ideas of the current government can be considered as terrorists. you support the killing of innocent people, even small babies, in Iraq, just for the reason that some stupid white man (George W. Bush)tells you that Saddam's(a man who lived in a whole) weapons of mass destruction (they don't even exist) are a threat to America. But aren't america's weapons of mass destruction a threat to other countries, too??? what gives america the right to have and produce those weapons?? why are other countries not allowed to have those weapons??? i don't get that!!! i would feel scared, if i was an Iraqi, because i knew that there is a country that has weapons of mass destruction and that they just want the oil. The US government doesn't care about all those people they kill, they just want to accomplish their mission and the mission is: get as much oil as possible!!! that is pathetic! i hope you guys wake up soon and support the fight against terrorism by not voting for Bush!!

Andreas,
You're an idiot. Don't give me that crap about innocent babies dying in Iraq. First off, this is a War, there will be deaths. Second off, if one of your family members was killed on September 11th you know damn well you'd have a different view. Thirdly, you're probably a liberal who's so keen on "womens right" and believe in pro-choice which brings us full circle...the killing of innocent people, yes, even small babies.
Also, there's no doubt that Saddam possessed WMD's because basically we have the receipt. A gross mistake on our part? Yes. At the time it seemed justified. Now we know we were wrong and are correcting our wrongs. Another liberal mantra, correcting previous mistakes that occured generations ago. And you're so right about the U.S. wanting oil, that's why American companies have so much excess that our gas prices are at an all-time low...oh wait, they're not. I'm guessing you're probably a first or second year college student eating up the campus rhetoric and thinking that you're doing something "heroic" like the hippies of the 60's, who by the way were anything but heroic. So go do your psychadelic drugs,make free love, gravitate towards peace no matter what (turn the other cheek, it's "groovy"), but in the future when you think you know what you're talking about try to think for yourself and not go by what Professor Moore in Social Problems 101 tells you.

Michael More is a terrorist.

Careful Nate, you will pop a vein.

Interesting, to see that you lost, as I did, friends or relatives (friends in my case) in 9/11. But I don't see why my "different view" should include the killing of triple and quadruple numbers of civilians like them in "other" places. And don't sell me tear-wet reason like "this is war" and "thus is alas the nature of thee war" because it is not the evil Germans but *we* that did it. Earth's freedom nation! You don't deserve to belong here, correction you don't deserve to belong to the western civilization generally if you bear such ideas, go to N.Korea or something and teach them about "pre-emtive strikes" and "civilians deaths are just unfortunate casualties of nessesary wars".

Second, I am not a liberal, oh no sir, but I am just going to take a stabb on that just to piss you off, if you knew your science half-enough you would know the difference between an already born human beign which people were ready to accept and raise, and a bunch of still-forming neural cells with muscle tissue, when speaking about abortion. Is two cells "a baby"? (You certainly don't seem to mind killing plenty of single/multi celled microorganisms every day you wash your hands), Three cells?, Four? Well, agreed, an unborn featues is quite a few millions, but not a complete human yet, when it is, it wouldn't be unborn then. But as long it is part of the women's body, and needs it to survive, it is not an independent organism, and a women has every right to decide what to do...
Sounds harsh? Yes, I understand "metaphysical" implications concerning the fact that, ok, it might not be a human yet but it would be one day, etc, but sorry, that belongs to the future, I guess making only one child with your women insteed of, let's say 13 (possible) also makes you a murdered for not giving birth to humans that "could" have been... how's that for logic?
Then again, strange that you care, since you seem to have no problem in killing three and for times the number of people terrorists killed for "revenge" or as "an example", or just "oups, my mistake", imagine if a nuke had gone off in NY or something... what would it be then? Whole cities of "collateral damage"?

Also, no doubt Saddam possessed ONCE WMD's but the question is, except from (still searching even for them) a bunch of stacked rusty barrels in a corner, did he have ACTIVE up and RUNNING WMD factories, massively producing them preparing for an invasion or all other doom scenarios we have been fed up with? Saddam wouldn't have anything to gain by offering WMDs to terrorists, the US would be after him. And Saddam wouldn't invade any neighboor nearby, the US would be after him again. Proof? Well, we didn't found WMDs did we? Just an army held by pieces of strings and tape together. (Noticed the fearse air battles? The... was it 7? Scuds that got launched in the entire war?) now that was HEROIC I guess. Pitty it screwed every single foreign relation because, after trying to fool them we also dissed/threatened/made fun of them insteed of convincing them, that is not what I call a good goverment, we can as well as throw it away and put the military there if it is only needed for "pre-emtive" wars.

I guess that you are NOT a first, second year collage or university student, and you just feel good by blowing up Iraqis, make fun of liberals and feel secure every time a PA welding officer searches your ass.

Since I don't take drugs, I sick that we allow the opium fields to re-grow in Afghanistan insteed of teaching them how to plant something else, and lent them and a couple of tractors perhaps. I don't go one making love every day, although if I get laid more often than you that is not really that bad (A male going with many womens is concidered an evoutionary success after all...) it seems that I do not fall into your typical hippy stereotype, tough luck...

