Michael Moore doesn't appreciate this country? What the motherfuck?
Calling someone "anti-America" is a pretty strong charge, and I'm fucking sick of hearing it in our political discourse. And if you can't defend it, which you clearly can't, then check yourself.
Wow, so hostile. Apparently, you can't defend your opinions without resorting to rudeness/anger and personal attacks. Have a nice day!
Listen, MM clearly doesn't like or appreciate much about America as it is right now. He's for some different version of America that a lot of people probably don't agree with.
You're making some interesting generalizations that I'm not quite following. But for the record, this country was set up in such a way that its citizens get a direct say in how it's governed. Michael Moore has every right to speak out when he sees something he doesn't like, same as you and me. Exercizing that right is distinctly American.
Listen, MM clearly doesn't like or appreciate much about America as it is right now. He's for some different version of America that a lot of people probably don't agree with.
You're making some interesting generalizations that I'm not quite following. But for the record, this country was set up in such a way that its citizens get a direct say in how it's governed. Michael Moore has every right to speak out when he sees something he doesn't like, same as you and me. Exercizing that right is distinctly American.
I just said I don't like him. I didn't say he shouldn't be able to speak his opinions.
According to dontdiedrunk.org - there was a death caused by a drunk driver every 48 minutes in 2009. That is far more than the gun deaths and IMO a far greater priority which we deal with a lick and a promise.
Post by jillboston on Jul 25, 2012 12:42:59 GMT -5
I think Michael Moore loves America very much. I also think that most people agree with gun control and affordable health care for everyone. The "kind" of America that he wants is very much the kind I want.
According to dontdiedrunk.org - there was a death caused by a drunk driver every 48 minutes in 2009. That is far more than the gun deaths and IMO a far greater priority which we deal with a lick and a promise.
We have these laws though and STILL have violence (and i am fine with no assault or, really, any guns outside of hunting rifles) but I see this is a circular argument, complete with assumptions....if more laws will make you (general) feel better, go on with your bad self. I will just be with the group looking to get to the root of the issue.
We have laws. But they clearly aren't adequate.
And then we even roll back some of our gun laws (e.g. the assault weapons ban).
The answer isn't "well the laws we have don't work so no more laws." The answer is "the laws don't work so let's make them better."
And all of this is fine and enforcing of laws is an issues, as is the allowing the assault rifle ban to expire because of chickens in Congress, but still not the root. That is my issue and why I think the gun debate is shallow/hollow/short-sighted.
And then we even roll back some of our gun laws (e.g. the assault weapons ban).
The answer isn't "well the laws we have don't work so no more laws." The answer is "the laws don't work so let's make them better."
And all of this is fine and enforcing of laws is an issues, as is the allowing the assault rifle ban to expire because of chickens in Congress, but still not the root. That is my issue and why I think the gun debate is shallow/hollow/short-sighted.
Then so are seatbelt laws.
Look, I think this problem deserves everything on the table--gun laws, mental health, healthcare, etc. everything deserves attention here if we are going to begin to solve this uniquely American problem. I absolutely agree that guns aren't the root of the problem but I absolute disagree that this fact means we ignore the role of guns in American life.
And all of this is fine and enforcing of laws is an issues, as is the allowing the assault rifle ban to expire because of chickens in Congress, but still not the root. That is my issue and why I think the gun debate is shallow/hollow/short-sighted.
Then so are seatbelt laws.
Look, I think this problem deserves everything on the table--gun laws, mental health, healthcare, etc. everything deserves attention here if we are going to begin to solve this uniquely American problem. I absolutely agree that guns aren't the root of the problem but I absolute disagree that this fact means we ignore the role of guns in American life.
But I didnt say ignore it. I said it was shallow, especially in light of the horrors of, say, Aurora. No more, no less to that statement.
I can't stand MM. He is so anti-America. It's just annoying, at this point.
Pretty sure people who are anti-American don't make films about solving problems with American culture, i.e. gun violence or issues with government.
But this is strikingly similar rhetoric to people calling the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES unamerican. Because, really, you'd devote your life to being the head of state of a country you don't love.
ETA: Oh, hey, we're on page 2.
Also, I agree with Heyjude. On everything. Always.
The gun debate is not shallow and I don't think that MM's point is that we abandon gun control. It's not either/or. Either we examine our violent psyche or we examine our gun laws.
I disagree. You can have all the laws you want, but until you et to why this happens....it goes nowhere. The ultimate rinse, repeat.
Tef, you said gun laws go no where. The subtext being, gun laws are not important to this discussion. Hence the use of the word "ignore."
capitalism. He said on piers Morgan he is not a 1%er. Well, yes. Yes you are. (capitalism movie)
That quote doesn't make him a hypocrite. It makes him wrong.
