- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,134
- Reaction score
- 15,023
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Fine, but that doesn't really address any of the reasons I've given for Michael Moore hating America.
Has Glenn Beck made dozends of books and documentaries for each individual, unrelated thing he dislikes about America, wherein he passionately points out every one of its flaws he can think of without praising it for anything?
Has he stated that Americans might possibly be the stupidest people in the world?
Okay, but that's not what you said. You said that, using the result, it's easy to conclude that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."
We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, "I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us."
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.
American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids -- it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education -- at many different kinds of schools -- but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business.
Now tell me... if all you know about a student is that they got a D in a single subject one year, could you easily conclude, without knowing anyone else's grades on that or any topic, and without knowing that student's grade on any other subject, that the student is the stupidest person in the school? (Basic logic says that the answer is "no".)
I didn't accuse you of being arrogant. I said that your comments made you sound as arrogant as Moore did with his comments.
Both sides accuse the opposite side of a lot of things. What is your point?
My point is that you used an ad hominem attack on my assertion, and offered no substantive counter argument. Your words don't invalidate anything, they only reveal that you don't know how (or are too lazy) to develop a reasonable argument of your own, and that it is probable that you are threatened by that in some way.
@Fidytree - perhaps, Franklin might have felt that Assange has been a bit reckless, although that has yet to be established. At this point in the story it is just as likely that great care has been exercised in determining what to release. And certainly he would have found Michael Moore to be a little to self-righteous. But he would have been very curious so discover what effect such an institution might have on global politics.
I mean lets face it, if you can't guarantee that you are able to keep anything hidden any longer, wouldn't that force us to adapt a system of diplomacy based on transparency?
Terrorists don't need state secrets to do what they do. They manage just fine with the same information everyone else has.. better, even. Attacking a secret place with strategic value but that no one knows is important isn't going to have the impact they desire. It takes an organized army to make use of that kind of information.
How do you know?? Did they tell you??
There is a huge difference between a free press and wikileaks. Wikileaks is making public classified information. PFC Bradley Manning will rot in prison for his treasonous act. He should be executed by firing squad. Wikileaks is an anarchist organization that our founding fathers would absolutly not approve of.
It's a good thing Michale Moore is always wrongLet's not change that now.
I highly doubt the founders would have supported the British army stealing and leaking military information about the Colonial forces or leaking other information. For one, Assange is not an American and is not protected by our Constitution. His actions are also putting lives at risk and are bad for our nation. I don't think the founders would approve of a foreigner leaking critical information out.
Not necessarily. It could be in fact encourage the same reaction as before, if not more stringent. Nevertheless, your point could stand if say it is like a nuclear option, in such that nuclear weapons have complicated the political-military means of determining action and methodology.
there wouldn't have been a McDonalds within a million miles of him.
Which if you study American history is the ultimate job of the Press when it comes to governments.
As for Manning goes, yes he is a traitor. I've stated as much in quite a few threads already. But Manning does not equal wikileaks.
If someone knowingly bought stolen property wouldn't they be as bad the thief who stole it. If someone knowingly drove a bank robber to the bank and helped them carried the cash out and drive that bank robber off to safety then isn't that person as bad as the bank robber even if he never pointed a gun at anyone or told anyone to giver up their money?
Why is it shocking to you that he stood with the Democrating party in 2004? Does it need to be more obvious that he wanted Bush out more than anything? If you think he's such a Democrat lover and a shill for the party, why don't you google what he's been saying for the last year or so. There is no doubt Moore is liberal and firm in his stance. However I have not seen anything to indicate that he's partisan.
Moderator's Warning: Justabubba is now thread banned
If someone knowingly bought stolen property wouldn't they be as bad the thief who stole it. If someone knowingly drove a bank robber to the bank and helped them carried the cash out and drive that bank robber off to safety then isn't that person as bad as the bank robber even if he never pointed a gun at anyone or told anyone to giver up their money?
And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb. :lamo
The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."
Read post 80. Their own words shows that they would have supported wikileaks.
What, all that stuff about the free press? Got nothing to do with what they thought of spies.
transitive verb
1: to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
2: to catch sight of : see
3: to search or look for intensively —usually used with out <spy out places fit for vending … goods — S. E. Morison>
intransitive verb
1: to observe or search for something : look
2: to watch secretly as a spy
So, Assaunge is a spy now? I would have to say that he makes a pretty piss poor spy....
Merriam-Webster: defination of spy
Parts of this defination would apply to assaunge certainly...of course those same parts would also apply to every other single news agency out there...and a lot of individual people ta boot. However there is no part of it that would apply for what you are talking about.
God, I am so sick of this bull**** "what the founders would have wanted/thought crap".
Who the **** cares? They're dead and gone, get over it. Jesus H. Christ.
God, I am so sick of this bull**** "what the founders would have wanted/thought crap".
Who the **** cares? They're dead and gone, get over it. Jesus H. Christ.
Considering the dude is in the specific business of collecting and publishing state secrets, then yes, they'd have considered him a spy, and they wouldn't have wrangled with any matters of conscience over it. People of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then.
They'd laugh at the idea that he's a "journalist" and that his modus operandi is what's contemplated by the "free press."
Considering that they wanted the press to be free specifically to be the watchdog of the government it is easily understandable that the press publicating secrets would be a part of that job. As you say...people of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then. To think that a group that is meant to be kept free and to be the watchdog of the government and yet wouldn't publish secrets, well, that would be stupid. Wouldn't you say?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?