Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rev matt:

America is about freedom of speech, and along with freedom of speech comes responsibility to speak responsibly. Also, the ability to boycott has been alive and well, as it should be.

From what I’ve heard and seen, Moore’s films are less about truth than they are about the truth AS MOORE SEES IT. This makes them propaganda tools, essentially, and Moore has said as much himself when he advocates using his film in an effort to defeat Bush. I’ll give Moore credit—he is a great marketer and to some, a good movie maker (I’ve only seen Roger and me and was not overly impressed). But lets not forget that he is using his movie as a political tool, albeit slightly outside the normal political scene.

I’m in favor of people making choices, and the choice to boycott is one of those choices. For instance, if a studio decided to bring out a movie detailing the great and wonderful history of the KKK, I might choose to never see movies by that studio again. And if the facts were portrayed loosely and in a propaganda-ish manner, I’d find it within myself to try to stop them from showing it, lest people out there with less critical intelligence might actually believe it.

That’s my freedom of choice, and I stand by those who utilize it. Now let me put a different point to this: I DONT advocate preventing studios from showing such a movie, but I DO advocate letting a studio know the ramifications so they can make a business decision. For instance, if i convince a studio that IFF they show something (and its their choice), the result will be a net loss of business for them, then they are free to make their choice. But they also understand the potential outcome. Both sides are free to choose, which is the way it should be

Matt-

Why would a Libertarian care if the GOP boycotted Michael Moore? I would only care if it the government tried to censor the movie. I believe that there is a big distinction between the GOP and the Government.

Boycott away. As long as the Government doesn’t censor their right to boycott, or censor the right of a Michael Moore to make and distribute a movie, I do not see the harm.

Lets try to be careful how we use the word “censorship.” What the FCC has been doing is total cencorship and needs to be stopped. What a private organizations is doing by putting economic preasures on companies is NOT cencorship at all. Say tomorrow there was a movie coming out whose central claim was that all muslims were terrorists or something. You can get your bottom dollar that every left-wing would would be putting preasure on every movie theatre not to carry it (and I would join them in putting this preasure on). Economic preasure is how the public properly expresses is displeasure with things they do not agree with. I use my economic power to refuse to see this movie put out by a propoganda artist with a strong hate for his own country- they are choosing another course, legitimate course.

The problem with cencorship is it brings the arm of government power down upon those who express views- that is unacceptable. If the FCC was stopping this movie from getting into theatres, I would be out marching against it, but nothing like that is happening. Until then, I will just avoid seeing this movie, as I avoid seeing every movie that the hypocritical Moore puts out.

“Why would a Libertarian care if the GOP boycotted Michael Moore? I would only care if it the government tried to censor the movie. I believe that there is a big distinction between the GOP and the Government. “

There is?

Ed Gillespie may nominally be the Chairman, but the GOP is a political party. And the head of that party is Bush.

RM&R does a lot of work for Republicans

There may not be any memos directly proving that Bush said to RM&R “Do what you can to stop this movie” But it is suspicious when a media firm with known political ties to the Presdient starts a campaign to silence a movie critical of the President.

Why do you believe that Bush makes the deicision on every action or event that is unpopular with the Democrats and the left? I would guess it was Bush who was behind some of the wonderful Clinton events also.

John:

The only “memo” I’d be concerned over from Bush would be an Executive Order. Would it matter if Bush was a member of the NRA? How about a professional association? How far do you wish to take this “guilt by association”?

American News protects the interests of the guilded 1%, who own 85% of everything in the country, including the media editing our news. Investigative reporting is limited, because it hurts profits and reveals corrruption Owners and Republocrates prefer not discuss. One example is Jeb Bush and Kathleen Harris broke Florida law getting Shrub into the White House with an alleged 537 vote margin, by illegally removing 22,000 voters (93% black) from register rolls and not counting 180,000 other ballots (again mostly black). But the major media outlets (who claimed to conduct an independent recount) accepted the governors office’s version of events, without independently verifying anything.

Corporate shills, like Limbaugh and Hannity take it a step further by flooding the airways with lies and distortions. Republican media manipulators, like Carl Rove, have used TV, millions of dollars, lies and personal slander against even McCain to monopolize the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

Now these liars are whining because Michael Moore has allegedly adopted their methods. In fact (like most liberals) he is more “fair and balanced” than the Republican liars who are stealing all our money, not to mention risking American and Iraqi lives unnecessarily.

