| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/29/2001; 12:27 AM Everyone should familarize themselves with the witty world of Micheal Moore: Michael Moores Effective Use of Humor and Irony in Roger and Me Few people in this world have the ability to illustrate a subject without tainting the credibility of it by confessing to be biased from the start of the argument. Michael Moore is a particular individual well educated in the art of persuasion by example. Moores utilization of humor and irony in his enthralling documentary, entitled Roger and Me, which illuminates the hardships faced by Flint, Michigan residents during the GM (General Motors) factory closings in the late 1980s, does just this. His snide antics during interviews with Miss Michigan, GM management, and even at the corporate offices of GM as he tries to interview Chairman of GM, Roger Smith, are central to the films fundamental point. Moores everyday man in everyday clothes tactic and overlapping commentary during the film is imperative to the perspective being presented for consumption by the audience. Without his intervening presence most of the irony and humor exposed by the reality of a situation might not be obvious to a mainstream audience. Moores cynical humor in the documentary went hand in hand with the ironic reality exhibited. For instance, in the beginning of the documentary the city officials of Flint rectify this truth when a parade is decidedly given to uplift the spirits of the community members. The parade focuses on honoring the surviving residents of the first sit down protests at the Flint, Michigan GM factory. This sit down provided the catalyst for the establishment of the union. Ironic that the daughters and sons of these last few survivors were now out of jobs (30,000 of them to be exact). Even more sardonic is the inclusion of Miss Michigan in the festive occasion. There is no need for Moore to point out the sarcastic humor one may obtain from this interview. For Miss Michigan reveals herself as she wittily remarks that she feels a little sad due to the recent epidemic of unemployment, but shes optimistic because shes all for working in Michigan. Again Moore reveals the secret to his point-making antics as he tells the audience in the documentary that the current major of Flint decided to shell out 20 thousand dollars to TV evangelist, Robert Shueler, to come and rid the city of its unemployment plague. The humorous irony in this lies in the mere fact that a very high percentage of Flint residents were jobless and homeless as the major decided to pay a preposterous amount of money from tax payers dollars to a Christian evangelist. If a Christian evangelist was so concerned with the city and the religious state of its people, would not he have come for free to spread his message of endurance? The real secret to the irony and humor found in this particular situation illustrated in Moores documentary is the situation itself. Michael Moore is a man that appeals to the masses through his sarcasm and humor but more so through his representation of the everyday man figure. He becomes an icon of hope by being a man everyone can relate to. He walks in the doors of the GM corporate offices filled with the upper-class elite of the community wearing his flannel shirt and a tie. Irony and humor is therefore conveyed through Moores appearance as this everyday man. It is ironic that he is dressed like the factory workers of Flint, Michigan while attempting to passively interview Roger Smith for his take on the factory closings. Ironic more so that they will not allow the very man that represents the people that keep the factories running in to see the Chairman of the Company. The humor lies in the mere fact that he is attempting to interview the chairman of GM wearing a flannel shirt, a tie, and a tattered ball cap. Even Roger Smith himself could probably not deny the effectiveness of Michael Moores humor and irony rendered in his documentary, Roger and Me. The genius of the film lies not in Moores ability to be humorous and outline irony. The genius lies in his ability to show the audience that the ironic humor of everyday life is already present. Moore just emphasizes this truth by presenting himself as a passive mediator letting the people, their opinions, and their situations, speak for themselves. Michael Moore just provides the obvious that may not be so obvious if one were to glance at a situation without the intention to dwell on it. His role is central to the films perspective, its irony, and its humor, but yet, it does not impact the point itself-the truth already existent in the circumstances ultimately influence the argument.
Re: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2001; 2:10 PM At 11:43 PM 10/28/2001 -0500, Rachelle wrote: >It is ironic that he is dressed like the factory workers of Flint, >Michigan while attempting to passively interview Roger Smith for his take >on the factory closings. Ironic more so that they will not allow the very >man that represents the people that keep the factories running in to see >the Chairman of the Company. The humor lies in the mere fact that he is >attempting to interview the chairman of GM wearing a flannel shirt, a tie, >and a tattered ball cap. It is ironic that when a former employee of Moore's began following Moore around with a video camera trying to get an explanation as to why Moore had never paid him outstanding monies -- Moore did the very corporate thing and sued the guy for harassment.
Re: Michael Moore By: Mark Morgan on 10/29/2001; 2:50 PM That's disappointing. I found Roger and Me a sukerpunch to the notion that working people matter and hard work can guarantee a happy life. I've been known to quote Moore on occasion--particularly his views on people who don't have a television. "What, do you think that makes you superior? No wonder people hate liberals!" I'm sure you have one; could you cite a source for that event? I hate it when the people I admire act like jerks.
Re: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/29/2001; 3:21 PM I too, would like to see a source for this statement. People have made accusations similar to this about many people. Laren Hill, for example, was accused of being racist against white people. She stated in a recent interview with a magazine that she never made such claims. If Laren Hill was racist I wouldn't condem her: We are all rasict and at least she is honest about it, which is the first step in overcoming ignorance. My point is that there is always another side to every story. People are imperfect, as I am sure you well know, being a person and all. I would not place any less importance on the value of Micheal Moore's work just because of one thing he did. Malcolm X was sexist and very discriminatory against white people, this does not decrease the value of what he did for the black community.
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2001; 3:50 PM At 02:06 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, you wrote: >I'm sure you have one; could you cite a source for that event? I hate it >when the people I admire act like jerks. This was reported in a number of places -- I remember a Salon hit piece on Moore a couple years ago, but there's a nice summary of the particulars (slightly different than I remembered, but same basic story: downsized employee with bullhorn and camera follows Moore, and Moore calls the cops) at: http://www.americancynic.com/06262000.html (you have to scroll down -- it's the third item down). BTW, I wouldn't want to be stalked like that either, but Moore really set himself up for this with "Roger & Me." Moore, btw, is notorious for not playing well with others. Moore first came to fame here in Michigan for his left/liberal independent newspaper which landed him a gig as editor-in-chief of Mother Jones where he pretty much pissed everyone off and was shown the door (and then ran around screaming "conspiracy" to anyone who would listen to him). A bigger problem for Moore, IMO, is that there have been pretty regular allegations of him trying to circumvent TV and film union rules, especially in crediting and paying the writers for "The Awful Truth"/"TV Nation." Again, that's normally not big news, as such practices are common, but they are big news when Moore's name is attached to them given his staunch pro-union advocacy.
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2001; 4:17 PM At 02:37 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Rachelle wrote: >Malcolm X was sexist and very discriminatory against white people, this >does not decrease the value of what he did for the black community. Some people would say the same thing about David Duke -- that the fact that he is a racist bigot doesn't decrease the value of what he has done for the white community. (I, however, would argue that Malcolm X is only worth talking about precisely because he renounced his bigoted views near the end of his life).
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2001; 4:20 PM At 02:06 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Mark wrote: >I'm sure you have one; could you cite a source for that event? I hate it >when the people I admire act like jerks. BTW, the Salon article I mentioned is here: http://www.salon.com/june97/media/media970606.html (Remember when Salon used to publish things that weren't just softcore porn in disguise?)
RE: Michael Moore By: Matthew Patterson on 10/29/2001; 6:35 PM > >Malcolm X was sexist and very discriminatory against white people, this > >does not decrease the value of what he did for the black community. > >Some people would say the same thing about David Duke -- that the fact that >he is a racist bigot doesn't decrease the value of what he has done for the >white community. And this would be what, exactly? People who live down here still talk about the Duke/Edwards election. Set huge voter turnout records even though it was in a year when there wasn't a Presidential election. "Vote for the crook -- it's important!" _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2001; 7:56 PM Matthew: I wasn't defending David Duke at all -- I think he's scum -- but rather trying to show the absurdity of Rachelle's statement that "Malcolm X was sexist and very discriminatory against white people, this does not decrease the value of what he did for the black community." People also say such things about Louis Farrakhan. Sure the Nation of Islam is one of the most anti-Semitic groups in the United States outside of the white supremacists, but damn they do a lot for the black community. Sure, and I bet even Idi Amin occasionally helped old ladies cross the street, and Hitler was reportedy very kind to his dog. Hell, the KKK members who burned crosses by night were often otherwise upstanding, important citizens when they ditched the white sheets. Malcom X's life is interesting because he saw the error in his beliefs (and presumably he did not view racism as just another viewpoint as Rachelle implies it is) while still preserving the righteous indignation at the treatment of Black Americans.
