POLL: Bowling For Columbine

Remove all ads!

I just finished watching Bowling For Columbine and learned a lot. Iraq is holding us 'hostage'(so they say) with US weapons. The US gave Hussein those weapons to kill the Iranians. He then invaded Kuwait, now he's doing nothing, and the US wants to threaten 22 million innocent Iraqis' lives (or should I say 21,999,999).

I think the states should stop trying to control the worlds' conflicts. It's a never ending battle...and they're just making it worse. And for all you conspiracy nuts out there, read The Bible Code 1 & 2. It'll blow your mind!

Anyway, my question is, do you think the US does more good than bad, or more bad than good.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Bowling For Columbine (28 votes.)

Bowling For Columbine (Choose 1)
* More good than bad - 50% (14)
* More bad than good - 50% (14)

 

Alot of people also do not understand the reason why the Iranians hate us. The CIA helped overthrow thier legitimate leader during either the late 50's or early 60's. The despot we put in was nice to us but horrible to his people and commited atrocities easily as bad as Hussien (of course, when Saddam commited his atrocities he was our friend -even Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand as a special envoy from Ronald Reagan) When the Allatoyah (sorry bad sp) took over and freed his people they immediatily decided to punish us, by taking Americans hostage. Of course depsite that Iran was now our enemy, we sold them weapons for exchange for hostages and used them as a go-between to fund the Contra's, who directly killed over 30,000 innocent civilians in Central America. Who put Manuel Noreiaga in power -- We Did. But despite these shameful acts, I believe our total amount of good outweighs the bad, at least for now. Although Bush and Ashcroft are quickly pushing us into the negative area. Hopefully he won't get reelected since our economy is in a shambles (Leave no Child left behind but cut thier afterschool activity funding by 40%). If you want to check out alot of news not regulerly in the headlines, check out www.michaelmoore.com, he has links to news that goes by under the radar regularly.

 

The Americans have pulled some boneheaded moves, there's no doubt about that. Going to Vietnam half cocked, and sticking around long after the time to leave. The Bay of Pigs. Most of the screw-ups in South America with tin-plated little dictators. But overall, I say they've done more good worldwide. Especially if you factor in the organizations (charitable and otherwise) like the Red Cross and even (though they stand far, far from my politics) Amnesty International. yes, I know those are international bodies, but many Americans make up their numbers and contribute.

 

I used to think that America did much more good than bad. Now it seems to be about a wash.
But there is no telling how far these guys will take us. When Shrub was here in Texas, as governor, he was pretty benign. He never did much of anything. I really am surprised at how aggressvie he is now. I just hope he is not delusional. Also, he was not really elected, he was appointed by the Supreme Court. No telling what will happen in the next election. Republicans will have to drop the word democracy again in favor of republic. They may not be able to make good policy, but they are smart at marketing names and slogans.

 

Moore is the other side of the Rush Limbaugh coin. Two blowhards, neither bothering to make sure what they say is truthful, or worse who intentionally distort the truth to serve their own ends, who are picture perfect examples of the term 'dogmatic.'

In short, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Imagine the truth as a motion picture movie. Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter etc like to take a freeze frame from the movie and then present it as the truth. Hardly a complete understanding. Even worse, a lot of time they take a single freeze frame and determine even that isn't misleading enough to meet their goals so they send the frozen shot off to be doctored up and edited and then present that as truth.

 

Chandos,

I am afraid you may be the delusional one. By the rules of the presidential election, Bush won. We are not a democracy. Say the pledge of allegiance. In case you can't, just remember the line that states "the Republic for which it stands". We are a representative democracy, or republic. True democracy is an impossibility unless you have non-citizen slaves.

As far as making good policy, the Republicans are the ones responsible for the boom of the 90's, and Clinton is responsible for the last recession and the current slow economic growth. The democrats can only sell out the future for so long before the Republicans come in and force us to "bite the bullet" and get things straightened out (thank you for making us do it Uncle Ron). The "Bush" recession started while Bubba Clinton's wife was still president. Kind of makes it hard to blame it on Bush.

It is too bad that someone with morals and convictions is so offensive to you.

 

First of all, the stock market problems had nothing to do with any president. It was because of an overinflated tech market. The recovery that isn't happening is due to massive tax cuts that do NOTHING to stimulate the market. All we have now thanks to them are record deficits, states slashing education and health care.

Once again it starts, someone says all democrats are bad, all republicans are good or vice-versa. I don't like either party because they are all sellouts and liars with a few exceptions. Bush and his staff have lied so many times its not even funny. They have easily lied as much as Clinton ever did, except he mostly lied about sex. Answer these few questions about our true and moral president.