George- Right On!

Joebagadoughnuts- Are you saying it’s not fair if a liberal adopts infotainment techniques, which Conservatives have monopolized through media ownership? Should anything be done about the well financed lies and distortions of Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly?

I look at the GOP different than I look at the NRA.

The GOP is not an organization centered around issue-advocacy.

They are a Political Party. Their sole purpose is to get their members elected and re-elected.

If Bush suggested to the media firm that they take action, then it is a government-directed censorship. No executive order needs to be signed.

If you tell someone to do something, and they do it, you share the responsibility.

I’m not saying it happened. It just looks suspicious. If they were acting under the direction of any member of congress, I’d also have a problem.

However, if they were acting on their own, that’s fine.

Joebagadoughnuts- Are you saying it’s not fair if a liberal adopts infotainment techniques, which Conservatives have monopolized through media ownership? Should anything be done about the well financed lies and distortions of Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly?

That bears repeating.

Bayviking:

I agree with some of what people write and I disagree with some of what people write. I find that I can find intelligence in many writer’s opinions, even when I disagree with them.

I find no intelligence in your post. You have an agenda and a mindset which no amount of facts will ever change. When you start by suggesting that the media “protects the interests of the guilded 1%, who own 85% of everything in the country”, you show your colors. You’ve just impugned every journalist out there, including those you would agree with. Though I suppose you would exclude someone like a Paul Krugman from being a part of this wide ranging conspiracy, since he speaks out against Bush regularly.

I find debate interesting, and I learn a lot from what people write. To quote an Aerosmith song, you can learn “from fools and from sages”. Thanks for putting your two cents in—I’ve certainly learned from you.

joe-
could you be any more condescending? you too show your colors with comments like:
“Moore’s films are less about truth than they are about the truth AS MOORE SEES IT.”

you than admit:
“I’ve only seen Roger and me and was not overly impressed”

am I now not to listen to any of your opions, because you obviously talk without knowledge of what you speak.

it doesn’t matter that you haven’t seen Moores’ films, or that you give opinions on what you have heard, it matters that you, ever so passive aggressivly, tell others their opinions are colared by partisonship, when clearly you are a pot callingthe kettle black.

come on….post!

post already

Censorship? Excercising the right of free speech is more like it. Real censorship is the national media salivating at the opportunity to air every scrap of evidence of prison abuses at Abu Ghraib refusing to make mention of real atrocities which show the nature of our enemy. If you have the stomach for it, have a good long look at this before you go back to ignoring who the monsters are and directing all the outrage you’re capable of at George Bush because he’s a not a Democrat.

http://drudgereport.com/jp.htm

Lining up on opening day to see Michael Moore’s movie reminds me of nothing so much as Germans lining up to see Triumph of the Will, which contains fewer lies and distortions.

For example, he asks Congressmen if they we would support the war if they had family members in Iraq, and then he cuts off their answers—when they say that in fact they DO have relatives fighting in Iraq. Of course, asking the question and cutting off the answer leaves intact the impression that Moore wants to create—which is a lie, a distortion, and a smear. Typical. That the left wants to lap this stuff up when the slightest scrutiny reveals lie after lie after lie is a sad commentary.

Joebagadoughnuts:

Data Source: Dr Edward Wolff, director of income studies, Jerome Levy Institute, New York. From 1983 to 1997 “average” income rocketed, of which the lower 80% of Americans received nothing (0%). As the market soared the top 1% controlled $29 trillion of the total $35 trillion value of US Stocks and Bonds. Any guesses how the other 99% share the remaining $6 trillion in savings and how long that will last under the current stewardship? Even Buffet and Gates are ashamed of the system and have sought reforms, including taxes. BushCo would have none of it and continues to push the envelop, while a disoriented, tired electorate look on. Just getting rid of Shrub will not fix the problems, but it will take the foot off the accelerator. Corrupt Republocrates have lost social security and jobs. 30 years ago an unskilled worker in America could buy a house and car and raise a family for a wife who stayed home to raise the kids and didn’t have to worry about health insurance. We are holding our own only because the wife has gone to work and entertainment has gotten cheaper.

