I never said that conservatism is bad. I hold quite a few conservative views. It's one of the reasons why I'm so happy to have found Libertarianism--I feel that I have the best of both worlds! Libertarianism holds both conservative and liberal ideas. It's not about "sitting on the fence" or "flip-flopping", it's about individual rights.
I agree with you on many things (I think that we're a lot similar than we appear)--I share your conservative views on crime, gun control, etc.
I actually like Goldberg (been a fan of his since his article on the "termination" of that crazy b!tch Coulter) and I agree with him (and you) here.
Our country spends $2 trillion of our budget to provide goods and services to people that should be able to supply these things for themselves. We are creating a nation of government-dependent people (maybe that's what they want...hmmmm...) that love to shirk personal responsibility.
I think that it's another example of what an idiot GWB is. His statement--"The role of the government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."--couldn't be farther from the truth.
The role of the federal government is to protect the rights of the country's citizens, not to provide hand-outs. Having food to eat is NOT a right. Having health care is NOT a right. Having government-funded marriage counselling is definitely NOT a right.
I don't remember where in the Constitution it states the guarantee for the "pursuit of happiness".
I think that this thinking has bled into our foreign policy (see our "Iran" debate). Who appointed us (the United States) to be the wet nurse for the world? We're under no obligation to make the world a better place, on a national level or an individual level.
Should we strive to do so? Yes. But we aren't OBLIGATED to. Especially at the sacrifice of the rights of our own citizens.
What ever happen to the Christian mantra of "God helps those who help themselves"? Bah, that's too much work!
Who's going to pay for this federal aid to help couples with marital problems?
When did the American Dream turn into "Why Do Things When Someone Else Will Do Them For Me"?
And when did the Republicans turn into liberals?
Perhaps I should run for President. My campaign slogan would be, "SUCK IT UP, YOU PUSSIES."
This post is not quite in order and does not necessarily fit in with this particulary topic, but I've been following along for a few days, so I thought I would comment in omnibus fashion:
Farenheit 9/11 - I understand Squeeze's point about not being able to criticize something you haven't seen, but I think that rule doesn't apply here. Moore is not a documentarian - he's an ambush film maker and the best practioner of the cheap shot since that Polish boxer punched Lennox Lewis in the gonies. To me a documentary means to record real events as they happen. But Moore is not a recorder of real events. Rather he creates a situation, usually by insinuating himself into a confrontation with others, records it, and then selectively edits it to make the opposing party appear as inane as possible. I've also said it before, Moore is genuinely bereft of any sincerity in his work, which further devalues his work.
When I compare Farenheit 9/11 to another conspiracy film "JFK", which I think is one of the great movies of all time, I think the difference is that JFK is presented as theory, by actors, and not as fact, as a documentary would imply. In any event, Stone's films are always thoughtful and dynamic, even if you don't agree with his viewpoint. Moore is a cheap hack in comparison.
Dick Cheney - good man, very smart, and a guy I want on my team every day. This obession with Halliburton is simply an attempt to pay back the Republicans for Whitewater. His use of the F word. I think it's great. Stop taking BS from these asshole senators.
Ohio boys - good work. I agree with Rob. You have to look a lot harder for positive stories coming out of Iraq than negative ones. I in fact just played golf with an Assistant United States Attorney who jrecently came back from a two month assignment in Iraq. He said the situation is pretty stable in the north and south of the country, so while the situation isn't all peaches and cream, it's not all doom and gloom either. I suppose covering American soldiers doing good in those areas is not as newsworthy as covering car bombs in Baghdad, and there maybe some merit to that point, but in the interests of completeness, some of other good stories should be told.
Let's see, I think that's about it. I would like to further comment on Michael Moore only because, as a lawyer, a recent comment of his touched on one of my (many) pet peeves. Recently Linda Ronstadt got booted from a Vegas hotel after her praise of Moore's film incited a riot. In response, Moore said something to the effect, "I thought we had something called the First Amendment in this country."
