> reminds me of an appropriate Theodore Roosevelt
> quote:
>
> To announce that there must be no criticism of the
> president, or that
> we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
> not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American
> public. (1918)
>
> Which from my reading of your notes is exactly what
> you're doing.
> Moore is following a long tradition in documentary
> film work,
> expressing a point of view. You're calling Moore a
> traitor for his
> criticising bush and his shrubberies.
>
Not true.
We all know Michael Moore is trying to get Bush out of
office. I'm just pointing out that it might not end
there. Maybe he want's a different world power. So
start by subdividing the people. He see's an opening
with so many Bush haters and he's running with it. I'm
just think we need to look at the buig picture.
-sm
> Given the philosophies I would prefer to follow -
> Roosevelts
> progressive republicanism vs Shrub's exclusivity,
> and benefit to
> special interests, is there any argument.
>
> larry
>
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not talking about the movie. I'm talking about
> the
> > person. My point is if he's going to suggest
> things
> > but not actually prove anything just plant the
> thought
> > in your mind, don't we need to examine the source?
> >
> > If you read something on the internet you don't
> > believe unless you see it mentioned on at least
> one
> > trusted site. If Moore is the source let's see if
> we
> > can trust the source. No that you see he has a
> disdain
> > for Americans as a whole what do you think is his
> > motive for bashing Bush? Do you really think it
> ends
> > there or is he helping to turn the rest of the
> world
> > against America. First Bush and the conservatives,
> > then the entire country will collapse. Maybe to
> the
> > EU?
> >
> > I don't know it to be true and I know it seems far
> > fetched but I'm just planting thoughts like he
> does.
> > Just pointing out it's something we've seen before
> and
> > should watch out for.
> >
> > That's all. Who knows, it's probablly all an act
> to
> > sell movies. Maybe he loves America.
> >
> > -sam
> >
> > --- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But he doesnt hate Americans.
> > >
> > > At least, you can't prove it by Fahrenheit. The
> > > soldiers in Iraq and
> > > in the VA hospital, the New Yorkers on the
> street,
> > > the kids in Flint,
> > > the military mother, even the Congress, are all
> > > portrayed with
> > > compassion. None of them are stupid. Or
> monsters.
> > >
> > > If you really refuse to go see it maybe you
> could
> > > take a look at what
> > > William Rasberry has to say about it; I thought
> that
> > > was a propos. The
> > > idea that it is necessary to make a movie to
> talk
> > > about how great
> > > America is just demonstrates that the people who
> had
> > > it probably
> > > haven't seen the movie either.
> > >
> > > Reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians on
> home
> > > shooling lists who
> > > insist that Harry Potter is evil because the kid
> has
> > > a wand.
> > >
> > > Dana
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Subject: RE: Know Your Enemy
> > > To: CF-Community
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >
> > > >Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Obviously the issue is his new film, but I
> would
> > > have
> > > >expected to see
> > > >critiques of the film and facts it presents.
> > > Rather
> > > >what you've done is
> > > >collect the filmmaker's opinions without
> offering a
> > > >reason for doing so.
> > > Since only rabid Bush Haters will see the film
> and
> > > you
> > > folks only want to discuss it with people that
> have
> > > seen it that leaves it a Bush hating discussion.
> > > So, I started a new thread.
> > > Of course there is the mention of 100
> republicans
> > > getting free tickets? I wonder how many people
> > > actually paid to see the film.
> > > Will the DNC claim these tickets as advertising
> or
> > > is
> > > it considered soft money spending?
> > >
> > > The reason is the Title: Know Your Enemy
> > >
> > > >I've not seen the movie yet, but I wonder if
> this
> > > is
> > > >because the film does,
> > > >actually, tell the truth? Were there so few
> > > >criticisms of the work to levy
> > > >that you had to go after the man? Is it just
> to
> > > show
> > > >that the film comes
> > > >from a certain perspective? Is there somebody,
> > > >anybody that thinks this
> > > >film is in any way a balanced accounting?
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > >All of these statements are opinions. None
> have
> > > >enough depth to draw any of
> > > >the conclusions you have (so I would say that
> the
> > > >answer to all your
> > > >questions is "there's not enough information
> here
> > > to
> > > >answer your question").
> > >
> > > They're his opinions and he hates Americans. How
> > > much
> > > more info do you need?
> > >
> > > -sm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Jim Davis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