Joebagadoughnuts:

I meant to suggest you read “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” to get a handle on the breadth and depth of political corruption in the United States and England. It’s not just for third world countries anymore. If you also read some of Paul Craig Roberts essays (www.Creators.com) you will begin to understand that we are becoming a third world economy. BushCo doesn’t want change after S&Ls, BCCI, Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, SEC fraud exposure. They want to privatize utilities throughout the world and are well on their way, thanks to the extra efforts of Blaire, Cheney, Clinton. “Privitization gains in efficiencies” have quadrupled water and energy bills so local police shoot protestors dead in India, Dominican Republic, Africa…. The US taxpayer assumes all risks so that Banks, Bechtel, Enron, Powergen can have all profits (without even investing their own money). Republocrates dare to call this Capitalism and fools believe it. It’s only coming to light now that they did the same thing to California, through “efficient deregulation”. Most of these legal criminals are from Texas and sheltered by a corrupt FERC selected by Lay and Cheney.

I’ve read “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”; (although it points to some real problems, it’s also clear that the influence of money on politics can’t be gotten rid of altogether without trampling on the Bill of Rights and basically instituting a police state).

Well, I’ve read it. But I wonder how long it’s been (if ever) that you read something that didn’t feed into and reinforce your preexisting worldview? Come out of the echo chamber where the left hears and amplifies nothing but their own opinions and you might learn something.

If anything, this just shows that Moore is a genius self-promoter and marketer. The more the conservatives nd Republicans scream that Fahrenheit 9/11 is an “evil” and “not factual” movie, the more curiosity they stir up by those who will just go see for themselves what all the fuss is about. And I have a feeling most people will leave the theatre with eyes that have been opened.

So, keep bashing Moore and his movie. All it’s going to do is fuel the desire for people to see the film. And that is a good thing.

martiniwitz

Are you really trying to claim that Michael Moore is NOT partisan, and that he tells a fair and balanced story? Even Moore admits that he doesnt do that. Moore’s films ARE about his version of the truth….which doesnt necessarily make it the truth. He admits his agenda is to defeat Bush, which makes his “movie” something different from entertainment, and more like a long political commercial.

What part of this are you having trouble following. It is stuff that Moore himself has said….yet you seem to think I’m ignorant about Moore since I havent seen his films. I’m simply talking about the things he has said himself. Perhaps you just arent aware that he said all the things I’ve attributed to him, so you think I might be making it up.

BayViking:

You started by claiming the media is part of the corruption. You continued by including “big business” in on the conspiracy. And then to top it all off you lay virtually all the blame on the “Corrupt Republocrates” and “BushCo”.

You sourced info pertaining to 1983-1997 as documentation of how bad the Republicans have made things, while apparently forgetting that a Democrat was in the WH during 5 of those years (1993-1997). I’ll give you credit for at least mentioning Clinton in your conspiracy theory against government, though it was a fleeting reference at best, before you got back to your true agenda: telling how bad Bush is.

Your attempts to show yourself as even handed are so thinly veiled as to be ludicrous. I’ll even agree that there are problems in our society, but I wont lay the majority of blame at the feet of one person like you do.

There’s nothing wrong with working hard and making lots of money. There IS a problem with people who simply have their hands out looking for the government to take care of them. There also is a problem with government allowing business to exploit the people, which is why Enron, WorldCom, Tyco etc have come under indictment from the judiciary. People have gone to jail——more probably need to go.

Bayviking, if it werent so blatantly obvious that you just dont want Bush in office, you might actually have a couple points there. But it IS blatantly obvious what your agenda is, and seeing that takes away from any points you might seek to make.

joebagodunuts, Martin and Bayviking,

Gentlemen, please, the debate is losing its focus on what is being said and dropping down to who is saying it and why. Everyone here has a political agenda or affiliation - that alone is insufficient to disqualify the merits of a person’s argument.

Let’s get back to critiquing the message, not the messenger, please!

Bayviking, martiniwitz, Watchblog Manager and othersL

My most sincere apologies.

> For example, he asks Congressmen if they we
> would support the war if they had family
> members in Iraq, and then he cuts off their
> answers—when they say that in fact they DO
> have relatives fighting in Iraq.

I’m curious about how you know this since the movie has not yet been released?

