MOOREWATCH
Moore in Der Fuhrerville
Author: JimK
No doubt about it, I've been wrong about Michael Moore. He's perfectly sane and rational.

Michael Moore was greeted by cheering crowds in Germany where he told one audience “What Bush is doing now is similar to what Hitler was doing in his early days,”


Holy crap. This freaking guy needs to be on the receiving end of a good ass-kicking. No wonder he won't make a move without hiring black men to act as his own private "Operation Get Behind The Darkie."

Hey Mikey, wanna know the number one reason Bush could never pull off what Hitler pulled off, you fucking moron?

WE HAVE GUNS, YOU IDIOT. STOP TRYING TO TAKE THEM FROM US, OR WE'LL FEED YOUR LYING, GUN-GRABBING ASS TO THE BUSH-STAPO YOU SAY IS COMING THE FIRST CHANCE WE GET.

OK, it's official, Moore pissed me off. I need to take two deep breaths and count the number of inaccuracies in Bowling For Columbine to calm down. I should be done by next Friday.


P.S. - On that same page, there's a story suggesting Britney Spears is being pursued by Playboy.

Agnostic atheism aside, I always knew there was a God. ;)



Posted by: JimK on Nov 19, 03 | 6:40 am (profile) | PermalinkOriginally posted at Right Thoughts
COMMENTS
Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 19, 03 | 7:24 am
Well let's see, in Hitler's early days, he was a low ranking officer in the army and an aspiring artist - can't say there's anything bad about that?

Then again, it says that the audience was cheering, so perhaps they thought that Bush was going to invade France - can't say there's anything bad about that either? ;)

P.S. - On that same page, there's a story suggesting Britney Spears is being pursued by Playboy.


Woot! Now if they can just convince Anna K to pose with her... :P~~~~~~~

Posted by: Darkwing Dork on Nov 19, 03 | 8:12 am
Hey Germany, you can have Michael Moore if you want. We're all done with him over here.

Posted by: Mordrag on Nov 19, 03 | 8:49 am
Great site, guys, go in what you doing. I'm German,(this is why I can't speak English ;)) and I believe, Moore makes my country mad. But please don't be so angry with us, there a lot of stupid people here, but not all are bad. The newspapers are against him, and the clever people, too

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 9:28 am
Skunk,
during World War I, Hitler wasn't even a "low ranking officer".
He was a corporal. That is the second-to-the-lowest enlisted rank.
He served as a message courier for a Bavarian Infantry unit, which is a very hazardous job. He was awarded the Eisernen Kreuz I (Iron Cross 1st class) for combat bravery.
This is part of the reason I grow suspicious when liberals tout Jean-Francois Kerry, John Glenn, Daniel Inhouye, or John McCain as "war heroes" and therefore experts on foreign policy.
Both Hilter (Eisernen Kruez) and Goering (Pour le Merit) were decorated war heroes, while President Roosevelt was a patrician slacker who avoided service in World War I.
Lack of military service didn't seem to stop FDR from being an accomplished wartime leader. While, holding many valorous combat decorations did not ensure success for Corporal Schickelgruber and his henchmen.

Posted by: Toastrider on Nov 19, 03 | 10:06 am
Dear Mordrag,

Don't sweat it. No nation is all of one mind (well, maybe the Japanese, but that's a cultural aberration :). Incidentially, your English isn't that bad; I doubt I could speak German coherently enough to ask where the bathroom is :)

--Toasty

Posted by: Geoff Matthews on Nov 19, 03 | 11:03 am
Whenever people start doing the Bush-Hitler shtick, it's just a one-upmanship, where you have people clamoring for the bigger insult. It is a competition of sorts, where, instead of saying how hard your childhood was, its how much you hate Bush, or who can say make the wildest claim about Bush.

However, Mikey isn't winning this competition. Ken "most dangerous man ever" Livingstone (Mayor of London) is the current leader.

Posted by: plastic stephen on Nov 19, 03 | 11:14 am
Now - I am not a huge advocate for Moore and I agree with your sentiments that his doctrine should not be taken as gospel. However I only need to read a tiny bit into your site "WE HAVE GUNS, YOU IDIOT. STOP TRYING TO TAKE THEM FROM US, OR WE'LL FEED YOUR LYING, GUN-GRABBING ASS TO THE BUSH-STAPO YOU SAY IS COMING THE FIRST CHANCE WE GET." to realise that no one is going to take you seriously. I am afraid that with talk like that you are going to be labelled by many as "another crazy American". This is a shame because I think that a serious look into Moore is needed, I think he does need to be challenged, but with your kind of talk you are only going to drum up more support for him. I think his main point in Columbine was that Americans have an attitude problem - well, go figure.