RE: Michael Moore By: Matthew Patterson on 10/29/2001; 10:25 PM >Matthew: > >I wasn't defending David Duke at all -- I think he's scum -- but >rather trying to show the absurdity of Rachelle's statement that >"Malcolm X was sexist and very discriminatory against white people, >this does not decrease the value of what he did for the black >community." I got what you were saying, but I don't see why you didn't use one of your other examples in the first place. David Duke hasn't done a damn thing for the white community. Actually, he did more for blacks than for whites - got millions to vote! _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/31/2001; 2:03 AM In no such way did I imply that racism is "just another view point." Racism, has unfortunatley, evolved into an inherent quality for the Homo sapiens. Being that we fear what is different naturally, or I should say beacuse of our social and cultural conditioning racism is has become natural for those of us that buy into cultural norms we are raised in. As for my own point of view on the subject, I do not believe in race in the biological sense. Culturally and socially, race does unfortunatley exist. Furthermore, I think that it should have been very evident that I was giving examples of people who have done very positive and progressive things. You will probably argue that what Hitler did was positive for his cause. This arguement, in my opinion,is redundant. You might have realized this if you were not too busy attempting to be condecending and patronizing. Finally, I believe that we are all hypocrites. And yes, you are right, people do change their point of views, usually later in life when they have realized their mistakes. This does not erase their past faults, nor does it make their past faults any less "interesting," or relavent.
RE: Michael Moore By: Mark Morgan on 10/31/2001; 12:59 PM I think it's unlikely that anyone here will argue anything positive about Hitler, Rachelle, except to win points in The Game. I have to agree with Brian: Malcom X became much more important because he managed to stay true to his anger and indignation at the treatment of African-Americans while abandoning the racism of his youth. That moved him from rabble-rouser to true statesman. I do agree with you that he was interesting before his reversal of attitude. Back to the original topic. No, one bad decision does not invalidate what Michael Moore has done. It's just screamingly funny that when the tables are turned, he was provoked into exactly the same kind of behavior he provokes in others. I have lost a measure respect for the man. (Aside: good grief, you're right Brian, that Salon article was darn near journalism! I'm surprised it's still in their archives.)
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/31/2001; 2:15 PM I was not aware of "The Game" when I joined this site as an author. I don't know how amusing I find it, considering that I am Wiccan and Jewish/German. I had relatives that were murdered in concentrations camps. I understand the point of playing such games to jest at the stupidity involved in letting a situation like the Holocaust escalate. Nevertheless, I would appreciate being left out of The Game. It is a touchy subject for me, and I apologize for my inability to find humor in these topics. If joining this website means that I am an automatic player in "The Game," then I will leave, and you have won.
RE: Michael Moore By: Seth Dillingham on 10/31/2001; 2:36 PM On 10/31/2001 at 1:31 PM, Rachelle King wrote: >I understand the point of playing such games to jest at the stupidity >involved in letting a situation like the Holocaust escalate. >Nevertheless, I would appreciate being left out of The Game. Actually, I think the Game is just to point out the stupid arguments people use when pseudo-debating. For example, the leader of whatever faction one disagrees with is compared with Hitler ("Even Hitler loved his dog."). Seth
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/31/2001; 3:02 PM At 12:15 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Mark wrote: >Back to the original topic. No, one bad decision does not invalidate what >Michael Moore has done. It's just screamingly funny that when the tables >are turned, he was provoked into exactly the same kind of behavior he >provokes in others. I have lost a measure respect for the man. I have always thought of Moore in much the same way I think of Rush Limbaugh -- as an entertainer first and foremost. Calling the cops on his former employee for harassment is disappointing largely because it's such an uncreative response (in fact when Moore stays on message as a humorist, it's hard to fault him -- see his take on the Afghan war at http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_1008.html -- but when he ventures outside that persona, he always seems to land in hot water).
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/31/2001; 3:04 PM At 12:15 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, Mark Morgan wrote: >(Aside: good grief, you're right Brian, that Salon article was darn near >journalism! I'm surprised it's still in their archives.) Ssshh... don't let David Talbot find out.
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/31/2001; 3:40 PM Seth: "Actually, I think the Game is just to point out the stupid arguments people use when pseudo-debating. For example, the leader of whatever faction one disagrees with is compared with Hitler ("Even Hitler loved his dog.")." I don't think the topic of choice used to "pseudo-debate" is a very responsible one. Like I said, it just strikes a bad note with me, so I would appreciate not being subjected to such debates.
