US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
The solution is to elect candidates who are democrats (assuming you are a democrat) who have left leaning views and not just a party follower. Sure if you guy/gal gets elected, he/she will have to work with the party but that person will caucus with progressives. If we get more and more progressives in, they will eventually be able to move/change teh party platforms.
same goes for moderate republicans. show up and nominate moderates...with enough of them, they will move their party to the center.
So you're resigned to the US indefinitely remaining a 2-party state? What about voting for progressives who aren't democrats? The Greens for example, Independents, Justice Party etc.
Mockney is a handsome man.
I'm drunk.
I'm drunk.
Michael Moore is the leader of the self-righteous, inconsistent, lowest common denominator wing of liberalism. He is the adult equivalent of the college kids who read A People's History and are absolutely convinced that their view is the only correct view and have no time for nuance.
Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are the only two films I've see of his. The first had some good points but was more of his beat you over the head with a two by four style of journalism. The second was the most offensive piece of garbage I've ever paid money to see.
I'll let Christopher Hitchens explain it better than I could.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.single.htm
Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are the only two films I've see of his. The first had some good points but was more of his beat you over the head with a two by four style of journalism. The second was the most offensive piece of garbage I've ever paid money to see.
I'll let Christopher Hitchens explain it better than I could.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.single.htm
Why didn't you like Fahrenheit 9/11?
Because of the things mentioned in the Hitchenspiece.
Some web addresses being case sensitive is no basis for such a strong opinion.
Thanks Eboue. I'd agree with all that, though I've seen worse than Fahrenheit 9/11. Though he and I would agree on most policies, I find him a complete embarrassment. Devalues my values as it were, and his clownery is a convenient target for the right.
Your link doesn't work.
Sorry I'm on my iPod. Google The Lies Of Michael Moore. It is a Hitchens article on Slate
I'd bang Hitchens.
Eboue, are you one of those, "I'll let linked articles by other people do my arguing" people, one who's so committed to this form of debate that you keep a database of links proving your various assertions, a database you don't bother to check regularly as articles are moved/archived/deleted?
It's had insane coverage in the media, I just don't understand it.
To be honest, considering that Chris Hitchens falls into the Paul Wolfowitz school of neocon foreign policy, and considering the fact he actually thought Bush's foreign policy was sensible, I'm hardly surprised that Hitchens didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11, which funnily enough happens to extensively criticize those very things.
What? Have I done this before? I don't recall being a links-only poster.
However, I'm on my iPod at the moment so I googled Michael Moore Hi and then googles autocomplete suggested the rest for me. I clicked on the link, read the first paragraph to make sure it was the one I recalled and then I copy pasted the link to here. Maybe I misclicked, copy and pasting is hard on an iPod touch.
Bizarre accusation.
I wish somebody would clear it up for me. I think the greater point of the repubs is that Obama is sucking up to Islam, the Muslim's, the caliphate or whomever.
I just don't see what the big deal is here.
Obama killed Bin Ladin.
They are trying to vital down his reputation as a lion in FP by saying he made blunders.
Fair enough, Hitchens did have a bit of a right wing period but I would challenge you to point out why his points are wrong.
I just skimmed the article a minute ago and a few quick criticisms are the Bush flew Saudis out if the country myth, the take both sides with no coherent philosophy style, the ridiculous asking parents to sign kids up for the draft, the idea that Iraq pre invasion was a idyllic paradise and the ambush of Charlton Heston are things I agree with.
My mistake, it was RK who did the same thing you did on the last page. I think it's cuz your avatars both have very slappable faces.
I'd think so, but they've flirted with the 'cover-up' angle for so long now that I'm not sure what they are really trying to say. It's interesting how much FOX in particular have exaggerated this incident and tried to scare their viewers.
The whole semantics bit about Obama's statement on the 'act of terror' and the timing of it is just plain ridiculous, what does it matter at all?
I thought the Benghazi thing was first about two things, the judgement of those behind the withdrawal of security personnel and the confusion of the official response afterwards which some believed had the whiff of cover up.
Of course the timing amplifies the attention and importance.
Of course the timing amplifies the attention and importance.
A cover-up of what?
I thought the stunt where he asked politicians (parents yes, but more specifically pro-war politicians) to sign their kids up for the army made a very good point to be honest. These neocon wankers are quick to start wars. But it isn't their kids doing the fighting, usually. If they had some skin in the game maybe they'd find themselves feeling a bit more dovish.