I don't think Moore is by definition an anti-American, I think he shows many traditional American attributes, he knows how to exploit an untapped market and he is expressing his freedom of speech. To me it is a show and there is a market for what he is saying - I don't think this is a bad thing, I just don't think it should go unchallenged. I don't think the way to challenge his ideas is to feed him more lines, I think you should not shamelessly clamber onto the only other bandwagon, (I'm a proud gun toting American and I don't care what anyone says) because that is sad - try to think of an intelligent way to counter his ideas. A gun is not going to change anyone’s mind it is just going to remove it, any idiot can do that.

Posted by: Mordrag on Nov 19, 03 | 11:14 am
Incidentially, your English isn't that bad; I doubt I could speak German coherently enough to ask where the bathroom is :)

Oh, Thanks. By the way, "Wo ist hier die Toilette?" :D

Of course not all Germans have opinions like the MM-fans, but he sold a quarter of the total number of "Stupid White Men" here, as you know and as far as I remember. The problem is, that he is anti-republican in the USA, but here he feeds the aniamericanism and confirms prejudices against americans. He is a clever businessman; e.g. in the German Edition of "Dude, Where's my country" there's a special preface for the Germans. You can guess, what the content is.
I was never in the USA, and if I would believe,what he writes, I would't want to travel there at any time in the future. Maybe good, the prices of the airlines will be cheaper ;)



Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 11:38 am
Plastic,
Jim's "WE HAVE GUNS" remark was partially meant to be tongue-in-cheek, yet it does contain an element of truth which is grounded in History.
During World War II, when Hitler's SS decided to forcibly remove all of the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto and send them to extermination camps; merely a few Polish Jews who were illegally armed with some handguns and civilian rifles staged an uprising. They held the Germans at bay from April 19th to May 16th 1943. German troops had to use artillery to blast them out of their homes.
Perhaps; Moore, yourself, and SS Gruppenfuher Jurgen Stroop would refer to them as "paranoid Jewish gun nuts with attitude problems", but merely a few of them caused Hitler's henchmen a heap of trouble. Just imagine if most of the Jewish populace had been armed and determined not to be taken-away.

With Moore making these idiotic "Bush = Hitler" comparisons for his German audience, he is proving that his knowledge of World History is just as abominable as the geography skills of all of those stupid 18-25 year olds who cannot find Iraq on a map.
Too bad that Moore has already used the title "Stupid White Men", since it would be most appropriate for his autobiography.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 11:44 am
Isn't it nice how this site's detractors now feel obligated to include the caveats:
"I'm no big fan of Michael Moore."
"I don't believe everything that Michael Moore says."
or
"I'm not a huge advocate for Moore..."

prior to voicing some kind of critisism? They must assume that Moore-followers lack credibility.
Maybe this site is having a desireable effect, after all.


Posted by: plastic stephen on Nov 19, 03 | 12:05 pm
Craig, I am not in any way trying to detract from this site, I am contributing, offering my ideas and seeing what you think. I do think that Moore followers can be every bit as brainless as his "Stupid White Men" that he opposes. This is what gets to me.

I accept your point that sometimes people need to be armed to fight off agressors but I think that Michael in Columbine showed that he understood this. He pointed out that the gun crime was not a problem generated by the availability of guns more the attitude of the gun owner.

I think my stance on Moore is that I think he has had his say and some of it makes sense but people are starting to swallow every thing he says without thinking about it for more than a second. It has become cool to agree with him and cool should not come into this kind of debate, once that happens the ego starts to take over from the real issues. Equally I am not trying to be ultra-cool by steering away from the Moore camp because they lack credibility. What I really care about is being thoughtful.

Posted by: Darkwing Dork on Nov 19, 03 | 12:08 pm
Ja Mondrag, deinen Englisch ist sehr gut für einen Deuschlander..

Posted by: Hondo on Nov 19, 03 | 12:25 pm

Say what you will about Michael Moore, but at least he wasn't afraid to get booed.

Note: I will not paste URLs directly into my comments

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 12:54 pm
Plastic,
If Moore was being thoughtful and was really interested in producing a true documentary to examine the phenomenon of violent crime in America, one would assume that he would concentrate on the most common types of violence, such as: narcotics-related homocides in inner cities and murders committed by repeat felons.
Instead, Moore concentrates on Dick Clark, Charleton Heston, Columbine High School, white paranoia, Kmart, Lockheed, the NRA, and North Country Bank, and does this merely for the purpose of making his inane wisecracks for the camera and portraying all Americans as psychopathic violent rednecks for his fawning ill-informed European audience.
I don't see how you can claim that anything Moore says makes sense.
Much of his rants are nonsensical, simplistic, and even contradictory.

