Michael Moore...

Not liking what you’ve seen on your limited visits to the American west is one thing…but what does that have to do with your anti-U.S. sentiment in general? I happen to love certain things about Canada: the backcountry, the beer, the lower drinking age, the moose, You Can’t Do That on Television, Mike Myers, etc. However, I don’t like certain things: their government, hockey, the French, the word “ay” after everything, snow, etc. Nobody’s perfect. I sense some bitter resentment, though. Like Jan Brady being jealous of her older sister Marsha. I’m just glad that there are Canadians that do show respect and support for their neighbor, such as Cupcake.

The U.S. is the greatest nation in the world. Period.

What does that have to do with the anti-US sentiment in general?

You people are absolutely intolerable. There is no other way to describe it. You have this insane notion that America is the world’s most wonderful place to live! What the fuck?!

I shouldn’t even try. You wouldn’t understand.

The U.S. is the greatest nation in the world. Period.

This is exactly what I’m talking about.

Back up your statement. Otherwise it’s cliche and you lose.

“You people are absolutely intolerable.”

There you go again. Are you really that closed-minded?

You’re right, I’m insane. That’s why when you go across the border into Canada or Mexico nobody gives a fuck, but when you come back to the U.S. you have to provide multiple forms of ID and practically give up your left testicle. Sure Canada’s a nice place to visit, but who the hell wants to live there? You know it’s true. When you’re on top everyone wants a piece of you. So I can understand your inferiority complex.
But you’re right about one thing…I probably wouldn’t understand if you tried to explain your generalization about Americans being intolerable. That’s bekuz yer so durn smart tho. That’s what smart people do, right? They make sweeping generalizations.

This is like trying to pound a railroad spike into concrete with a marshmallow, so I give up. But I’ll “back up” my statement for you: certain phrases become cliches for a reason…they’re true.

alberta,
It’s easy to prove that we are the best country in the world. Take a peek at immigration. Think of all the people who have DIED trying to enter our country. It happens every day. Countries from all over the world send their best and brightest to be educated in the United States. I’m not even going to mention our scientific achievements. Oh, I suppose I could bring up our military dominance. I might even touch on our GDP. How about our cultural dominance? My god, this is fun. It goes on and on.
By the way, stay in Canada. We don’t want you.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Michael Moore? Stop fighting over who’s better, guys. Let’s just say Canada is a lovely place to live in. And the US is equally splendid…(provided no one by the name of “Bush” is in office.)
But that is just my humble opinion. =)

And now in an attempt to redirect the conversation back on topic~~~To all of you who posted saying how much you’d like to kick the shit out of Moore for what he said at the Academy Awards…Have you ever heard the terms “Red Scare” or “McCarthyism” before? Just wondering…b/c this seems to me to be just that: the McCarthy Era revisited. This may soon turn into a witch-hunt for all those opposed to Bush’s tactics. You are urging us to boycott and help blacklist Moore and others who have put their careers on the line to voice their conscience and speak out against what they feel is corruption in their government. By doing so, you are undermining the very liberties that made this country so beautiful. How absurd is it to call someone a “Saddam lover,” a “traitor” or even a “terrorist” simply because they don’t condone war and the murder of scores of innocent people?

Well that’s it for now. I apologize if I’m just repeating things others have said already… I’m in a rush and read some of the newer posts a little quickly.

On my way to work, but I need to respond to the last post in order to clarify something: Freedom of speech does not guarantee a freedom from criticism or reaction of private individuals to your opinions. The First Amendment guarantees only that “Congress shall pass no law” restricting peoples’ expression of their political opinions. That protection was prohibition was extended to the states by the Supreme Court by way of using the language of the 14th Amendment.

It does not protect you from boycotts, namecalling, general criticism, or others not wanting to play with you. Social pressure by private individuals or private groups of individuals does not violate the premise of the 1st Amendment.

To the extent that McCarthyism was in violation of the 1st Amendment, it was because McCarthy and others in Congress were using the power of governmental coercion against people purely on the basis of their political beliefs and not upon their actions. To the extent they prosecuted actual espionage activities, they were not in violation of the 1st Amendment either. Basically, that means sometimes they were violating the 1st Amendment, and sometimes they weren’t.

In calling for a boycott of Michael Moore by the Academy or by consumers, people are not violating the 1st Amendment. They may be trying to stifle debate, and I don’t agree with that, but they aren’t violating the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

OK – off to work to close a merger or something else exciting like that. Cheers.

I can’t remember who said this, but crossing the american border is less complicated than crossing the canadian border where I live. I live 15min away from the border crossing during the summer time, and anytime I cross the american border all I get is:
“Hi where ya from”: Canada.
“Where ya going:” I say some small town in the US.
“Have a good day.”

And I drive away; so my question is: how is it any easier to cross the canadian border than the america border?