Why not just ask them if they have relatives in the war, instead of asking them to do something they don't have the power to do?
Yeah it shows that they're aren't fighting the war. In Vietnam it was urban blacks, in Iraq and Afghanistan it was rural whites.
He was wrong, firstly because he assumes the neocon initiative in Iraq was benevolent - it wasn't. I don't know anything about the Saudi myth, first time I'm hearing it and I'm not sure what you mean by the 'take two sides philosophy'. Iraq was no utopia prior to the invasion, but it was stable, terrorism was non-existent, people had access to free healthcare and education (including university) etc. The war destroyed the country, destablised it, instigated a civil war, and now much of the nation live under poverty, with unemployment rates reaching as high as 50% . Oh and its now a terrorist-stricken hellhole.
I never understood why Hitchens morphed into this neocon apologist in the last decade or so, he seemed to come across very intelligent and reasonable when debating theocracy/religion. Bizarre..
That it was them....no that would be incredible though. I suppose it would be the negligence shown by the Obama administration to an attack which had enough prior evidence to suggest was going to happen, or at least suggested more security was needed, and the consequent explanations given by Obama and Hilldog on why it happened - which didn't confirm what they supposedly knew at the time, which was that this was a planned terrorist attack. The overall theme being that they played around with the reasons behind those events, and the language/reasons used to describe what happened was to protect the administration from any backlash. That's what I get from what I've seen anyway, it's all very retarded.
That Obama said teh attack was because of that video instead of it being a planned act of terror.
The thing is he did say it the next day. but Romney and his team just repeated the nonsense from the right wing blogosphere...and got fecked on national televison.
But even if Obama was wrong in what he said why is that bad? If he blamed the attack on the video it's not like he doesn't think AQ is a threat. As far as I can tell he's initiated a million drone strikes on AQ, killed their figurehead, and done what it takes to stop them from being a force in the world.
A feck-up on Libyan embassy security doesn't suddenly negate all of that.
A feck-up on Libyan embassy security doesn't suddenly negate all of that.
Yeah, exactly. Why does any of it matter?
He had a sniff of a point on a semi-related tangent, but the stunt was ridiculous. The US doesn't have conscription for a start so who signs up - whilst obviously influenced by economics - is a matter for the individual. Not to mention that no one has the right to sign up their children without even asking them. Let alone to some twat in the street with a camera. It was a stunt with a 100% guarantee of success and entirely engineered to make him look good.
Though the worst one in that film is the lingering shot of a woman crying that almost voyeuristically exploits her grief until Moore comes onto screen to give her a comforting hug.
it matters because Romney has feck all Foreign Policy credentials and needs to bring 'something'...'anything'...
I know why he's doing it, the question is why are people supposed to care about it. I suppose the real question is, why are people this stupid.
You really are a disgraceful man, the worst kind of arrogant liberal. How dare you accuse me of being a racist, it smacks of sheer desperation on your part and it's obvious to everyone. If you had anything about you then you would try to defend your positions and have a civilised debate, instead all you are capable of are pathetic insults.
Saddam was a horrible guy who oppressed his people. That Moore can't admit that makes my point about his utter lack of nuance.
Someone who was a strong intelligent and intellectually honest liberal would say that we shouldn't be in Iraq because 1) it's not our problem 2) intervention wont work 3) the war was started on false premises 4) it costs money we don't have 5) it costs lives and so on.
Michael Moore doesn't do that because he is a lowest common denominator type. Instead of a coherent philosophy based on looking at evidence and precedent, he says that Iraq was great and no threat to the US.
It's true that Iraq was a bad country with a bad leader that hosted terrorists. It's also true that we never should have invaded. But Michael Moore isn't interested in anything but heavy handed imagery and a black and white worldview.
As for the take two sides philosophy, look at how he says the Saudis and Dubya were so close and sprouts these conspiracy theories and ignores all evidence that doesn't fit. He'll say that we didn't send enough troops while simultaneously saying we shouldn't have sent any at all. He will say that bin Laden should be treated as innocent until proven guilty and that we shouldn't go to Afghanistan. He does all this because he doesn't have a coherent philosophy. He is just interested in taking cheap shots and making misleading films for the lowest common denominator.
Somwhere, a BNP supporter is reading your post and shouting, "How dare you accuse the BNP of being racists".
Yeah, but he's going to sort out China. So we're all good. Cos I tell you, those fecking Chinese are really starting to piss me off with all their.....erm.....Chinesey stuff. Yeah! Go get 'em Mitt!
- Status