-Cf

joe-
let me try again, I am trying to say that, while moore hiself is obvousily slanted left, his movies are not as irresponsible as portrayed by the right. And I never meant to suggest otherwise.

rent bowling for colimbine and tell me you don’t see problems with the NRA, tell me you don’t think moore is being fair, tell me you don’t think it is a worthwhile documentary, why? because Moore is a democrat?

Cf- Moore was on ‘This Week’ with George Stephanopoulos and George called him on this moment. They showed the clip from the actual movie and then gave the transcript of what the Congressman actually said. Moore attempted to say that the Congressman was being misleading or something, but it came off pretty pathetic from his end.

Misha,

As I am the Liberal you know, it may surprise you that, although I am a fan of Moore’s having seen all of his films, his politics fall further Left than mine.

In addition, I feel that some of his shrill rhetoric is baseless and over the top. In other words, while he makes powerful, convincing arguments in his films that have become influential in this country’s political discourse, he is prone to misguided and unfounded beliefs, just like you and I.

I have seen at least one anti-Moore website posting questionable and unsourced quotes attributed to him, accusing him of every unpatriotic sin we’ve heard all too often.

I want to make the point that, this will be the familiar form of debate over this film - between those having refused to see the film (thus, choosing not to directly refute Moore’s central assertions in the film), against those of us who have been given even more credible evidence of the deception of this administration.

Bert- it is my opinion that you cannot be “patriotic” and be a socialist (which Moore has admitted to being). Socialism is a theory that is in direct contradiction with the foundational principles of this country. I do not see how someone can want to change the very principles that bind this nation together and make it what it is and then claim to “love” America. What exactly does he love? HIS version of America, which is not america at all, but some idealized socialist state?

As for me refusing to see his movie- it is a form of economic protest. If I go see his movie, I will be supporting a person who I think has corrupt views and is a propoganda artist with no regard for the truth. I dont want him censored, like I do not want anyone censored, but I will not be giving money to his pockets, so you can continue his cruisade to change this country from one in which people are free to live their lives as they want, to one where the government control their economy and thus their lives. I have lived in a country like that before, and I do not want to again.

I am no friend of this administration (i doubt I will be voting for Bush), but I will not support propoganda artists who mislead a group of my fellow citizens into hate for our nation’s principles. I have seen Moore numerous times in interviews ect, and am familiar with his views and what he is. He claims to love this nation, but in his beliefs spits on this nation’s core principles. He is Micheal Savage of the left. I wonder if you would go see a film produced by Savage “documenting” radical Islam- i know I wouldnt. Would you?

martiniwitz:

Mike Moore is a good cinematographer, and an extraordinarily good promoter. He has portrayed the year old decision to not distribute his film as being a sudden change, and it has worked wonders for his movie.

For the same reasons that Misha does not want to see Moore’s movies, neither do I. I do not need to see his actual movies to know his agenda—-he has spoken loud and long about his agenda. I can hear his message without having to line his pockets. He has long portrayed himself as a “man of the people” but apparently one with millions in the bank.

The best lies are the ones that contain some measure of truth. And Moore’s movies do contain truth. But they also distort it, as Misha showed. And so it becomes Moore’s version of the truth, which is no longer really the truth. His “truth”, in my opinion, is the equivalent of the child who, when asked if he ate a cookie, answers truthfully that he did NOT, knowing full well he ate two cookies, not just one. Its a factually correct answer, but not one that I, nor most parents, would accept as the truth.

What I find most interesting is not the questionable actions of Moore and his creative editing, but rather the response he has stirred up from the right-wing activists. Visit any of the popular movie discusison boards on the Internet and you will find that they have been invaded by hoardes of right-wingers with keyboards who have resorted to emphasizing Moore’s physical weight, rather than picking apart his movies. Sticks and stones, ya know…

Cameron, it is much easier to get people to unite in dislike of someone or something than in like of something or someone. I think the last two presidential administration and the way campaign adds are done are stong evidence of that fact. Think about the glee in which the left reacted to Rush’s drug revelations and compare that with what you are reading about Moore- I am sure even the fat refrences are strangely similar. Or compare the press Clinton got from the right and compare it with the press Bush is getting from the left now… round and round it goes.

Misha,

Obviously, your strict interpretation of a ‘patriot’ disavows Socialists, while on the other hand, my pragmatic interpretation would include ‘racists’. And, now that Ralph Nader has chosen a VP who once ran for office as a Socialists Workers Party candidate,I guess that further narrows your choices in November.

but I will not support propoganda artists who mislead a group of my fellow citizens into hate for our nation’s principles.