1. If the so-called poison factory in Northern Iraq (you know - the one in kurdish controlled territory) was actually producing chemical weapons, why haven't we bombed it? Why did the inspectors never check it out? And why did reporters who visited it find nothing but an old run down building that even lacked power?

2. If there is an Alquida connection, why does both the head of the CIA and British Intelligence dismiss the idea of it?

3. If we are attacking Iraq because of its supposed terrorist connections why are we not attacking Iran, who has an active nuclear program and very strong terrorist ties? If it is because of his killing of kurds, why are we not attacking turkey, who has killed as many as Saddam? If its because we are afraid he is going to attack us, where is one bit of evidence to support this - facts now, not so called "evidence" that everyone worldwide laughs at. If its not about oil, then why was Halliburton (Cheney's old oil company)given the rights to rebuild the iraqi oil fields and why havent we liberated countries with FAR worse human rights violations like Rwanda (who has no oil or resources that we need).

In fact, here is a list of wonderful deeds that Bush has done.

Cut 39 million in federal funding of libraries (which now are required to give the government when asked what books you read WITHOUT a warrent).

Cut funding for research into renewable resources of energy by 50% (Reagan started this trend when he was first elected except he cut funding by 90%).

Cut the Community Access Program by 86% (this program coordinates care for people without health insurance among hospitals and other health care providers).

Pulled out of the Kyoto Protocal, which 178 other countries signed.

Rejected an international accord to enforce the ban on germ warfare.

Eliminated prescription coverage for contraceptives (Viagra is still covered).

And for a nice catalog of his lies, check out http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

Once again, i'm not a fan of any party, but don't give me this bs that GWB Jr is more moral or honest. The facts DO NOT back that line up at all.

 

Darkwolf,

The pledge of allegiance? If you care to use that as your source for history and government, then go ahead. Perhaps you should try nursery rhymes also. How about something like: "the banana republic under which we live." You also may have noticed that Bush has just fired his top brass whose bungling of the econonmy was even too much for him. Leave it to the republicans to give us more government intervention in our lives, large deficit spending, and ANOTHER recession as a result of an underachiever who was not even elected by a majority of Americans. But was well-funded by the gigantic corporate welfare state that Reagan and Bush #1 helped create.

And if you actually care to listen to the current rhetoric of your own party, then you may have heard something about how we are engaged in bringing DEMOCRACY to the people of Iraq. Banana style.

[ March 23, 2003, 05:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

WOW! I never expected such insightful replies from a bunch of BG playin' geeks!

Anyway... I do have some interjections.

Depaara: I do not hold the American PEOPLE responsible for much of anything, as the buck stops with the government. As for those orginizations, I know that there are many decent Americans. I myself am Half (my mothers' side).

Laches: I do indeed take any fact with a grain of salt, but in the case of Moore, Bowling for Columbine was more a non-biased opinion (if that's possible) piece than anything, at least that's what I got out of it.

Darkwolf: The fact is, Gore won! He had more votes, but Bush got elected!

Jschild: What Clinton did was morally wrong (although those of you who read my marijuana post probably think I have no morals, I do! ), but did he deserve to be impeached. If I was married to that cold-hearted Hillary, I'd probably want a little under-the-table action too.

Chados: good rebuttle!

I see I've hit a fairly volitile matter on the Boards here, so please, keep em coming! So far the score is deadlocked at 50% each (the poll), so until we get a leader, I'm expecting some catfights

 

Mystra,

That is a stupid statement! That is like saying that a football team should win because they gained more yards, or a hockey or soccer team should win because they took more shots. The fact is that the election is decided in the electorial college. If the election would have been based on poplular vote, Bush would have ran a different campaign, and it is very likely that he still would have won. Before you make statements like this you should really understand what it is you are talking about.

 

I never said that he deserved to be impeached, I commented on the fact that the biggest thing he got attacked on and lied about was banging an intern. Bush on the other hand has lied about the reason we are going to war, fabricating an AL-Quadi connection that the CIA director, head of British Intelligence, and former CIA heads have all contridicted. I'd rather have a president who lies about sex than war.

 

I think the electoral system is out of date. They used it wayyy back in the days before fast transportation or telephones. A representitive(s) of a certain state would come and vote for whoever, then it would be tallied and voila... invalid election.

I'm saying that the fact is, the supreme court is just a bunch of republicans That's the reason Bush voted. I'm actually not opposed to him winning (i'm capitalist, not a socialist), but I don't think Gore would've made a bad president (mainly for the reason that I doubt he would've got this war going off to such a fast start).