Well, it actually makes him a liar (he said later he wasn't worth millions). His movie basically shoves capitalism in the face...a system he greatly benefited (benefits? Not sure how much he makes now).
I disagree. You can have all the laws you want, but until you et to why this happens....it goes nowhere. The ultimate rinse, repeat.
Tef, you said gun laws go no where. The subtext being, gun laws are not important to this discussion. Hence the use of the word "ignore."
no, I said discussing violence goes nowhere if you focus just on gun laws because it can just manifest/make use of other tactics to produce horror. Not gun laws.
That quote doesn't make him a hypocrite. It makes him wrong.
Well, it actually makes him a liar (he said later he wasn't worth millions). His movie basically shoves capitalism in the face...a system he greatly benefited (benefits? Not sure how much he makes now).
So you can't be both wealthy and want to change the social structure of this country?
Tef, you said gun laws go no where. The subtext being, gun laws are not important to this discussion. Hence the use of the word "ignore."
no, I said discussing violence goes nowhere if you focus just on gun laws because it can just manifest/make use of other tactics to produce horror. Not gun laws.
I feel like you are back peddling.
In any case I'm not sure who said we should JUST focus on gun laws. I think everything needs to be part of the discussion.
no, I said discussing violence goes nowhere if you focus just on gun laws because it can just manifest/make use of other tactics to produce horror. Not gun laws.
I feel like you are back peddling.
In any case I'm not sure who said we should JUST focus on gun laws. I think everything needs to be part of the discussion.
The past week, that has been the major push. And, it is clarifying that I did here and in the many posts upthread, but ok.
Well, it actually makes him a liar (he said later he wasn't worth millions). His movie basically shoves capitalism in the face...a system he greatly benefited (benefits? Not sure how much he makes now).
So you can't be both wealthy and want to change the social structure of this country?
Bingo. Why is it hypocritical for him to use the voice that he has now to fight for the middle class life that is slowly dissolving. So what that he is no longer part of that class, it what he knew growing up, he saw his hometown crumble as auto manufacturing stopped. But because he has money now, he should just shrug and say, meh, not my problem anymore, I'm rich!
So you can't be both wealthy and want to change the social structure of this country?
Bingo. Why is it hypocritical for him to use the voice that he has now to fight for the middle class life that is slowly dissolving. So what that he is no longer part of that class, it what he knew growing up, he saw his hometown crumble as auto manufacturing stopped. But because he has money now, he should just shrug and say, meh, not my problem anymore, I'm rich!
Headdesk.
And one more time for the cheap seats in the back: The fact that he is denying being rich for whatever reason (maybe to appear more knowledgeable? Otherwise, how does he not know he is in the 1%) is my issue with him, though a small one on the scale. Own it.
You can be pissed about the behavior of wall street and still believe in capitalism.
yes, true, but he closes with the statement that capitalism is evil.
"capitalism* is an evil...." is the beginning of the last line, if memory serves. (Reuters) *edited for spelling
To me, though, this is like expecting people to not take their tax deductions if they don't agree with the tax code or the budget. Or expecting Ron Paul to not take SS checks. It's there! Capitalism is our system of economics. It's what we use. Yes, Michael Moore has been successful in his career as a documentarian. That success, in our society, translates to wealth. I'm sure he's quite happy that he's been able to use that money to fund more films about issues he wants to enlighten America about. He'd probably be perfectly happy in a society where he wasn't able to afford a Rolls Royce (note: I do not believe he owns a Rolls Royce) because of his profession, as long as he was able to demonstrate "success" through access to the media.
I'm also not saying MM isn't a dick at times. It's just weird that we're trying to find "gotcha!" moments in order to undermine his credibility overall, after a 20+ year career.
yes, true, but he closes with the statement that capitalism is evil.
"capitalism* is an evil...." is the beginning of the last line, if memory serves. (Reuters) *edited for spelling
To me, though, this is like expecting people to not take their tax deductions if they don't agree with the tax code or the budget. Or expecting Ron Paul to not take SS checks. It's there! Capitalism is our system of economics. It's what we use. Yes, Michael Moore has been successful in his career as a documentarian. That success, in our society, translates to wealth. I'm sure he's quite happy that he's been able to use that money to fund more films about issues he wants to enlighten America about. He'd probably be perfectly happy in a society where he wasn't able to afford a Rolls Royce (note: I do not believe he owns a Rolls Royce) because of his profession, as long as he was able to demonstrate "success" through access to the media.
I'm also not saying MM isn't a dick at times. It's just weird that we're trying to find "gotcha!" moments in order to undermine his credibility overall, after a 20+ year career.
I was very clear on what subject I found him hypocritical.
Eta: and, it was within a larger context, my statement, of how I see him. Mere asked why I said this in my statement and it semi-blew up from there. It was not my intended focus.