I also prefer to gravitate towards peace than war, first it has two letters more, second what kind of idiot doesn't do that? Are we the barbarian hordes or something? That made me laugh, you almost make it sound like peace is something *bad*. Tell that to the WWI, WWII victims, but at least the Euroes seem to have fed up with war. So its you and N.Korea I guess, why don't you move there and fight as much as you want? Then again, it's fun to use "our" toys which "our" wealth our nation aquired when in PEACE mainly because it escaped unscratched in its soild the World Wars unlike those who have been in WAR. I don't like loosing money because of a political stunt, and "patriots" of ...hmm... "slighty militaristic ideas".

I also don't turn the other cheek, if you made anything funny, you would have your guts turned inside-out. What you are saying is pacificism. Wrong, we did hit Afghanistan once it hit us, didn't we? I had no problem with that, and neither the world had at that time if you noticed. But I hate people hitting cheeks FIRST because of whatever reasons, people like you I guess.

Finally, I don't follow any "Moore", I haven't read his books and I monitor him with a slight disbelief, the reason for this is that when I went to buy his book I opened it at random and show his "conspiracy theories" concerning 9/11. I don't believe that we did it, wouldn't suprise me if it is proven of course but this is for now hype. What the administration did with it isn't hype however, its just embarrassing, and I just like honesty, not to be fooled around, neither by Bush's patriotism, nor by conspiracy theorists.

Was I rude? Sorry, but it is nothing compared to most conservatives out there who whine around like weasels making funny names for everything they don't like forcing us to ally with shitty places like Pakistan where the only have the -crasy from the Democrasy while they would gladly bomb Paris.

Almost makes you believe that it is a conspiracy theory... driven by Bin Laden.

Michael Moore is the poster child for what Big Mac's can do for your body and mind. When ever I here him speak I here the toilet flush and thousands of brain cells go down the sewer. I believe the Twinkie defense would work on anyone the shot Michael Moore

It's amazing.

I'm not a "follower" of Michael Moore. I'm not even professing that I'd like the guy if I met him. What I do know is that he is trying to make reality the moral opinions of millions. I'm sorry if greed has you, but really, I see absolutely no evil in Michael Moore's "crusade" and feel great that he's trying.

Another interesting point, a film being made as we speak, "Michael Moore Hates America". One thing that we must all notice is this: Michael Moore is trying to fight the injustices served against the people of the country he loves and others around the world that are actually reality, no one can deny (Actually, one of the next people who replies on this forum who reads this will almost definitley deny). This little guy in "Michael Moore Hates America" is setting out to try and prove Michael Moore wrong, to prove he hates America. Okay. Say he does. What has he achieved? Seriously. Will his film change the world? Will he have accomplished anything but a "ha ha, proved ya wrong"? No.

And this reminds me of the general concern of the people on this planet actually driven by and who thrive upon greed. That you only ever aim so high, never for the top. Aim about middle and you'll definitley hit it.

What also amazes me are people who believe the sacrifice of however many lives can actually hold any benefits. Yes, there are obvious benefits. People will fear you. You will make much more money. You will be that much closer to CONTROLLING THE WORLD! But, morally, you will always be wrong. Always. Murder is a sin. I'm not Christian, but in George W. Bush's America everyone is taught that God is the way, the only way, yet so much blood is on his hands. Like, you MUST follow all of God's teachings, apart from when if you don't, you can make a quick buck.

You see, I'm not American, but I know that with one word, your President, George Dubya, could end the world. His one command could destroy the entire planet. And THAT power should belong to no human being, let alone one who, not on purpose, has said some of the most hysterical things that I have ever heard.

Please, continue to pick apart what I have said, fill this forum to it's borders with negativity towards everyone you hate, but think: Will you do anything at all sat on THAT chair typing THESE things to people doing exactly the same? Is it pointless? If you ask me, yes. If you have opinions and want them to be heard, go and fucking say them where something can be done about it!

And my last point is: Aren't all you guys, like, pretty happy that America is exactly how you like it? Horrifically idiotic leader, having a War with the East? If so, why are you here complaining about some guy who has hardly even dented anything he has tried to accomplish? Here is your world. Enjoy it.

And get out of these forums. They're pointless.

Ross.

I look forward to the bashing I recieve in the next few posts.

Oh, and if you want to make a point about Michael Moore, address his actions, not his weight, y'know, unless you have not the capacity to think about anything other than someone's physical appearance.

Thanks!

Mr Moore recently said this to a Canadian audiance "why would you want to be like Americans, it's like pissing on your own leg. I for one don't take being an American as a bad thing. He tells lies and calls it non-fiction or a documentary. So, any award he wins is a disgrace. There is a connection between him and who we thought were Milli-Vanilli. All of you who go to see his movies are more ignorant for doing so.