• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Michael Moore

Rhadamanthus said:
so the republicans back then are the democrats now?

And most of the folks throwing rocks and garbage and racist slurs at the blacks protesting for their civil rights in the '50s & '60s were DEMOCRATS. Times change very quickly indeed, most vividly here in the South. Most of the old South Democrats, like Jesse Helms who early in his career acted as an assistant to pro-segregation Democratic Senators Willis Smith & Alton Lennon, switched to the Republican party when it became clear that Democrats weren't going to protect them from having to eat in the same room as black people.

The old guard Democrats are called Yellow Dogs around here. And they are still around, in fact, I spoke to many of them while phone banking for the Kerry campaign. They're daddies voted Democrat and godammit they're gonna vote Democrat, too, is the going philosophy there. Even though the politics of the Democratic party have changed to encapsulate the North Eastern Democratic ethic and really don't reflect the views of many of the Yellow Dogs. It's kind of weird.

It was largely in response to the distastefulness of racism and the huge popularity of John Kennedy & his progressive social vision for America that we have the Democratic party as it is today...except for the Yellow Dogs.

Zell Miller is a textbook example of a Yellow Dog Democrat. But it took him some forty friggin' years (most of those years in Washington!) to figure out that he was in the wrong party.
 
The Civil War was actually a matter of states rights Vs. federal control. Oddly enough, slavery was the issue that came to the fore front in this battle due to the artificial boundary set up where states below a certain paralell would be slave states and those above would be free. What was known as the "Cotton Kingdom" was the southern states dependnat mostly on agriculture for economic survival. These states depended on cheap slave labor in order to maintain profits. They were concerned about the economic hardship they felt the loss of slave labor would create. The issue reached critical mass when the cotton kingdom started running out of actual land to create more states and maintain some sort of balance in the senate. A loss in the senate over the slavery issue was immenant.

It doesn't seem to be well known, but many, perhaps all, of the seceding states published their own little Declaration of Independence at the time. They can be found on the web. Mississippi's Declaration is of particular interest here. I don't recall the exact wording here, but one of the opening statements went like this: This is about Slavery. Now that would seem plain enough, wouldn't it?

States Rights, of course, came into the picture more to justify their action than anything else: We are free and independent entities and if we decide to secede, that is our right.

The Southern desire to expand the domain of slavery into the Territories was certainly an irritant.
 
bryanf said:
Is it possible to be overly patriotic and passionate about the American way of life?

I can't say I agree with you on this one. I see America as being more than just a country. America is a way of life, one that people all over the world want to live. I've heard stories from the Ukraine, from Russia, from Iraq and Afghanistan of people who want to come and live the American "dream." People who make it a point to oppose the interests, or sovereignty, of our nation seem to me to take for granted the honor that they have to be Americans.

I agree America isn't just a country. It's a symbol. I know if we would bring those people from the Ukraine, Russia, Iraq, and Afghanistan to america they would be more than happy to live the american lifestyle.

bryantf said:
Moore has said that there are no terrorist threats to the United States, and is one of the most vocal critics of the war on terror. Does he have our national interests at heart? I would say that he is one of the many people who takes our freedom for granted, abusing his freedom of speech. But, you know what, he's an American, and he doesn't have to worry about being thrown in prison, or killed, for speaking his mind about our president, the way that Iraqis had to worry about speaking out against Saddam 2 years ago.

He is a self serving pig. This man would sell out his own family to make a couple bucks. He lies and when he is asked why he lies he completly denies it. Mikes only interest is an his wallet, he could care less about the American citizens.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
Alright, I know Michael Moore's a douche and all, but he doesn't lie. He just doesn't tell the whole truth. He's not a liar, he's a propagandist, which in my opinion is worse. But let's not make up fake things about him to insult him, he gives us enough as he is.

I think he cares somewhat about America, but I think moreso he cares about himself, and his ego. He lobbied really hard to get Farenheit 9/11 nominated for best picture, which made me glad it didn't. He's a pompous ass, and I think that he's the only thing worse than a socialist, which is a poser socialist, cause if he honestly didn't care about money, why is he keeping the money he makes from Farenheit 9/11. Cause he's a douchebag poser.

Lying by omission is still lying. And if you fact check "F 9-11" that's it biggest errors, IMO. It's not so much what he tells you it's what he doesn't tell you.

I've meant Micheal. After he came out with the "Big One" I had met him and traded some e-mail with him. I honestly think there was a time he really had good intentions. Some how after 9-11 he seem to adopt an "ends justifies the means mentality." I think he looked and Bush and saw him as being personally responsible for the attack. I don't like Bush but I think that assessment is way off base. But once Mike wrapped his head around that idea. I believe he decided that anything he could do to hurt Bush and get him out of office was justified. Once you cross that line bad things happen, IMO.

As for him being after the cash, I don't buy that. He could be, I just don't see him like that. He's basically said after "Roger and Me" money wise he was set. He use to fly coach every where and ride around in an older mini-van. He also used to give a lot of community projects in his home state. I have no idea if he still does. And I suppose he could have decided "WTF" might as well cash in.
 
Back
Top Bottom