Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it all depends from what "angle" you are looking at his movies.
Well, as I previously mentioned, I do indeed "agree" with him on some things. As a search of my posts will confirm, I am in favor of sane gun regulations. However, Bowling for Columbine was a farce, a bunch of disparate and antedotal incidents weaved together and termed a documentary.
I mean, a cartoon? Sorry, my education, intelligence and objectivity will not allow me to take something like that seriously. That's my angle.
What gets me is when someone who "hates" him has never watched one of his movies.
I've seen several of his films. And it's always clear that he has an agenda that he suports with slanted film-making. The way he went after Charlton Heston in Bowlng for Columbine was way over the top and upset me. That said, I don't for one minute find his stance to be anti-American in the least. He's clearly anti-corporate and he builds a case for his side. But in all the Moore films I've seen, he comes down on the side of the "average citizen" vs the corporate giants. And he doesn't bash ALL corporations. As a matter of fact, the corporations he goes after are those who are doing harm to Americans.
We don't exclude them from the statistics. Have you ever looked at the stats from the aforementioned areas (Mississippi and Louisiana)?
To make a very long story very short, you can't grow cotton in Finland, nor was Finland ever an intensive forced labor agricultural colony for another country.
But it was being argued that they should be excluded? I never said that they were indeed excluded. My point is that we should NOT exclude those kind of statistics because it creates a selection bias.
So because cotton don't grow in Finland, the US has to have an under-class? That sounds like a very long stretch to make. I suppose your point is that slavery didn't exist in Finland, but they certainly had many other very labor intensive work that was being performed. It seems like we should be able to do better than just blaming history.
The question of "why are blacks not successful wherever they occur in large numbers" is a spin on the old nature/nurture discussion.
Whether it's nature, whether it's nurture, comparing a country with a large black population to hugely homogeneous populations of white people or the Japanese will always, always wash out with the "diverse" country at the bottom of the barrel. When you scratch the surface and actually look at the statistical math, it's pretty clear "who" is dragging the statistics.
I see your back to the old race card argument. I've read some of your other posts about this topic. It's getting quite tiring to hear about. The point is not to determine who are "dragging down" the statistics, but why?
I see your back to the old race card argument. I've read some of your other posts about this topic. It's getting quite tiring to hear about. The point is not to determine who are "dragging down" the statistics, but why?
I don't think you understand what the "race card" is.
The "race card" is a term for what occurs when someone of a different race screws something up or legitimately does something wrong, but when they're facing the consequences for it, they say they're being unfairly targeted because they're a minority- not because of what they themselves did.
That's the "race card".
Making mention of statistical trends pertaining to race or noting that certain races are hugely underrepresented in areas of achievement and hugely overrepresented in areas of social failure isn't "the race card", it's simply reality whether you happen to like it or not.
I don't think you understand what the "race card" is.
The "race card" is a term for what occurs when someone of a different race screws something up or legitimately does something wrong, but when they're facing the consequences for it, they say they're being unfairly targeted because they're a minority- not because of what they themselves did.
That's the "race card".
Making mention of statistical trends pertaining to race or noting that certain races are hugely underrepresented in areas of achievement and hugely overrepresented in areas of social failure isn't "the race card", it's simply reality whether you happen to like it or not.
Thank you for your "clarification." However, my point remains that our concern should remain with everybody not just a certain race. I'm not sure why you continue to bring this up, that is all. I never mentioned race until you turned the question into "why are blacks not successful wherever they occur in large numbers" from nowhere.
Even if we survey just the white population as you would like to do, there is still a much higher percentage living in poverty when compared to other countries. I would like to know though, why do you keep bringing race up? Are you concerned about the problems with the people in poverty, or should we simply "eliminate them" so we can make the statistics look better?
I've seen several of his films. And it's always clear that he has an agenda that he suports with slanted film-making. The way he went after Charlton Heston in Bowlng for Columbine was way over the top and upset me. That said, I don't for one minute find his stance to be anti-American in the least. He's clearly anti-corporate and he builds a case for his side. But in all the Moore films I've seen, he comes down on the side of the "average citizen" vs the corporate giants. And he doesn't bash ALL corporations. As a matter of fact, the corporations he goes after are those who are doing harm to Americans.
And what is anti-American about that?
Well said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Michael Moore: anti-American?