You asked if I would go see a documentary by Micheal Savage, for instance. Well, I would not make the above statement about Savage unless I did view his film first.

Whether or not I detested a man like Savage, if I were to respectfully and credibly debate his actions on WatchBlog or just with friends, I’d want to know what I’m talking about, and back it up with facts.

Bert- would someone who wanted to turn this nation into a totalitarian state and abolish our constitution fit into your definition? If so, who wouldnt fit into your definition? What are the criteria? I think the United States is not just land, its an idea and a set of principles. If someone hates those principles, I dont see how they can be a patriot.

And, yes I have less credibility about Far. 9/11 cause I never saw it, but I do have credibility about Moore and his character as I have seen and read a good deal about him.

Misha,

Would someone ‘who wanted to turn this nation into a totalitarian state and abolish our Constitution’ bother to register and vote? Would they bother to publicly endorse for President, any candidate from one of the major parties? Would they bother to encourage young people to register and vote, by supporting ‘Rock The Vote’?

I’ve seen and read a great deal about Moore, as well, and I strongly disagree with your assessment of him. I think I could maybe better understand your disdain for his agenda, if you were to supply sourced evidence of such behavior.

Bert- I think you misunderstood me, its probably my fault. It is my opinion that Moore wants the United States to become socialist and i think socialism is at odds with the principles of our nation. I picked something else which is against the founding principles of our nation ( totalitarianism), and asked if someone could be a totalitarian and be a patriot.

I do not think anyone would disagree with me that Moore’s views are socialist (and I guess the running mate of Mr. Nader is/was as well), so the question is “is socialism so at odds with our country’s principles?” I think so, you disagree. I just want to see where you draw the line- what deviation from our principles of freedom and individual rights would you tolerate before you said someone was not a patriot. Someone who wants to abolish private property? Radically redistribute private proprety? How about someone who wants to abolish all freedom of speech? Or just give only one or two groups that freedom? how about freedom of religion? What rights do you think are so fundamental to our nation that you would say “whatever that person is, he is certainly no patriot.”? Thats all I am saying, I am sorry if I was unclear.

Returning to the censorship issue. This issue has been litigated for decades and our Courts have reasonably determined that short of shouting fire in a theater, we are free to speak (but behave prudently). Listening to the Republicans whine about Moore’s “propaganda” is disingenuous given their cash rich media manipulation using fear, lies and half truths. This does not mean their platforms and policies are without any merit. Truth can be uncertain in physics and especially in politics. Republican efforts to silence or discredit Moore are more likely to backfire than ignoring him. Think about what happened when O’Reilly tried to silence Al Franken by suing him!

Misha wrote,

it is my opinion that you cannot be “patriotic” and be a socialist (which Moore has admitted to being).

Trust me, one can be a socialist and still love the United States. You might try reading Pete Seeger’s biography “How Can I Keep From Singing” if you need a solid example that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Misha:
Socialism is a theory that is in direct contradiction with the foundational principles of this country.

There were many men who collaborated upon the contents of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their opinions varied widely and often seemed contradictory. Compare the writings of Adams with those of Jefferson, for example.
I think it is important to remember that the founders of this nation believed that our govt. would continue to evolve as The People saw fit to change it. It is also important to remember that these men were priviledged land-owning elites that could just as easily have chosen to make this country a monarchy if they had wanted to, rather than a republic.

When comparing Michael Moore’s opinions to those of the founders, however, one might look to someone like Tom Paine. Both are from working class backrounds and both held opinions that were/are able to connect with the average person on the street. In fact, Paine’s “Common Sense” writings were as popular and controversial in their day and age as Moore’s films and books such as “Stupid White Men” or “Dude, Where’s My Country?” are now. And if Michael Moore is such a radical then so must many American’s be, because his books are usually bestsellers.

Misha:
I do not see how someone can want to change the very principles that bind this nation together and make it what it is and then claim to “love” America.

Rather than changing the principles of this country, Michael Moore wants a return to reason and responsibility. If you read his books, you may not agree with his opinions, but you’ll certainly see that he truly cares about this country - and perhaps more importantly, about what We The People can do to improve things for EVERYONE - rather than just the wealthy few who can always be counted upon to look out for their own best interests.