You claim:
"He pointed out that the gun crime was not a problem generated by the availablity of guns more the attitude of the gun owner."
Sure, THAT makes some sense.
Yet, Moore contradicts this by intentionally slandering the NRA and conducting an ambush interview of Charleton Heston. Why?
Charleton Heston has never been accused of committing murder? He just supports people's rights to own guns, provided for in the 2nd amendment.
Why didn't Moore interview any convicted murderers and ask them about causitive factors? Gun crime is really more of a problem generated by criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Over half of violent crime is related to the illegal narcotics trade. Moore never visits a crack house in the movie.
75% of murders are committed by individuals with prior felony convictions. He doesn't talk to any prison inmates or parolees.
Moore neglects to mention these facts; because he's too busy chasing Dick Clark, being rude to Charleton Heston, confronting Kmart/Lockheed employees, exploiting dead teenagers for cheap laughs, and making an unfortunate bank PR lady look like a total rednecked boob.
Hey, why should he do confrontational inverviews with dangerous violent criminals, when he can pester law-abiding citizens for the camera?
That's much safer; plus, he can selectively present material to support his preconcieved notions and work his smart-aleck remarks into the dialogue.
Simply put, a confrontational interview with a crack dealer could result in Moore getting his fat ass shot dead or beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yup, much safer to take advantage of an 80 year old movie actor.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 1:14 pm
Hondo,
Following your article that you linked to, there is a place for comments.
It is sad that many of the posted comments sound eerily much like the very same anti-American lies which Moore has been spouting to European audiences.
"The U.S. armed Saddam..."
"Bush stole the 2000 election..."
"American GIs are shooting Iraqi children..."
"B-52s bombing innocent Iraqis..."
blah blah blah...etc.

One nut even posted the claim that:
"america supported the german empire builders through the most parts of ww1 and ww2." (Gee, I must have missed THAT episode on the History Channel.)
Perhaps, complete pig-ignorance is to be expected from people who consider Michael Moore to be their leading opinion-maker and newsprovider.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 1:25 pm
I can take some solace in the fact that a 1939 production of Shakespeare's "Henry V" was booed-off the stage of a London theatre, because the populace thought that it glorified war. This happened at roughly the same time that their Prime Minister (Neville Chamberlain)returned from Munich and was waving a piece of paper for the cameras and declaring "Peace in our time". It seems like the British (and American) populations contain a certain ilk which clings to a flawed concept of "peace" based on worthless treaties signed by the lying stooges of tyrants. The Gulf war ceasefire agreement was violated almost as quickly as the Munich agreement.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 1:32 pm
"It has become cool to agree with him..."

Cool according to who?...
the 18-25year age group who are incapable of finding the country of Iraq on a map?

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 19, 03 | 1:43 pm
during World War I, Hitler wasn't even a "low ranking officer".
He was a corporal. That is the second-to-the-lowest enlisted rank.


OK, low ranking NCO - no biggy - thanks for the clarification though.

Ken "most dangerous man ever" Livingstone (Mayor of London) is the current leader.


What did that chucklehead have to say - if we're voting for biggest European idiot, I'll submit the mayor of Paris who made a local (Philadelphia area) cop killer an honerary citizen of Paris.

Say what you will about Michael Moore, but at least he wasn't afraid to get booed.


Mike didn't expect to get booed - that's why he got all flustered when the booing started, that's why he claimed there were only five people booing when it was half of the audience, he claimed that people were "booing the booers", that it was a conspiracy by the union sound guys to make him look bad and that the booing was actually done by a one armed man.

/em rolls his eyes

I don't think Moore is by definition an anti-American, I think he shows many traditional American attributes, he knows how to exploit an untapped market and he is expressing his freedom of speech.


Well, since porn is protected as freedom of speech, why doesn't Mike tap the kiddy porn market to make his millions? Because it's wrong. There's a fine difference between satire (even my gun owning buddies and I make gun owner type jokes) and the very deliberate and nasty bashing that Mike engages in - he's not attacking America because it's profitable - the fact that he makes money attacking America is simply gravey.

A gun is not going to change anyone’s mind it is just going to remove it, any idiot can do that.


Incorrect - there are in excess of 1 million uses of firearms in America every year to change the mind of a criminal in the process of committing a crime - the criminal's head is only removed in about 3000 of those cases.

prior to voicing some kind of critisism? They must assume that Moore-followers lack credibility.


No different then liberals claiming that they're actually "moderates" - the left has been lieing for over 20 years to hide thier agenda - no need to act surprised that they're still doing it now.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 19, 03 | 3:22 pm
craig, stubborn, simplifying, generalizing king of the universe

Posted by: hithere on Nov 19, 03 | 3:23 pm
I didnt think this site could get any more lame, sad, and stupid. I was apparently wrong.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 3:29 pm
"I didn't think that this site could get any more lame, sad, and stupid..."

Well, it did just as soon as HitHere and Brock showed up.

Is anyone else suspicious about how they both showed-up just one minute apart?