RE: Michael Moore By: Matthew Patterson on 10/31/2001; 4:16 PM > I don't think the topic of choice used to "pseudo-debate" is a very > responsible one. Like I said, it just strikes a bad note with me, so I would > appreciate not being subjected to such debates. Perhaps you're confused as to the use of The Game? We don't actually start debates about Hitler, "the burning times," and whatnot to score points in. It's a scoring guide for people who observe debates about other things that have gotten out of hand to the point where the participants are accusing each other of being like various historical evils. For persons who prefer to argue about issues, not other people, this is a way to have some fun with those threads. I think in the whole history of The Game there have only been a few people who entended to score points, and those were all jokes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Carnell on 10/31/2001; 4:26 PM At 01:19 AM 10/31/2001 -0500, Rachelle King wrote: >In no such way did I imply that racism is "just another view >point." Racism, has unfortunatley, evolved into an inherent quality for >the Homo sapiens. Being that we fear what is different naturally, or I >should say beacuse of our social and cultural conditioning racism is has >become natural for those of us that buy into cultural norms we are raised in. Okay, there she's got a valid criticism. That statement was putting words into her mouth because I was mis-remembering her comments from a previous thread. Sorry about that.
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 10/31/2001; 6:53 PM Brian: It's all good!
RE: Michael Moore By: ScottN on 11/1/2001; 1:38 PM The Game is a variation of Godwin's Law, from the days of USENET, which essentially states that when someone uses Hitler as an analogy, the thread as over, and that person "loses" the debate.
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 11/1/2001; 3:12 PM Okay, and that means what exactly to me? I lost? Oh no! Darn. I get the point of "The Game", already, geesh!
RE: Michael Moore By: Mark Morgan on 11/1/2001; 7:54 PM Actually, Rachelle, I think the point is that the Game is not funny out of context. Really, I don't make it a habit to harass the new writers, although it must seem like it! The Pointless Accusations of Evil Game is another in-joke that I used badly. It wasn't really appropriate for the topic at hand. For the record, I'm engaged to be married to a Wiccan, so mocking the "burning times" is another kind of in-joke, this one with a loved one. (Brian's one up on me--he's already married to one.) In-jokes can be a good thing, but they're dangerous; it's very bad when a community descends into just a few core members sharing the same jokes and making outsiders feel unwelcome. Please, feel welcome! It's always a challenge to decide when to bring the Game up. For people who know its purpose it's an effective diffuser of tension. Mostly. Timed wrong, like any humor, it flies like a brick. Like, um, this time. Since we're completely off-topic, I'm going to stop typing now.
RE: Michael Moore By: Rachelle King on 11/1/2001; 10:53 PM That's okay, Mark. The first time you harrassed me, you weren't really harrassing me; I just took it the wrong way. You really didn't harrass me the second time either. I think it was someone else that called me absurd, but I was already aware of my absudity (TEE-HEE). It really doesn't bother me that I was ganged up on, I can handle my own. You all should just be more careful with things you say to people. Especially with inside jokes.
RE: Michael Moore By: R. Miller on 6/16/2003; 4:55 PM Do you read Stephen King? I know many lit snobs do not, but I find his characterization quite amazing. In his novel "Dead Zone", a political leader is noted as being an "everyday joe", an "everyday guy". Then the main character had visions of this lunatic causing global murders paramount to Hitler. I bring this to your attention not because I believe that the "Dead Zone" actually happened or that I have visions of my own, but to liken the politician in the novel to Mr. Moore. The fact that he wears flannel to meetings says that he has poor taste, not that he can't afford better or that he is on our side or his concern for our kids is important to him or he gives a hoot whether we have jobs or not. He wants to be dramatic, cause a scene, and be popular. Thus he has risen the "popular" flag of liberal ideas. And his logic stinks. Read the following posted on the web by a brilliant student named Rachel in response to Mr. Moore's rant called "Your Children Are Not Safe". This was in response to the sniper shooting on the east coast. Now, I HAVE children, and would really just like to make two points. 1. Please, Mr. Moore do not protect MY children. I'll do it myself. If they hang around you someone might bop them with a rotten cabbage and, 2. You don't have any kids, do you? It's obvious. From Rachel (quoted are from M. Moore's article/rant): "The note from the sniper could not have been more clear: 'Your children are not safe, anywhere at anytime.' How did snipers get to be so smart? Have truer words amidst such madness been spoken before? 