A note to Moore and all others THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTS YOU FROM GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST PRIVATE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. The casino was entirely within its rights to give Rondstadt the heave ho. Guess what? If your employer, say a bank, doesn't like your views on abortion, the war in Iraq, stem cell research, or who should be the new dog catcher, and fires you because of it - too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Even the government, when it is acting as an employer, may validly restrict your speech if your speech interferes or impedes its operations.
Furthermore, the First Amendment doesn't mean that you get to say what you want, but then there are no consequences. Or that you get to say want you want, but if I disagree with you, I'm a hate-mongering facists. In fact, as the Supreme Court constantly says, the First Amendment encourages an exchange of thought in the market place of ideas. I recently read a concurring opinion in an older case which states that the First Amendment can rightly result in the suppression of speech. How so? Well, when your speech and ideas are devoid of merit and are rejected by listener, you no longer have a platform or a willing audience, your speech is suppressed. Seems like free enterprise to me. Therefore, Dixie Chicks, when you make idiotic comments about the president and radio stations boycott your music, it's not censorship, it's the market place of ideas rejecting your speech.
End of civics lesson. Sorry for the extended rant. Rob, thanks for the platform. Everyone in the market place of ideas feel free to reject me, it seems easy enough for most women to do.
- Yeah, since R couldn't give me any instances where Moore was wrong in F9/11 (as most who argue his filmmaking inability), I had to go look for them myself. Yes, there are "manipulated facts". And I acknowledge them. But I still applaud his attention to issues that need to be brought to light.
Whether you agree with his film or not, I feel that his movie has sparked people to take note of things that are going on. Many people that I know that are, unfortunately, "not political" are suddenly talking about current affairs because they've recently seen F9/11.
I commend the fact that this film has spurred people into the "exchange of thoughts".
Also, let's remember, that no documentary is truly objective. The filmmaker's bias will always taint the final project.
- I don't think that one can compare "Farenheit 9/11" and "JFK". The first is a documentary, the second is a dramatization of real events. If one is pressed to compare these two films, then it should be noted that Stone has also been accused of "selectively editing" the facts.
Ahahahaha! A bone!
ReplyDeleteI never said that conservatism is bad. I hold quite a few conservative views. It's one of the reasons why I'm so happy to have found Libertarianism--I feel that I have the best of both worlds! Libertarianism holds both conservative and liberal ideas. It's not about "sitting on the fence" or "flip-flopping", it's about individual rights.
I agree with you on many things (I think that we're a lot similar than we appear)--I share your conservative views on crime, gun control, etc.
I actually like Goldberg (been a fan of his since his article on the "termination" of that crazy b!tch Coulter) and I agree with him (and you) here.
Our country spends $2 trillion of our budget to provide goods and services to people that should be able to supply these things for themselves. We are creating a nation of government-dependent people (maybe that's what they want...hmmmm...) that love to shirk personal responsibility.
I think that it's another example of what an idiot GWB is. His statement--"The role of the government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."--couldn't be farther from the truth.
The role of the federal government is to protect the rights of the country's citizens, not to provide hand-outs. Having food to eat is NOT a right. Having health care is NOT a right. Having government-funded marriage counselling is definitely NOT a right.
I don't remember where in the Constitution it states the guarantee for the "pursuit of happiness".
I think that this thinking has bled into our foreign policy (see our "Iran" debate). Who appointed us (the United States) to be the wet nurse for the world? We're under no obligation to make the world a better place, on a national level or an individual level.
Should we strive to do so? Yes. But we aren't OBLIGATED to. Especially at the sacrifice of the rights of our own citizens.
What ever happen to the Christian mantra of "God helps those who help themselves"? Bah, that's too much work!
Who's going to pay for this federal aid to help couples with marital problems?
When did the American Dream turn into "Why Do Things When Someone Else Will Do Them For Me"?
And when did the Republicans turn into liberals?
Perhaps I should run for President. My campaign slogan would be, "SUCK IT UP, YOU PUSSIES."