Posted by: Michael the Great on Nov 19, 03 | 3:48 pm
Sounds like it might be the same person. Anyhow, I only have one thing to add and that is that Craig forgot to mention that Josef Mengele was a decorated war hero before he became the murderous doctor of the Nazis.

Posted by: Darkwing Dork on Nov 19, 03 | 4:07 pm
Hey hithere, isn't there some communist propaganda you should be reading right now? I'm sure that coming onto this site hjust to insult everyone is cutting into your important political BS reading sessions.

Posted by: plastic stephen on Nov 19, 03 | 4:22 pm
Criag, in response I totally agree that Moore is guilty of simplifying and sensationalising a very complex and involved topic. This is the very thing about him that I dislike. He is as bad as any tabloid newspaper and hence they sympathise with him greatly.

"I don't see how you can claim that anything Moore says makes sense"

"'He pointed out that the gun crime was not a problem generated by the availability of guns more the attitude of the gun owner.'
Sure, THAT makes some sense. "

That is a contradiction almost in the same sentence.

Cigarskunk - Kiddie porn is not part of freedom of speech it is an illegal act, one may discuss kiddie porn openly and freely but one may not act of have intentions of acting on such ideals.

I agree that firearms are necessary in certain situations to quickly and decisively remove a threat to the general good of the public. My point was that you need not gun someone down without trying all other options first, that is if there is time and it does not negate the premise that we are looking after the good of the law abiding public.

I am not trying to urge anyone to lay down their arms, I don't think that gun ownership is the issue. I do think that all to often guns fall into the hands of people who really should not have them but that is part of being free. I don't believe that we can ever have a utopian society, people are always going to disagree - I do think though that through thought and negotiation we may better understand each other. If we understand each other we may not need to get to a stage where it has to be "hammer time". Then again there will always be a lunatic who will excursive his ability to have sexual relations with a child or rob a convenience store with a lethal weapon.

What is important here is that we can change things far more radically with words than with guns. That is why I think politicians and the media including Moore are dangerous when left to their own devices. That is why guns hardly come into play when I think about this, it is all about attitude and culture.


Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 4:57 pm
Plast,

You missed the point.
The few sensible claims which Moore makes are generally contradicted by him, shortly thereafter. That completely negates whatever he said in the first place.
One exception includes:
When Moore claimed that he presides over a majority of like-thinking Americans who agree with HIM...and then, almost instantly, he broke into a tirade about how Americans are ignorant, uneducated, unlettered, untraveled, and unkowledgeable about the world outside the U.S. and current events.
It DOES make sense that if a majority of Americans agree with Moore, they must be ignorant and uneducated. But the problem is...both statements are lies. He viewpoints are not shared by a majority of Americans and Americans are not ignorant or uneducated.
Of course, Moore's German audience were too busy basking in their self-admiring glow of Moore's compliments to notice this obvious paradox; that he back-handedly insulted his own viewpoints and followers.


Posted by: hithere on Nov 19, 03 | 5:27 pm
hm, i didnt know that being smart enough to realize how lame and stupid this site is qualified me a commie. you guys are just so sad.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 5:30 pm
HitHere,
If this site is so "lame and sad", why do you keep coming back?
Doesn't that make you lame and sad, too?

Do you have your own website and is it superior to this one?
What's it called?

Posted by: alfredo stroessner on Nov 19, 03 | 6:12 pm
Troll alert Troll alert!

Oy, the Germans do not want Michael Moore. If he stays there too long he will run out of anti-American emnity and will eventually turn on his hosts. Now if he made fun of the Frogs, then the Germans would probably buy those books as well(but only if he writes them as a "non-American").

Posted by: alfredo stroessner on Nov 19, 03 | 6:15 pm
Oh shoot! Forgot to mention that Michael Moore has bigger boobs than Britney Spheres. Although I would rather look at Britney's sweater mittens than Mikes big hairy manboobs.

Sorry, now I gone and made myself sick.

Posted by: thomz on Nov 19, 03 | 7:53 pm
Wrong mr. Moore!! Finland is a part of Scandinavia already.

In one of his mass-meatings in Germany this week Micheal Moore showed that he is "the studpid white man". When he made an insulting remark about Denmark (I am a Dane myself) and said that Denmark should be kicked out of Scandinavia and replaced by Finland he showed that he himself does not know his geography well.
Finland is already a part of Scandinavia both physically aswell as politcally as they are members of the Nordic Council.
The german online-magazin Spiegel corrected him - but in the tv-show JBK where he was interviewed he went on with claiming that the Spiegel journalist was wrong and that he had looked it up in an encyclopedia - what encyclopedia he used he did not mention - but the fact that he might have read it in some badly researched encyclopedia doesn't make it right. He has a serious problem about not being able to admit when he is wrong.
In the JBK talkshow he continued with showing just how stupid and manipulative he is by saying things like.
"nobody wanted him" about the election of George W Bush - my comment: so all those people who actually did vote for the president is nobody?
At the end of the interview the interviewer Johannes B. Kerner thanked Moore for coming and talking as the voice of the other America - to this Moore replied "of the majority of America" - my comment: so all the people who dont share your views dont count?