Jschild: I'm in complete aggreement. Clinton was the one that tried so hard to get Rabin (pres of Isreal at the time) and Arafat (if you don't know who this is, you're in the wrong forum) together and stop the violence in Jeruselem. Anyway, I'm saying exactly the same thing you are, so consider my comment before made for someone else

 

Ok, I'm beginning a rant, well, a cut and paste rant. To say that Bowling for Columbine was "more" non-biased is..... depressing to say the least.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

The above quotes were from the Wall Street Journal and as stated relied on CNN, Forbes, Spinsanity etc.

He takes pieces of speeches, splices them with other speeches made years later and presents it as one speech.

He makes up facts.

He then says he doesn't need to be accurate in his book on CNN because it's just a comedy. Why do you expect this to change for his flick?

How can you possibly think this is unbiased, even slightly?

 

Here's another take on Michael Moore:

Lileks' Column

 

I stand corrected. Good job...I can see you did some homework.

I am now convinced that the movie is bull****, but my opinion still stands. I've read many books (World Conflict, part of the complete idiots guide, the rise and fall of the 3rd reich, countless journals and magazines) that are in favor of the US trying (key word there) to make the world "right" (when in fact they're just brooding hate for the west). I renounce my amdire and replace it with ire for Bowling for Comlumbine, but there were some things in the movie that could be very close to the truth (such as the interview with Charlton, his rallies and the interview with the two Oklahoma Bombiners brother). I was reading a Car & Driver the other day, and it had a segment that dug deep. A guy took an old car, drove it for 500 miles and drove it into a field where hundreds of people shot at it with fully-auto, weapons of death, war machine guns! Dynamite was thrown and there was a picture of the car after it was all done. There was absolutely nothing left. This is done every year (I can't remeber the name of the org. and my brother took the magazine out of town). There were children maintaining the boothes while the adults went out and shot at stuff. Now, it shouldn't matter how many background checks you do. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A SEMI, OR FULLY-AUTOMATIC WEAPON!!! There's no other purpose for those types of guns, except killing people.

There, I've said my peice.

 

A couple of things.

1) Regarding the Heston interview, it is problematic in its own right and has been widely criticized for creative editing. A quick web search should turn it up.

2) The point isn't that the movie is BS. Like the movie all you want. Like Rush Limbaugh all you want. They can both be funny from time to time which probably partially explains their attractiveness. The point is, history has shown you can't accept anything Moore says as being grounded in fact. That doesn't mean the conclusions he wants to reach are false.

Now, I understand that people are sucked into believing propagandists like Moore and Limbaugh because they can be humorous but I'm still working on an explanation for how anyone can enjoy that dolt Boortz, or however you spell the fool's name.

 

You are absolutely right, Mystra's Chosen. I'm glad that someone has the courage to say that the electoral system should be retired. We've had a steady, historical tradition of movement towards a more democratic government over the last century. An example of this is not only the concept of one-man one-vote (unless you happen to live in Florida), but also one-woman one-vote. It is still startling to me that women only got the right to vote in the last century.

 

I think there's a movement towards a rebuplican (capitalism, like bush, not socilism, like gore and clinton and old abe lincoln for that matter) government. I'm not sure about this though. My americana is a little rusty

Laches: I do think the Heston interview was probably set up, but the end result is undeniable. He basically told the people to get out, and he walked away. Now, there's nothing that could really be said that could make him do that, and I didn't see any film cuts. Anyway, you've made a good point (about the points he's trying to reach). Out of all the places in the 1st world, you think of America being the most violent (and not without reason). I think that it should not be possible to buy a weapon that can spray thirty peices of metal out in less than a second (there's guns out there that can do over a thousand in under a second). These weapons have no use and are begging to be used in violent crimes.

 

I am not overly fond of Moore but I can not take all the criticism towards him seriously. Especially not since the criticism did the same thing it accused him for doing. using bits and pieces, high lighting and making wild claims. Moore is not popular among the ruling class of the US and thus they do their best to descredit him. He is a populist and demagogue and everything being said by such people should be thought about for a long time but as Moore is in total opposition to the leadership of the US and I tend to cross my fingers for the underdog I going to enjoy his rants for awhile longer.

 

Well, there's the truth and then there's your truth. When you want someone to go over to your side, it's natural to want to fib a little. What Moore did was wrong. Things like he reports on are not comedy. They're serious to the people who accept and 'comedy' to the people who don't.