'Your children are not safe.'" Actually, yes. FAR truer words have been spoken before and in other places. Like the whole world until the invention of antibiotics. Israel today, every day. Russia during communism and even now: "Mortality rates for children and teenagers are higher in Russia than in the U.S., with rates particularly high for accidental deaths. The accidental death rate for children ages 1-14 in Russia is comparable to the death rate for all causes of death combined in the United States." "And so the parents of the DC area are now in a state of holy terror." No, they're not. You just want them to be so that your whole "letter" makes sense. My sister lives in Richmond, Virginia. She sent her kid to a movie the day after the shooting there. Where's that "holy terror"? "And this morning, for the first time, there is talk that perhaps election day in the Capital area should be postponed -- or at, the very least, the polls must be manned by armed troops. Fear reigns. The democratic process can wait. Our children are not safe." I bet you really wish you'd waited just one day to publish this, Mike. Oh and by the way - though I am a major news hound, I somehow missed all the frantic plans to postpone the democratic process. "Yes, our children ARE not safe. They have not been safe for some time." For some time...which time would that be? You know, when they WERE safe? I'm just curious because the last time I checked my history books, children were basically treated like livestock until about 200 years ago in most of the world. The congenitally malformed ones were left out to die. Girls were sold off at puberty to old men. Mild cases of pneumonia ended in death. Until a short while ago, you had about a 50% chance of making it to the age of 16. So remind me please, Mr. Moore - when were our children safe? "Every single day in America, at least 8 children (19 yrs. old and younger) are killed by gun violence in the United States. EVERY SINGLE DAY in America between 30 and 40 people are murdered by someone using a gun. " Yep. And every single day in America 119 people are killed in traffic accidents, 45 in accidental falls, 11 in drownings, 9 in fires, 9 due to complications of medical procedures, and 10 from inhalation and digestion of objects. Not to mention 27, EVERY SINGLE DAY, from drugs and medications. So by all means, let's get rid of the guns. "EVERY SINGLE DAY in America another 40 to 50 people use a gun to kill themselves." Who cares? You wanna off yourself, be my guest. "None of this has created a panic. These 80+ deaths a day by gunfire do not lead off the evening news." Perhaps that's because most people are never affected by gunfire. Rather, most of us are aware of this reality. And this one (second graph). That bar for cardiovascular disease sure does look a lot longer than the one for homicides. "But it is not just because of his actions or the actions of those who collaborate each day in his -- and our -- carnage that makes our children unsafe." Well of course. And please do enlighten us as to what does make our children unsafe: "Your children are not safe because we live in a country where we value bombs and missiles more than we do textbooks and teachers." Yes that's right. I'd MUCH rather have a bomb than a good teacher for my future kids. "Your children are not safe because we still will not provide them with the most basic of human rights, one that nearly every other country on earth has: that ALL children have a right to free health care should they get sick." Hellooooo???? Mikey? Anyone home? Point 1: "Nearly every other country on earth"? What are you smoking? Are you one of those people who consider certain European countries to represent the whole world? Point 2: You take your kid to an emergency room with a pain in his little toe, he'll get treated. You're too poor to buy insurance? Taxpayers like me will fund you through Medicaid and pray for you to stop breeding. Point 3: Free health care is NOT a basic human right. You just want stupid poor people to think it is, so that they will vote Democrat. And they will because they are stupid. "Your children are not safe because we stuff them full of McDonald's and Ritalin and then wonder why they have diabetes at 13 or shoot up the school a week before graduation." Shock and surprise! You're actually onto something there with the McDonald's. In fact, "Unhealthy eating and inactivity contribute to 310,000 to 580,000 deaths each year according to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That’s 13 times more than are killed by guns and 20 times more than by drug use." "Your children are not safe because they saw us adults allow a man to steal the White House, and then we did nothing about it. They learned that lying and stealing are OK, but 'one person, one vote' is a sham." Oh. For. Christ's. Sake. Point 1: George W. Bush won the election. Every recount shows that to be the case. There is no factual data contradicting such. GET. OVER. IT. Point 2: Bill Clinton lied under oath, and lied to the American people on television. He had "sexual relations" in the Oval Office with someone other than his wife. He was impeached, and has been disbarred. There were entire articles written about how to explain all of this to children. So kindly cram it, Mike. "Your children are not safe because one in six of them live in poverty, while Bush's friends and business partners make off with loot from the pension funds and the stock market." Yes of course. Children aren't poor because their parents are irresponsible breeding machines, they're poor because some people the