Michael Moore is a manipulator and behaves like an asshole.

Posted by: Darkwing Dork on Nov 19, 03 | 8:01 pm
Hithere, the reason why lefties don't like sites like this is indicative of a greater problem affecting many liberals - they don't like the fact that conservatives are starting to do the same thing that they have been doing for the past 40 years, making fun of authority figures.

I think a lot of lefties believe that satire should be exclusive to liberalism and conservatives should just shut up and be targets for ridicule.

Maybe that's just my "political nut" thoughts talking. Or maybe I'm just tired. Oh well.

Posted by: AJWill on Nov 19, 03 | 10:32 pm
thomz - what reason did Moore give for wanting Denmark expelled from Scandinavia? What I know about Denmark gives me more respect for it than, say, Sweden. Moore's attitude just might raise your nation in my esteem even more.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 19, 03 | 11:55 pm
Agreed entirely Thomz, his research and "factual evidence" have more holes than Moore's fishnet stockings (Yes, he's a crossdresser... satire, remember?).

If nobody in America wanted Bush, and Moore's views represent the majority of America... then how did he get elected? You do need votes to get in, right? I mean, I'm merely connecting two statements made on the one show the only way they can be interpreted, and adding a fact into the mixture for good measure.

And since 'Stupid White Men' is already taken for Moore's autobiography, I vote for "Hypocritical Hypocrisies and the Hypocrite who Hypocrises". Look on the bright side, his skills with facts are so brilliant that in his autobiography, he will never have been wrong! Ever!

Retard. Somebody kick him in his face.

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 20, 03 | 7:55 am
[QU0TE]Oh shoot! Forgot to mention that Michael Moore has bigger boobs than Britney Spheres. Although I would rather look at Britney's sweater mittens than Mikes big hairy manboobs.

Sorry, now I gone and made myself sick.

/em claws at his eyes wishing Al hadn't shared that thought

Posted by: Access on Nov 20, 03 | 7:58 am
"Hey Mikey, wanna know the number one reason Bush could never pull off what Hitler pulled off, you fucking moron?

WE HAVE GUNS, YOU IDIOT. STOP TRYING TO TAKE THEM FROM US, OR WE'LL FEED YOUR LYING, GUN-GRABBING ASS TO THE BUSH-STAPO YOU SAY IS COMING THE FIRST CHANCE WE GET."
Firstly, my interpretation of Bowling for Collumbine left me feeling much more supportive of the gun effort, prior to Bolwing I generally felt gun ownership outside of Farming and sport related activites should be removed... however I now see no connection with gun ownership and murder rates, and indeed the film itself has rallied much support for Guns in Austrlia. I still believe guns should be regulated (waiting period) and believe that ammunition shouldn't be availible in shops that serve minors etc. But that is irrelervant.

Secondly, i'm trying to come to terms with the problem in associating one entity such as George Bush, to that of another entity such as Hitler to make a point. It is a form of exaggeration and is used quite frequently without quamrs in most instances. So why is it now a problem when applied to a politian? I reguarly call people Nazi's like.... my girl friend whom I call a "Grammer Nazi" because she corrects me all the time on my spelling. I quite often compare my boss to Hitler, for being a racists prick. I often reffer to the Australian foreign minster as a Nazi wannabe.... Even American pop culture is ripe with Hitler refferences, such as Jerry Seinfelds "Soup Nazi".

Hitler was indeed a bad person whom wanted to slaughter an entire race, I can begin to see why me reffering to my Boss as Hitler or that the character in Sienfeld is Hitler could be considered pure madness on face value. However no one actually believes the character in Sienfeld is the same as Hitler its a literal technique to saterise a point, exageration through juxtaposition. Like a metaphor but something we can anthromophise with.

However to approach the situation from another angle, the comparison of Hitler to my boss, or of the Soup Nazi to Hitler the common factor is not the "the desire to slaughter an entire race". In most of the comparisons made to Hitler in all forms of media this is rarely the common factor. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his youth said he admired Hitler.... this does not mean he admires "the desire to slaughter an entire race" and it is a logical falisy to assume it does. This is rarely if not never the common factor.*

From one perspective (whether you or I believe it is irrelevant) Bush does share many qualities with Hitler. If you believe the new US "Patriot Act" is preventing freedom of speech, that Bush manipulated the system to get into US Office, that Bush is trying to make the USA a global empire, and that he is trying to control the oppinions of the public through intense propaganda then yes many comparisons exist between Hitler and Bush. If you dont believe any of the above, then the links to Bush and Hitler seem tenious at best. However the point of this discussion is whether it is ethical to compare someone to another as a method to enhance a point. Thinking now it is almost on par with metaphors and similies..... "Your breath is as bad as a rubbish dump"... although quite simplistic the same principles apply. The targets breath is obviously very different (one would hope) to a rubbish dump, the comparison is done to enhance a point.