Babydoll: Let me preface this by saying that I’ve read some of your posts in the “Hell Yeah War” section. I can understand why someone in your position would be anti-war - it has affected your life first hand. You have every right to be pissed off and frustrated.

What bothers me is the way most of the anti-war protestors resort to name calling, generalizations, and even violence. It’s difficult to engage in a debate with someone when they reveal their hidden agenda. That immediately throws up a red flag and the true basis for that person’s argument comes to light (being a democrat/liberal and hating W, being Canadian and hating the U.S., being Michael Moore and hating Bush, etc). People on the other side do it too. When you support the war because you say “I hate all Muslims” you just make yourself look like a moron and everything you say thereafter is disregarded.

I routinely have discussions with a good friend of mine. He is anti-war. We don’t resort to name calling or personal insults because that means the other person has gotten the best of us. I’ve heard all the anti-war arguments ad nauseum, but I still try to understand where the other side is coming from. So when my friend kept nagging me to read Michael Moore’s book “Stupid White Men” I finally caved, even though I should be studying for my board exam.

So back to Michael Moore. If you’ve read this book or seen his “documentaries,” you would know that what he did at the awards show was not “putting his career on the line.” Talking trash about the “Bush regime” IS his career. What he was doing was not ballsy or even controversial, but something much more despicable: he was advertising. The first two chapters are completely devoted to trashing the president and his staff. Moore makes some good points and the book itself is funny, but I get turned off when he drums up conspiracy theories based on assumption. For example, he quotes W in 99 as saying that he had committed “no felonies in the last 25 years.” And Moore takes that statement and runs with it. Maybe the question that was actually asked went something like, “can you tell us that your actions over the past 25 years have made you a worthy candidate for the presidency?” But hey, that’s what Moore does. He takes things out of their original context and surrounds them with all of his propaganda in order to sell his political agenda.

I’m against what Michael Moore said. But I am able to take it for what it is: entertainment. It’s easy to take shots at W. Most of us know that he is the fortunate son, a drunken fratboy, and basically a puppet for daddy’s old school republican buddies. But calling him an illiterate, alcoholic, and possible felon…grow up. He might say the word “nucular,” but he hasn’t drank since age 40 (a commendable thing), and we have no proof that he is a felon. He was arrested for DUI, stealing a wreath w/his frat brothers, and getting rowdy at a football game. Big fucking deal, I’ve done much worse.

Oh, and BabyDoll, those pics of Georgie were frickin funny as hell. I’m sending them to my friends.

BostonBarrister ~ I don’t recall stating anything directly regarding the first amendment. I see what you are saying but I’d like to clarify something as well. I simply feel that the way people are being shunned and blacklisted for voicing their beliefs is reminiscent of the days leading to the McCarthy Era. We have already taken that first step. Boycotting, name-calling, and criticism may be legal and ok…Fine. But I hardly think blacklisting, trying to ruin someone’s career, and besmirching their name is a very American thing to do. I’m no barrister, but isn’t defamation illegal?

Before you push the legal mumbo-jumbo on me, I’ll tell you what I already know about the subject. The law of defamation protects people against harm to their reputations. I know that in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be a false statement, not only someone’s opinion. (i.e. Suppose that X told Y something false about Z that caused Y to have a lesser opinion of Z. Z may file a defamation claim against X). This can further be broken down into slander (spoken statements that are defamatory) and libel (written statements that are defamatory)…Do I have it right? I don’t know all that much about this and maybe I’m not reading it correctly but the thing is, people HAVE lied/made false statements about Moore and other anti-war celebs. As I see it, (outside of stating their opinions) people ARE slandering anti-war protestors and that IS illegal but it is still going on. Now if you’re a lawyer, you will no doubt try to out-maneuver me verbally, find some clause in the aforementioned law, or tell me that I?m missing something…But honestly, if I am wrong or if I’ve neglected to mention something, I WOULD like to know it.

Just please remember, I had only said, “undermining the very liberties that make this country beautiful.” That is not the same as saying that the first amendment has been violated. I agree, they are trying to “stifle debate” as you said…But isn’t that akin to undermining our liberties? Initially, I’d just wanted to remind people of what happened in the 40s and 50s and ask that we try to avoid going that route. (“Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it”)

ScrubMD ~ Thank you for your sentiments. It was actually refreshing to read what you wrote. Glad you liked the pics of our fearless leader…I’d be happy to post some more. In response to what you said, I know that using obscenities, insults, etc. would distract/deter the reader from the intended message. And I’ve learned that one should avoid trying to make a serious point while one is in the depths of drunkenness. But if you read my posts from the beginning of the “Hell Yeah War” thread, you will see that I descended to name-calling and such only after others threw insults (regarding physical appearance) at me. Sorry, but I’m not a total pacifist.