Misha:
What exactly does he love? HIS version of America, which is not america at all, but some idealized socialist state?

Don’t we all love our own versions of America? Isn’t that the whole point of America? That we get to have our own opinions and the freedom to share them openly? Doesn’t the idea of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness give us the go ahead to work towards our individual or collective versions of America? And what about Libertarians? Don’t they have an idealized view of this country too (and a rather Darwinian view of Humanity in general)?

I say as long as you allow your own “speech ox” to be “gored”, then crank up the free speech knob to 11 (to make an obscure Spinal Tap reference).

What that means is, if some homophobe rapper comes to town (e.g., Eminem), no more pressuring the venue owners not to bill him.

When the KKK demonstrate, no more heckling and throwing bottles and cans.

When NAMBLA show up at Michael Jackson’s house in scoutmaster’s uniforms, I don’t wanna hear a PEEP?

Okay?

Okay. Free speech it is. So let it be written, so shall it be done.

I think this is a very important misunderstanding here. you think that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness give us the go ahead to work towards our individual or collective versions of America?”- but what it means is that YOU can pursue whatever version of life that you want, as long as you do not violate someone’s individual rights. So you can go around giving your money to all the poor, but you cannot take away everyone else’ property rights, just like you cant take away their free speech rights or their right to practice whatever religion they want.

What if someone’s version of “pursuit of happiness” was to establish a Nazi-like state- could they still be within your broad meaning of loving this nation? What if they wanted to deport all people of one race? What if they wanted to force everyone to be christian, and if they were not, then we would throw them in jail? Could someone like that be a patriot?

I am sure that Seeger and Moore do not want to cause America harm, but their ideals are just as at odds with the individual rights principles that make America what it is as someone who wanted to force everyone to be Christian. True socialism would force people to give up property they earned (of course some people have property they didnt earn, but socialism doesnt make those kinds of distinctions), and if you failed to do so, I assume you would get tossed in jail. The forced-christianity idea would make people give up their religious beliefs, or they would get thrown in jail. I am sure that someone who really believed it was god’s will that everyone be christian would THINK they are within the meaning of what this country is all about- but they would be wrong, as Moore and Seeger are wrong. And whats more, they would hardly be a patriot in my book.

If socialism, forced conversion, destruction of freedom of speech ect. can be patriotic, then anything could be and the word and this entire argument would be meaningless.

BV, I need to qualify that a bit: free to speak, yes, but if that speech damages another person there are still civil remedies (i.e., libel).

If there is libel in F9/11, let the lawsuits fly. Otherwise, fair’s fair, and an argument’s an argument. It doesn’t even have to be logical.

In the other Moore films I’ve seen, though, they’re not near as bad or hysterical as they’re painted to be. It’s a mixed bag of valid points, interesting ways of looking at things, and in some cases illogical conclusions that are nonetheless entertaining. Some factually documented things I’ve learned through them, I wouldn’t have learned by any other means, such as, when you get telemarketed by AT&T, you’re as likely as not to be talking to an inmate at a federal prison. Moore wasn’t explicit about this, but where that led me was this pondering thought: maybe it’s not so good for a system to have a profit motive to incarcerate people.

Misha wrote:
I think this is a very important misunderstanding here. you think that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness give us the go ahead to work towards our individual or collective versions of America?”- but what it means is that YOU can pursue whatever version of life that you want, as long as you do not violate someone’s individual rights.

As far as I know, Michael Moore has never advocated the violation of individual rights - he does however, advocate for Americans to get involved with their government and the policies that affect us accordingly. He does this by asking questions that others don’t ask and by taking the rich and powerful to task for their shameful behavior towards those with far less wealth and power.
This is exactly why he is so popular - even with people who think his politics lie much further to the left than their own, because he is doing what they themselves would love to do if they could, and he makes them laugh while doing it.

Misha:
So you can go around giving your money to all the poor, but you cannot take away everyone else’ property rights,

Yes, everyone should be free to give to charity as they see fit - but the rich should be made to pay their fair share of taxes just like the rest of us do - because taxes are the dues everyone must pay if they want to live in a civilized society. They should also be taxed for the inheritance money they receive because when we are talking about the rich, we speak of money that is income.
And where they control the workplace, they should not be allowed to off-shore their accounts and out-source their workers without paying a very heavy price for their callous inability to see that they are turning the middle class into the poor and the poor into the homeless in record numbers. And of course, they should not be allowed to interfere when their workers want to join a labor union.