I may not agree with the comparisons of George Bush to Hitler, but I certainly support others rights to do so, and indeed support Arnie for admireing certain qualities of Hitler, and also believe I am ethically just in calling my boss a Nazi and feel Jerry Seinfeld should feel no repercussions that he created a character called "The Soup Nazi".


"so perhaps they thought that Bush was going to invade France - can't say there's anything bad about that either?"
Its amazing how we live in a time where we have socialy accepted prejudices, that indeed leaves me in awe. It reminds me of when in Australia during WWII (or was it WWI.. meh) all German Streets and towns were changed throughout Australian and indeed the English Royal Family changed their German lastname to the more "acceptable" one which of course was British. I constantly hear tales of shops in the USA rejecting French and German people. Is this really acceptable to you? Why is that in the USA it is only bad to be prejudice to people with African heritage? I dont think the world should be politically correct and quite enjoy South Parks take on the world. I hate generlisations, however I as an Australian am getting the feeling that the entire USA is hating an entity(france) on a completely national level?

I share South Parks philosiphy in that I feel it is quite acceptable to make fun of a group, such as Irish, Blond, Fat, Asian, French and Black jokes, as long as people dont actually BELIEVE what they are saying. I dont want a poltically correct world, but I hope for an open minded one. Sorry to single you out Cigarskunk, I certinaly see that your comment was in the spirit of humour, but I constantly hear of people taking the whole ordeal too far, "Freedom Fries", "Freedom Toast".... please; Why not Victory Gin? (read 1982) I am certainly not offended by prejudice jokes, but certainly by prejudice oppinions. Of course it is the peoples right to BELIEVE what ever they want, but the situation gets me very angry, and it appears to be that France is becoming a scape goat, I thought South Parks satirical peace "Blame Canada", mocking those that shared a similar belief towards Canada would of highlighted this point, scarily many people just used this song as another method to mock the USA's neighbouring country. How ironic!


"They must assume that Moore-followers lack credibility.
Maybe this site is having a desireable effect, after all."
I disagree, you may call me a "detractor" because I am slightly off centre to the accepted beliefs common to most members here. However, I dont align myself with any ISM or belief structure per-say. I like the ideas of many individuals, and in fact am a member of the "Australian Skeptics" and am a acredited member of the "Australian Logic Community".. (all that means is I have a Bachelor in Logic). I am skeptical of everything in front of me.... Just because I raise points that are contradictory do the general vein of this forum does not make me a Moore follower, and just because I critise Moores work doesnt make me a anti-Moore. Why do people feel they must classify themselfs and others, such a system is only valid if it is constant... and it almost never is.

I certainly support some of Bush's and Moores ideas but it doesnt make me a fan of either. The term "fan" is an abbreviation of "a fanatic". Which is an illogical afiliation with an entity. And I am quite offended by the premise. Why must you classify yourself either conservative or libeal? It serves no purpose except to attract like minded people, which of course is pointless.

I once attended a "Answers in Genesis" lecture and at the end they passed out a note with a date informing us of a dicussion with the topic of "Is their a God", with a note that it is for like minded people. What is the point in sitting around and discussing something with people who already agree?

Posted by: Access on Nov 20, 03 | 8:00 am
You can label me a detractor, but certainly not a fan of anything except logic. So please dont assume anything of people who have criticisms, this site if any should understand the need to critisise. If everytime someone has a critism of anyone but Moore is immedietly condesented towards then it only demonstrates the bias nature of this site. This site shouldnt be about being Anti-Moore... he has the right to say what he wants... Idealy this site becomes a place to critise Moore - not attack.

A more valid service to the community as a whole would be to critise all individuals in a large scale media watch, quite an ambissious task indeed, however by only critising one entity, the community becomes "clicky" with an abundance of "preaching to the choir" syndrome. In addition the overall vibe of the site becomes quite bias, rather than being objective, and in the end serves no purpose. Funnily enough under close observation total dedication to only one task ovbiously leads to tunnel vision and an automatic negation philosiphy to all of Mike Moores beliefs rather than being objective of each issue. Of course you and the webmaster of this site has the right to believe and say what you like, but dont be delusional that your being objective...... Moore isnt either.

Moore assumes everything a republican does is bad, the majority of people reading my post assumes everything Moore does is bad... both groups will argue to the cows come home that they dont... however both would take pleasure in seeing the downfall of their designated "enemy", republican or Mike Moore. Is either better than the other? So please... no more allegences... detractors, conservatives, liberals its all crap, lets just have civilised conversations and make up our own minds without the steriotypes.