Although I admit to using insults in my posts, I assure you, it wasn’t b/c I got frustrated and ran out of civilized ways to prove my point. Rather I decided that there was no use in trying to persuade people to see what they obviously didn?t care to see. And it is Oh-so-fun to be a brat. =)

As for Moore, maybe the sole purpose of his speech was to advertise ~ Terrific! That’s fine. And it was silly of me to have grimaced at how & where he made that speech about the war…Moore was given 1 minute in front of an audience of millions of people and he capitalized on it. No one can really say what his intentions were. Perhaps it was merely a publicity stunt, but maybe he actually cares about the plight of the Iraqis and wants other Americans to wake up and realize what is going on. Regardless, he was just one example of those being black-listed or what have you. There are several other celebrities who have truly put their careers on the line in order to protest the war. Many have dropped all other projects and have adopted the cause whole-heartedly. You could argue that they are all doing it for the publicity but what’s the sense in that? Most people will stop watching their movies, going to their concerts, and buying their CDs.

And you’re right ~ Some of us made fools of ourselves, but let’s keep in mind that BOTH parties were equally involved. (I could copy n paste examples but am too lazy at the moment).

P.S. ~ Scrub, just for you, I’ll post some more Dubya pics under “Hell Yeah War” in case you want to take a look. =)

Hey thanks Babydoll, I especially liked the Mini Me one. By the way, not to sound like R Kelly, but I don’t know what the hell those guys are talking about…you look good to me.

I’ll probably get flamed for saying that, but whatever. I call em as I see em.

Oh yeah, I find that the occasional “fuck” or “shit” here and there only helps to solidify the point. Of course, recreational use is best.

That Michael Moore and his 70% taxes…how’s that for crazy? Why doesn’t he just go to Canada for a couple of years? He’d shut up real quick. Let’s see, he’d probably be in the top tax bracket at start, so he’d be around 50% taxed for starters. Add to that around 15% taxes paid on almost any purchase…already at 65%…not bad…Go ahead, send him there. My bet is that he’d never do it…

Babydoll –

It’s kind of funny that you would be referring to “liberties” and “legal mumbo jumbo” as if they were necessarily opposed. =-) Anyway, you don’t have it quite right. The Constitution itself is there to limit what the government can do to you – that is how it ensures your “liberties.” It is not there to protect you from your fellow citizens – that is the job of state and local laws, and really doesn’t have anything in particular to do with being American.

As for defamation, it is a tort, not a crime. In other words, it is something for which you can sue someone for damages, much the same way as you can sue someone for violating a contract. However, it’s not criminal, and the law leaves it to a private person to enforce his own rights in that arena via a lawsuit for defamation. Now, you’ll note that as the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on the supposedly defamed person to demonstrate the falseness of the statement. As you said, it does have to be false – maliciously, demonstrably false. That is step one. Then, you have to have actual damage to reputation that can be quantified into a dollar figure for a verdict.

That is overly simplistic, but that’s it in a nutshell with regard to a private person. However, celebrities are not private people, and criticism of them falls under the rubric of protected speech under the First Amendment. One does not have as much free rein to defame a celebrity as to defame a politician, but one has much more free rein to defame a celebrity than to defame a private citizen who has not put himself into the public limelight. Again, this is a very simplistic summary of First Amendment law with respect to defamation, but there you go.

Now, as to your assertion that boycotts are somehow unAmerican, I beg to differ. To apply your statement broadly, you would mean that it is unAmerican for me to boycott David Duke and try to get him blacklisted – or, really, any old KKK Grand Wizard. Would you disagree with “blacklisting” a university professor who continually professed his beliefs that women were completely inferior to men in every way?The protections of the law that allow for people to express their preferences by voting with their pocket books or banding together with like-minded individuals to privately achieve a goal apply both to causes you like and causes with which you disagree. I’m sure you don’t consider it unAmerican to boycott fur producers, nuclear powerplants or whatnot – the same applies to those on the other side of the political fence.

And now that I’m done defending the right to boycott Michael Moore, I’ll once again say I don’t agree with it in practice. Moore is a buffoon, but the cure for “bad” speech, meaning flawed ideas, is more speech. It’s more debate, more ideas, more argument, more discussion. It’s the marketplace of ideas – let the the people hear all the arguments and make their own decisions.

And, I guess I’ll end with this thought, which is only a slight digression – for all the way that “McCarthyism” is thrown around as this horrible, scary word, McCarthyism didn’t account for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, which, if you aggregate Lenin, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, not to mention Castro, Ho Chi Minh and various other little tin-pot dictators, Communism most surely did. Communism accounted for far more horrible executions than did Fascism of Nazism. Remember Babydoll, as you said above, “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it,” – empahsis on the “doomed.”