president associates with make intelligent or unethical financial decisions. Of course! Children are poor because rich people exist. And apparently we're not allowed to call investment returns anything other than "loot." Oh by the way, Mike, I'm wondering how much money you've made from your best-selling books, and how much you have invested in the stock market. Just curious. Also I'd like to know how much of that "loot" you donate to childrens' charities. "Yes, the sniper has got it figured out. The children have been targets for some time, and the "snipers" who take their lives, ruin their lives, run loose." Yes, we have it figured out. You take a crime story that is actually quite insignificant in the big picture, discuss how bad guns are as though they make people do bad things, bash Bush a little, whine about The Children™, complain about rich people even though you're rich yourself, and then equate everything bad about life with the sniper. Cogency and cohesiveness are optional. "If you want to do something to make our children's lives a bit safer, one thing you can do is to participate in one of the various demonstrations taking place this Saturday around the country protesting Bush's war against Iraq (check out my website, www.michaelmoore.com, for details). Nearly a half-million Iraqi kids have died already in the last decade, thanks to our sanctions which have starved them and our bombs which have killed them." Last time I checked, a majority of Americans supported the war so you can probably stop calling it "Bush's war". Also, according to widely available data, Iraqi children are dying because Saddam Hussein won't do anything to end the sanctions, while in the meantime, he builds millions of dollars' worth of palaces. Also, I'm pretty sure a few thousand Iraqi children have died because Saddam Hussein gassed them. But wait! We wouldn't want to hold that insane tyrant responsible in any way. It's America's fault The Children™ are dying! "Now Bush the Sniper has a new message to the Iraqi people: 'Your children are not safe, anywhere at anytime.' Umm, I'm pretty sure this is not a new message, and I'm quite certain Bush isn't the one delivering it. Might have something more to do with the fact that if you say "boo" to Saddam, you get your head chopped off. Or that people are starving and dying of minor infections because Saddam won't do what it takes to lift the sanctions. But I know that it's very entertaining for liberals to write sentences that simultaneously call Bush some sort of murderer and blame the problems in Iraq on America. It must be exquisitely painful to be so crazed with liberal indoctrination that you can't think straight. "Death in DC, death from DC. It is all too much, and it all has to stop. If Bush and his NRA buddies hadn't prevented the formation of a national database for ballistics fingerprinting, the police would have been able to trace the sniper's bullets to the actual gun that he is using. He might have been caught by now. But no -- we must protect the rights of the sniper to make sure that his constitutionally-protected assault weapon is not registered or on any kind of list anywhere, anytime." Well, he did get caught a few hours after you wrote thia, and not because of any federal database. Is that embarrassing to you? Anyway, we all know that if we only had ballistics fingerprinting, criminals would continue to use their own guns, which they know are registered in the national database. Right? They want to get caught, don't they? "I am sick and tired of the children not being safe. I want this insanity ended now. Remove the Republicans and Republican-wannabes on November 5th, pack the rallies this Saturday, and tell your children that we are sorry that this is the world we have created for them and that we will now do whatever we can to make it a safer place." Yes. Let's "remove" an entire party from the political system. Sounds like democracy to me! And then, when that entire party is "removed" from the scene, The Children™ will magically be safe. Assuming, of course, that the only remaining party in American government immediately proceeds to legislate out of existence psychotic people, murderers, child abusers, poverty, disease, swimming pools, lakes, rivers, oceans, dogs, snakes, knives, trees, motor vehicles, airplanes, bicycles, Rollerblades, fists, teeth, genetic mutation, dangerous weather, rope, bite-sized toys, unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol, swing sets, electricity, and all those other pesky things that endanger us. So vote Democrat! You'll save the world!
RE: Michael Moore By: ScottN on 6/17/2003; 11:15 PM What the heck happened there?
RE: Michael Moore By: Seth Dillingham on 6/18/2003; 9:48 AM What happened? Mark sneezed on the database. I've cleaned up the mess. Seth
RE: Michael Moore By: Brian Webber on 6/19/2003; 6:47 PM A response to R. Miller. "and, 2. You don't have any kids, do you? It's obvious. " Uh, he has a daughter. Does that count as having kids? As for the rest of your post, I won't even bother. To my eyes, which are blooshot from a serious lack of sleep, it just looks like more of the same old Republicratic nonsense, and your lack of knowledge you are taking apart point by point doesn't help. BTW, another thing you got wrong is implying that Moore is a Democrat. He's not. And neither am I so don't even think about going there.