Sorry for the long winded spiel.. I have bever been good at being brief.
-Access

Posted by: barry on Nov 20, 03 | 12:02 pm
Actually, I agree with craig. The Michael Moore Train is displaying its vacidity as plainly as a rainy day.

Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 21, 03 | 9:42 am
I constantly hear tales of shops in the USA rejecting French and German people


Assuming this is happening, it probobly has something to do with France and Germany declaring boycotts of American goods and French and German shops refusing to carry US products, serve US tourist and even going so far as to take down thier American Express acceptance signs back when things were leading up to the war to liberate Iraq. Americans have responded back in kind to this anti-American boycott by boycotting those countries in return. Turn about is fair play.

Why is that in the USA it is only bad to be prejudice to people with African heritage


Actually, the only groups in America that it's acceptable to be prejudiced against is Christians/Catholics and caucasians. If you are a member of a minority group then it's also ok to be racists against jews. Additionally, it's also ok to be racists against any minority who is a conservative, so, for example, while it would be racists to call Jesse Jackson (a liberal) an uncle Tom, it's perfectly acceptable to call Alan Keys (a conservative) an uncle tom.

Finally, there's also the question of whom the person being prejudiced is - a liberal is permitted to make racist remarks and as long as he gives a half heart appology if any calls him on it, it's fine. On the other hand, no ammount of appologising will earn forgiveness for a conservative that makes anything even remotely resembling a racist remark.

however I as an Australian am getting the feeling that the entire USA is hating an entity(france) on a completely national level


Yes and no - we don't hate France nearly as much as they hate us - they've been more of a joke if anything until they caused so many problems leading up to the war and then it was discovered they had the oil deals with Saddam, were taking bribes and selling him weapons illegally to kill American and British soldiers - combine that with the boycot they were doing and that was enough to piss us off enough as a people to retaliate.

I hate to sound so juvenile, but the best assessment is "they started it."

Sorry to single you out Cigarskunk, I certinaly see that your comment was in the spirit of humour


No biggy - I don't personally hate them - unlike when Mike Moore said that the folks who died during 9/11 and the CA forrest fires deserved it for being Bush supporters, I didn't cheer or laugh when the news broke that 10k French had died over the summer during the heat wave.

I won't pretend that I've got much respect for them in general - they've always seemed very petty and whiney ever since I was old enough to appreciate world politics - I simply don't feel the same degree of hatered for them that they appear to feel for me.

mocking those that shared a similar belief towards Canada would of highlighted this point, scarily many people just used this song as another method to mock the USA's neighbouring country


I'd guess that you've only seen the movie and perhaps a few episodes - Canada bashing is an underlining theme in the South Park series - the irony is that you missed the point of the movie of taking responsibility for your children - the same point that Mike missed when he made BfC. ;)

As for how folks treat the song itself - many Americans view Canada the same way they view a young child - the line "it's not even a real country anyway" always brings a laugh from most Americans.

"Australian Skeptics" and am a acredited member of the "Australian Logic Community"..


The general problem with this statement is that if all of the folks here had a dime for every time we've had some neutral skeptic who seems more skeptical of his fellow skeptics on this site then of Mike Moore, we'd all be as rich as Mikey is.

I certainly support some of Bush's and Moores ideas but it doesnt make me a fan of either. The term "fan" is an abbreviation of "a fanatic". Which is an illogical afiliation with an entity. And I am quite offended by the premise. Why must you classify yourself either conservative or libeal? It serves no purpose except to attract like minded people, which of course is pointless.


Simple - because everyone is differnent, so we must deal with generalisations of ourselves - you've simply got to find the group that best describes the beliefs which are most important to you and accept it. For example, I've got a gay buddy that's also a gun owner and a firm 2nd ammendment supporter - he couldn't find his proper niche in politics so he finally made the decision that the left is more likely to take away his gun rights then the right is to take away his gay rights - that and the fact that having a gun could protect his gayness but being gay would do nothing to protect his guns.

but certainly not a fan of anything except logic


Based off of some of the leaps of logic you've made, you hide it well.

Is either better than the other


Yes - Bush is doing what's best for America and her interests, Mike is doing what's best for Mike and his interests - since Mike's interests involve bad things happening to America (and most of us on this site) then by default, Mike is the prefered one to suffer a downfall. Atleast, that's the most logical answer. ;)

Posted by: mehitchcock on Nov 22, 03 | 4:41 pm
Craig.
You very often use your knowledge of history to make a point.
Sadly, you selectively omit details to strengthen your points.
You hate it when Moore does this.
Anyhow, before you use one more F*&king WWII "analogy" why don't you tell us all about Denmark and Bulgaria in WWII and their Jewish populations.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 22, 03 | 5:05 pm
If you have a contrary example, post it. If not, then don't be a troll through insinuations.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 22, 03 | 7:55 pm
Mehitchcock, I'm gonna have to disagree.