Anyway, it seems plain to me that if wealthy conservatives in America keep up with their greedy and vicious brand of dog-eat-dog capitalism, they should only expect more people to move farther and farther to the left - maybe even as far left as Michael Moore. Reap what you sow, as they say.

Misha:
just like you cant take away their free speech rights or their right to practice whatever religion they want.

Now *that* would be un-American! And yet, as we speak, the right is trying to put pressure on theater owners not to show Farenheit 9-11.

Misha:
What if someone’s version of “pursuit of happiness” was to establish a Nazi-like state- could they still be within your broad meaning of loving this nation?

No. Because they would be denying others the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the other hand and though I despise racism, I must allow them their right of free speech - but when they begin advocating violence and killing, then I would like to see them locked up.

Our Enlightenment Founders were really brilliant, were they not? They made us a nation that must follow its laws, while simultaneously demanding tolerance of all points of view.

Misha:
What if they wanted to deport all people of one race?

No, because of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding all persons born or naturalized: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privledges and immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty and property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Misha:
What if they wanted to force everyone to be christian, and if they were not, then we would throw them in jail?

Freedom of Religion

Misha:
Could someone like that be a patriot?

Someone like that might be filled with hate and bear monitoring for their potential toward violence, but they have the right to view their opinions, however irrational and unbalanced they may seem to the rest of us.

Misha:
I am sure that Seeger and Moore do not want to cause America harm,

Of course not, they’re Patriots!

Misha:
but their ideals are just as at odds with the individual rights principles that make America what it is as someone who wanted to force everyone to be Christian.

I don’t agree. Seeger and Moore are advocates for working people, the poor and the victims of violence - and neither has ever been a *coercive force* toward anything - they are merely cultural figures who get the rest of us to think, to laugh and to discuss our shared American experience. Last I heard, there wasn’t anything unpatriotic about that.

Misha:
True socialism would force people to give up property they earned

Michael Moore seems to be a Humanitarian Socialist who wants what is best for working people and the poor. I truly doubt he wants to empty the bank accounts of the wealthy, throw them out of their houses or steal the cars from their garages.

Misha:
I am sure that someone who really believed it was god’s will that everyone be christian would THINK they are within the meaning of what this country is all about-

Then that person probably doesn’t understand that by law this is a nation that was founded upon the idea that there must be a Separation of Church and State.

Misha:
but they would be wrong, as Moore and Seeger are wrong.

In your opinion, I guess they are wrong. But in my opinion, voices of dissent like Pete Seeger and Michael Moore are as American as apple pie.

Misha:
And whats more, they would hardly be a patriot in my book.

Yeah well, thankfully America has a whole Library of Opinions!

Misha:
If socialism, forced conversion, destruction of freedom of speech ect. can be patriotic, then anything could be and the word and this entire argument would be meaningless.

You are lumping the philosophy of socialism with the practices of communism. FYI, many American socialists have little regard for the coerciveness and brutality of communism.
I respectfully ask you to keep an open mind because there are many Americans who consider themselves to be “real patriots” and Humanitarian Socialists (like me) who not only respect the founding principles but honestly want the best for this beautiful nation and her people.

Misha:

Socialism has brought us schools, roads, airports, a defense department and lots more bureaucracy, Enron, Haliburton; not just poor freeloaders. The biggest socialist freeloaders are CEOs. It would be cheaper to fire the bureaucrates than deny all poor men food.

Misha,

It seems that, in the interim since my last response you’ve been taken on the subject of Socialism by two able debaters, so I’ll only add this.

There are sensible ideals I could agree with, that are promoted by Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Anarchists and Conservatives, alike.

There are offensive ideals I would vehemently oppose, that are promoted by social Conservatives, Aryans, Survivalists, Republicans and remnants of the KKK.

All of the above, advocate their strong beliefs with the sole purpose of improving this nation, as they see it - right or wrong.

But, as long as they work within the democratic process (which many obviously detest), and/or refrain from foolishly mounting an armed and violent movement to usurp it’s authority - they fit my definition of a patriot!