RE: Michael Moore By: Richard Davidson on 6/21/2003; 2:35 PM Brian: R. Miller sums it up when he says: Taxpayers like me will fund you through Medicaid and pray for you to stop breeding. Why even debate with a person who says a thing like that? I know I wouldn't waste MY time! He reiterates the point over and over again that those who don't think like him are what? STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! Yeah, that's refreshing, and that's certainly going to get me engaged in a point by point discussion. Apparantly, R. Miller is the only taxpayer supporting these horrible, stupid leeches on society, and the rest of us are either with him, or against him. Whatever. R. Miller, consider your entire posts dismissed as the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, as filtered through the mind of a bitter, anonymous internet poster. By the way, did you have any original works you wanted to publish here? Because that's what this is; a creative writing site. Perhaps you'd find more sympathy at http://www.freerepublic.com
RE: Michael Moore By: Mark Morgan on 6/21/2003; 6:37 PM It is always depressing when I have to say this to people I otherwise like, but Richard: " R. Miller, consider your entire posts dismissed as the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, as filtered through the mind of a bitter, anonymous internet poster." Namecalling? I have let R. Miller's reply sit because he's responding to Michael Moore and not to a poster here. It's a tricky and subtle difference, but I decided long ago in reference to another forum that a certain amount of public-figure anger is the expected outcome of talking about public figures. Brian, you make the same mistake with "[T]he same old Republicratic nonsense, and your lack of knowledge..", moving the criticism from the public sphere (Michael Moore) to the personal. Rather expect better from the both of you. R. Miller's criticisms seem right on topic for such a politically charged piece of writing. I would much rather see strong political writing continue here regardless of which side of the spectrum it falls, and just expect people to disagree. As long as the disagreement doesn't lead to namecalling it's part and parcel of publishing works from people with diverse views on the world. I mean, I originally started Unreason because I kept writing these incredibly long heated rants over at Nitcental about important things like Star Trek and Marilyn vos Savant. I often wish we had more workshop-type threads and fewer "Well, you're wrong!" threads but both types are helpful to writers. If I wanted to live in an echo chamber and just hear myself talk I'd disable the discussion area completely. (By the way, Richard, most of the goal of the Development Roadmap you seem concerned about is to encourage more workshopping without losing the original focus of writing stuff. But I digress.) R. Miller, I'm not terribly bothered by your commentary about Michael Moore. With such strong feelings, you should organize your thoughts and post an original essay.
RE: Michael Moore By: Richard Davidson on 6/24/2003; 1:02 AM Mark, I apologize. I have no problem with bashing Michael Moore, or any other celebrities, politicians, or whatever. In fact, I'm not all that fond of Moore. It was this one line, which is an expression of prejudice and hatred, that inceensed me enough to level a personal attack, and I'll print it again: Point 2: You take your kid to an emergency room with a pain in his little toe, he'll get treated. You're too poor to buy insurance? Taxpayers like me will fund you through Medicaid and pray for you to stop breeding. That pisses me off, and bad. It is aimed at ALL poor people. Let us examine the sentence, "You're too poor to buy insurance?" That sentence identifies ANYBODY who is too poor to afford insurance, and puts them all into a group. He then expresses his wish for such people to stop breeding. You don't have a problem with that? Well, you should. It is an expression of hate and prejudice, as I mentioned above, and it drags the level of this site down to that of Rush Limbaugh's message board. It also FORCED me into the position of attacking, because to stand by and let a person present Nazi philosophy as a valid political point of view is to enable the forces of Hell itself. As the site owner, you always have every right to move a post of mine to the Bleachers, and Mark, I will never hold it against you. Do you understand? I think your site is great, and I appreciate how you work to maintain it, and make it a great place to write. My only purpose here is to post fiction, poems and essays when I get the notion, and I try to stay away from political discourse here. But frankly, I find the notion of sterilizing the poor quite a bit more filthy and vile than simple schoolyard namecalling. And I'm quite tired of people wasting such a valuable medium trying to take us back to the 19th Century. Progress moves FORWARD, people, NOT backward. Rant against Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon ALL YOU WANT! (and this is directed to every person that reads it) But take any ideas you may have about forced sterilization of people you don't approve of, and cram them up your (post edited due to already having said too much)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|