Craig.
You very often use your knowledge of history to make a point.
Sadly, you selectively omit details to strengthen your points.
You hate it when Moore does this.


I believe when Moore does it, we tear into him with evidence of his hypocrisy. You should do likewise. I have no doubt that Craig leaves out details when making some points because we have a 7500 character limit on posts, and it's almost impossible to fit full arguments in that shorter time. Keep in mind that's probably only 1500 words. People write 100,000 word thesis arguments on topics like the ones we discuss here. All Craig does is present his point of view with the facts that are available to him.

Although I would like to know where his immense knowledge of world history comes from.

Posted by: IrishSteve on Nov 23, 03 | 8:09 am
(Sort of off topic for which I apologise) but there is nothing wrong with satire
Mr Moore's leaves a lot to be desired at times. But none the less it does afford a way to provoke ideas and debate. I put up as an example.
Mr Terry Jones's piece about the current war........it does pose some
interesting points.

********** Start ****************
To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.

It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.

Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.

Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.

In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements with a clear conscience.

The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.

And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.

So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.
*************** END *********************

Posted by: Aaron-Free Will on Nov 25, 03 | 11:57 pm
Cheering throngs of Germans, incoherent works of literature, and unpleasant to look at. Slick the hair back, come up with your own salute, and you're good to go, Michael.

Posted by: sl0re on Nov 26, 03 | 1:05 pm
Posted by: Craig on Nov 19, 03 | 11:38 am

> Just imagine if most of the Jewish populace had been armed and determined not
> to be taken-away.

Not just them.. Armenians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Cambodian city dwellers (and those with eye glasses) probably all wish they had guns at one time in the last century... I had a couple uncles go to concentration camps and we are not Jewish... Also, the camps were soviet btw... So, to sum it up, 'from my cold dead hands'... I hope that is clear to Mike and his mindless followers. If he wants to take my gun, he is going to need one to do it and I’ll take a few of his jackbooted thugs with me…

Posted by: sl0re on Nov 26, 03 | 1:44 pm
Posted by: mehitchcock on Nov 22, 03 | 4:41 pm
> Craig.
> Anyhow, before you use one more F*&king WWII "analogy" why don't you tell us
> all about Denmark and Bulgaria in WWII and their Jewish populations.

You’re not really proving your point...

Denmark, luckily the Jews had other countries to flee to (such as Sweden) and supportive locals with boats. What if they did not?

Bulgaria, again, luckily the locals helped.

So, as to just the Jews, I'm not sure I would want to rely on the good graces of others to ensure my survival... We can find many more, unfortunately tragic, examples to back my view than yours...

As to the nonjews of Denmark and Bulgaria, booing Nazi newsreels did not help get the Germans out... Sabotage (re: bombs and guns used to kill the occupiers) did help. They also had to rely on foreigners with guns (soviet and Brits) to come save their as*ses. What about that?


Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 1:50 pm
Irish,
If Mr. Jones is trying to be funny, he should stick to Monty Python sketches about transvestite lumberjacks and dead parrots.

His little proposal is so rife with factual errors and idiocy, it boggles the mind as to where to start with refuting it, or even whether it is worth the bother. (The old adage about putting a bow tie on a pig comes to mind for some reason...) It appears that he is too damned stupid to understand the difference between individual citizens illegally/covertly donating their own funds to a terrorist organization and a State sponsor sending weapons and financial aid.
In regards to his silly idea about bombing the U.S...Bring it on, anytime! But, he shouldn't let his mouth write checks that his ass can't cash.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 26, 03 | 2:18 pm
Mehitch,
OK...please enlighten us all as to what happened in Bulgaria and Denmark.
Also, tell us what relevance it has to the razing of the Warsaw Ghetto.
I don't see where neglecting to chronicle what happened in those two countries detracts from my message about the armed resistance in Warsaw Poland.
It is a fact that a few determined Jewish resistance members were able to hold-off heavily armed Waffen SS soldiers for almost a month. Artillery had to be diverted from the Eastern Front in order to finally take control of the Ghetto.
Just because Jews in Denmark or Bulgaria were able to avoid being shipped to extermination camps didn't change the plight of Polish Jews.

Posted by: Fred Masters on Dec 05, 03 | 10:10 pm
Craig: Good point. I remember an old book written about the number of deaths communism had caused in the 20th century. People criticized it for failing to look at the number of people capitalism killed. But no one ever said the same (look at the number the Soviets killed) when looking at the numbers killed by the Nazis. But this is bull, and everyone knows it. The things that happened in Bulgaria and Denmark don't make the occurences of the Warsaw Ghetto any less instructive in terms of the effects of armed citizens in fighting dictators.



Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?