This post is not quite in order and does not necessarily fit in with this particulary topic, but I've been following along for a few days, so I thought I would comment in omnibus fashion:
ReplyDeleteFarenheit 9/11 - I understand Squeeze's point about not being able to criticize something you haven't seen, but I think that rule doesn't apply here. Moore is not a documentarian - he's an ambush film maker and the best practioner of the cheap shot since that Polish boxer punched Lennox Lewis in the gonies. To me a documentary means to record real events as they happen. But Moore is not a recorder of real events. Rather he creates a situation, usually by insinuating himself into a confrontation with others, records it, and then selectively edits it to make the opposing party appear as inane as possible. I've also said it before, Moore is genuinely bereft of any sincerity in his work, which further devalues his work.
When I compare Farenheit 9/11 to another conspiracy film "JFK", which I think is one of the great movies of all time, I think the difference is that JFK is presented as theory, by actors, and not as fact, as a documentary would imply. In any event, Stone's films are always thoughtful and dynamic, even if you don't agree with his viewpoint. Moore is a cheap hack in comparison.
Dick Cheney - good man, very smart, and a guy I want on my team every day. This obession with Halliburton is simply an attempt to pay back the Republicans for Whitewater. His use of the F word. I think it's great. Stop taking BS from these asshole senators.
Ohio boys - good work. I agree with Rob. You have to look a lot harder for positive stories coming out of Iraq than negative ones. I in fact just played golf with an Assistant United States Attorney who jrecently came back from a two month assignment in Iraq. He said the situation is pretty stable in the north and south of the country, so while the situation isn't all peaches and cream, it's not all doom and gloom either. I suppose covering American soldiers doing good in those areas is not as newsworthy as covering car bombs in Baghdad, and there maybe some merit to that point, but in the interests of completeness, some of other good stories should be told.
Let's see, I think that's about it. I would like to further comment on Michael Moore only because, as a lawyer, a recent comment of his touched on one of my (many) pet peeves. Recently Linda Ronstadt got booted from a Vegas hotel after her praise of Moore's film incited a riot. In response, Moore said something to the effect, "I thought we had something called the First Amendment in this country."
A note to Moore and all others THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTS YOU FROM GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST PRIVATE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. The casino was entirely within its rights to give Rondstadt the heave ho. Guess what? If your employer, say a bank, doesn't like your views on abortion, the war in Iraq, stem cell research, or who should be the new dog catcher, and fires you because of it - too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Even the government, when it is acting as an employer, may validly restrict your speech if your speech interferes or impedes its operations.
Furthermore, the First Amendment doesn't mean that you get to say what you want, but then there are no consequences. Or that you get to say want you want, but if I disagree with you, I'm a hate-mongering facists. In fact, as the Supreme Court constantly says, the First Amendment encourages an exchange of thought in the market place of ideas. I recently read a concurring opinion in an older case which states that the First Amendment can rightly result in the suppression of speech. How so? Well, when your speech and ideas are devoid of merit and are rejected by listener, you no longer have a platform or a willing audience, your speech is suppressed. Seems like free enterprise to me. Therefore, Dixie Chicks, when you make idiotic comments about the president and radio stations boycott your music, it's not censorship, it's the market place of ideas rejecting your speech.
End of civics lesson. Sorry for the extended rant. Rob, thanks for the platform. Everyone in the market place of ideas feel free to reject me, it seems easy enough for most women to do.
A couple of points on Pat's response:
ReplyDelete- Yeah, since R couldn't give me any instances where Moore was wrong in F9/11 (as most who argue his filmmaking inability), I had to go look for them myself. Yes, there are "manipulated facts". And I acknowledge them. But I still applaud his attention to issues that need to be brought to light.
Whether you agree with his film or not, I feel that his movie has sparked people to take note of things that are going on. Many people that I know that are, unfortunately, "not political" are suddenly talking about current affairs because they've recently seen F9/11.
I commend the fact that this film has spurred people into the "exchange of thoughts".
Also, let's remember, that no documentary is truly objective. The filmmaker's bias will always taint the final project.
- I don't think that one can compare "Farenheit 9/11" and "JFK". The first is a documentary, the second is a dramatization of real events. If one is pressed to compare these two films, then it should be noted that Stone has also been accused of "selectively editing" the facts.