It was a two-part post, replying to two different people. The first person said I sounded like a moderate guy, and the second person was a typical Michael Moore zealot asking what's wrong with Moore for telling the "truth." Here's what I had to say...
[person 1]: I like to consider myself a moderate. I do have some right-leanings, which tend to show more than the left ones. Mainly because I run into more far-left people than far-right ones. I really didn't mind Clinton, and I do wish that he hadn't perjured himself and allowed the whole impeachment debacle to happen. I honestly don't think Bush should have won the 2000 election, but I also believe that you can't change the rules if you lose the game (which is basically what the Dems wanted). I also don't think he is as bad as the far left really wants to think. I wouldn't have minded at all if Kerry had won, but I didn't vote for him because I had no idea what he really stood for (yeah, I guess the flip-flopping bothered me). All in all, unity is what will get us all through, and I don't think extremism from either side helps anyone, anywhere, anytime.
[person 2]: I'm still trying to find the truth that every Moore fan insists exists. Guess what? If you want to say that the overall point of Bowling for Columbine was that the attitude about guns is different in America than most other nations, then yes, I agree. If the point of Fahrenheit 9/11 was that the media needs to be more accountable for what it reports on, and we need to ask questions of our government, then yes, I agree. However, neither movie were really up-front about either hypothesis, and never drew any conclusion about them, except to demonize conservative/traditional Republicans. The methods he uses to drive his point home are highly questionable and unethical, all the while leaving undiscerning viewers with extreme ideas about conspiracy theories and revisionist history lessons that simply aren't true. The only people I've come across that believe Moore's word as gospel truth and defend him, haven't fact-checked anything he shows the viewer. I have several friends who were devout Moore fans, but after many a long night of open-minded discussion (something I have a hard time finding among extremists, not just on the right), I was able to convince them that he's not the noble crusader for the little guy that he portrays himself as. One of them was a Chomsky-reading, self-proclaimed Marxist, believe it or not. He no longer defends Moore any time his name comes up in conversation. Just looking at the money Moore makes, the apartment in Manhattan and the "cabin" in Michigan should be enough to convince most reasonable people that he is living the American dream that he claims doesn't exist. Moore fans like to point out how 60% of the profits of Fahrenheit 9/11 went to charity, but they conveniently forget that he was contractually obligated to do so in order to get his movie distributed. Now, if you want to talk to a few Kerry-voters who despise Michael Moore, I can point you in their direction. If you want one-sided, closed-minded "discussion," go to the DU. If you want intelligent discourse, I'm right here, friend.
Sorry, Derek, but I have to use you as an example every time I talk politics with people. I still suggest you quit reading Chomsky, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment