Capitalism: A Love Story Review
“Capitalism is the system of taking and giving. Mostly taking.”
In Michael Moore’s latest documentary he’s back to challenge the seemingly unstoppable villains within America’s government and business infrastructure once more. This time he tackles the issue of the financial crisis of 2007-2010, how it occurred, how it caused the downturn of the stock markets and led to the government ‘bail out’ of banks. Capitalism: A Love Story sees the return of the class struggle as the rich upper classes that have it all torture the lower classes and take what little they have. Within a series of masterfully edited 50’s archive footage; we learn that this is exactly what Capitalism is about. At this point it could be debated that Moore is only looking at the negatives of our economic system and is forgetting the good it has done for our countries, but hey, that would make for less entertaining viewing. As in his previous works, we are introduced to disheartened and disenfranchised people who tell their personal horror stories. A few families have had their homes repossessed, there are workers who are on strike in order to receive compensation from banks after being made redundant. There some families who have had scandalous insurance claims placed on the lives of their nowdeceased loved ones by their employers. It’s hard not to respond to such stories and it’s hard not to get teary eyed when your heart strings are literally being slashed apart like this. And who is to blame for these harrowing injustices? Everyone apparently. Ronald Reagan, George W Bush (of course), the banks, Wall Street, the Republicans, the Democrats and a whole host more! No one is safe from Michael Moore, except for Barrack Obama, who only became president at the time the documentary concluded. Obama is left to act as the glimmer of hope for the American people; as long as they don’t beat him down for getting into his Commie Socialism. As Moore has chosen to delve into the realms of such an extensive crime with a vast number of conspirators to boot, the focus tends to sway from the issue in hand and it’s pretty easy to get lost in all the political and economic facts and figures; but that’s to be expected when taking on such a complex subject. He also takes religion into account, something I’ve never seen him do before, as he asks some clerical members of the Church whether Capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would approve of such an economic system. You can probably predict the verdict. Michael Moore is a love-him-or-hate-him kind of film maker; personally I enjoy him especially for his satirical nature but I am aware that many question the validity of his facts and the sensational way in which he presents taboo subjects. On the other hand, I doubt whether anyone can really deny that there is some truth in his documentaries and Capitalism: A Love Story feels like one of the more important instalments from Moore. It’s at least worth checking out on DVD. Taken from Geeks :] Thanks! |
I'm looking forward to seeing this. If you like this sort of thing, this is worth taking a look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&feature=fvw |
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story Review
I love this man, i really do. I have all his documentaries (Except Roger and Me, which sucks, i know i have to get it sometime) and watching this new one, he hits us again with another one. He shows us just how nasty and horrible this country has turned into. It was hard for me not to cry when watching people get kicked out of their homes. It could be any of us and that is what we have to realize.
|
Originally Posted by retpitar (Post 611582)
He shows us just how nasty and horrible this country has turned into.
Originally Posted by retpitar (Post 611582)
It was hard for me not to cry when watching people get kicked out of their homes. It could be any of us and that is what we have to realize.
The guy's an opportunist who's shown he's willing to skew things to make a point; he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar more than once. He stokes the fires that keep him warm. |
He also tells the truth from time to time. I wish that people would put their partisanship aside and actually listen to some of things Moore brings up. If anything, there should be a discussion about the matters he discusses in his films. That would be better than just brushing him aside and calling him a liar.
|
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story Review
I think that putting partisanship aside is precisely what would do away with Moore! He would have no reason to exist without it. I haven't come across many people who excuse his methods unless they approve of the message he's putting out, too.
As for discussion: there are lots of discussions about capitalism and free markets these days. I don't think we need Moore's films to broach the subject for us; particularly not this last one, which seems to have come well after the discussion had begun and seems to exist only to exploit that interest, rather than create it. And the two aren't mutually exclusive, anyway; I can brush Moore aside and talk about capitalism -- and walk and chew gum -- all at the same time Moore's clearly a political opportunist with a huge vested interest in stirring up anger, and he has a track record of manipulation. That kind of person will definitely generate a "discussion" in the crudest sense of the word, in the same way it generates a "discussion" when someone comes onto this forum and says something outrageous and unsupported. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611641)
Moore's clearly a political opportunist with a huge vested interest in stirring up anger, and he has a track record of manipulation.
For those reasons I haven't bothered seeing his last few, despite quite likely being in line with aspects of his thinking. I'm quite glad he made Columbine tho, because we did all end up having a reasonably level-headed discussion here about gun laws as a result. |
Re: Capitalism: A Love Story Review
I'm sure some people overstate any number of things related to Moore; both positive and negative. But the underlying record is pretty manipulative, particularly for someone who implicitly encourages the notion that he's providing some kind of public service.
I remember Pid's reply, actually; I remember he seemed not to care that one of the Heston sequences was demonstrably spliced together from various pieces of footage. In fact, I think most of the reply was basically "so what?", so "debunked" isn't the first word I'd use to describe it. I think some of Moore's opponents got a bit too zealous in their condemnation and overreached even though they really didn't have to. Which, sadly, makes them little better than the man himself, but pointing this out isn't much of a defense of his films, either. As for gun control; I guess the question is whether or not these discussions would exist without Moore, and whether or not we judge the response some people have to his films, or the films themselves. I'd go with the latter. Our last President sure generated a lot of discussion about any number of important issues, but I doubt that similarly endears him to Moore's fans. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611645)
I remember Pid's reply, actually; I remember he seemed not to care that one of the Heston sequences was demonstrably spliced together from various pieces of footage. In fact, I think most of the reply was basically "so what?", so "debunked" isn't the first word I'd use to describe it.
I think to describe his 'underlying record' as 'pretty manipulative' is, ironically, a touch too broad. He seems to draw on genuine situations, and reasonably sourced stats, even if he selects and presents them in a very partisan way. You should give a drop of credit to the real in his little fantasy lands :p Maybe just call him a big fat partisan? ;)
Originally Posted by Yods
As for gun control; I guess the question is whether or not these discussions would exist without Moore, and whether or not we judge the response some people have to his films, or the films themselves. I'd go with the latter. Our last President sure generated a lot of discussion about any number of important issues, but I doubt that similarly endears him to Moore's fans.
|
A big fat Partisan :laugh:
I've seen all of his films including this latest Capitalism, and I must admit to having a soft spot for Michael Moore. Like Golgot, I'm along the same lines of thought as him, but I do see his shortcomings too. I feel like he has a real sense of injustice that burns within him, but he just goes a little OTT sometimes. If he just introduces a subject to someone who hasn't given much thought and forces them to do some of their own reading and research, I think that's a good thing. It's when people swallow documentaries hook line and sinker as being the total truth that become things difficult. Capitalism and it's shortcomings are such a massive subject and I don't think Moore manages to pull anything together on this film, but just has a series of vignettes. Some of them are interesting as pieces of history, specially the car factory segment, the history of of the American Dream. Some are very silly - his shenanigans in Wall Street - but seeing people being turned out of their homes for not being able to afford the mortgage and then the homes being sold for 25% of what they paid for them, that is capitalism, and that's upsetting. Yods, as far as having your home repossessed, I do think it really could be many many people just like us. In the late 90s for many people seeing such a thing as a mortgage being within your range of possibilities for the first time, enabling you to have the dream of most British people - your very own house. That was something the banks and building societies made very,very easy - too easy it turns out now, but how were ordinary people supposed to know that when the financial institutions behaved as if everything was wonderful. I've been in **** financial situations before through wrong decision making and struggled, even intelligent people don't always do the right thing. :D |
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611627)
He also tells the truth from time to time. I wish that people would put their partisanship aside and actually listen to some of things Moore brings up. If anything, there should be a discussion about the matters he discusses in his films. That would be better than just brushing him aside and calling him a liar.
Obviously, a lot of people have said, when you're making your films, "Oh, the facts aren't 100 percent," and you've responded by saying, "I'm starting the discussion," or, "I want want to make the most entertaining movie I can with the information I have."
MM: You know, my response to them saying that is, just try to find one fact in my films that is wrong, because they're all correct. Anybody who says that, they're putting out this information to distract people from having a discussion about the issues in the film. I'd like to hear one fact in this film, Sicko, Fahrenheit, any of them, where I've been wrong. In fact, I got so p---ed at listening to all of this on the last three films, I've offered $10,000 to anybody who can find a fact that's wrong with the film. Not an opinion; the opinions are mine. You know, an opinion can be right or wrong. This is my opinion; I may not be right. If I say the sun rises in the East, it rises in the East. If I say [home] foreclosures are filed in this country every seven and a half seconds, you can trust that. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611641)
I think that putting partisanship aside is precisely what would do away with Moore! He would have no reason to exist without it. I haven't come across many people who excuse his methods unless they approve of the message he's putting out, too.
Moore's films are entertaining. One reason is because the "methods" you obviously don't like. I say you don't like them because you are invested in the policies of one particular party. I think he has brought up some very real facts that many people ignore or don't know about.
As for discussion: there are lots of discussions about capitalism and free markets these days. I don't think we need Moore's films to broach the subject for us; particularly not this last one, which seems to have come well after the discussion had begun and seems to exist only to exploit that interest, rather than create it. And the two aren't mutually exclusive, anyway; I can brush Moore aside and talk about capitalism -- and walk and chew gum -- all at the same time
Moore's clearly a political opportunist with a huge vested interest in stirring up anger, and he has a track record of manipulation. That kind of person will definitely generate a "discussion" in the crudest sense of the word, in the same way it generates a "discussion" when someone comes onto this forum and says something outrageous and unsupported. I say thank god for Michael Moore. A talented filmmaker willing to make entertaining documentaries about the very real problems we face. what bothers me so much is that people on the Republican side of the aisle run around calling him a liar, because he doesn't agree that their policies have been very helpful to the American people. You can call Moore partisan all you want, but if the facts support that one particular set of policies has been harmful, then that's what the facts support. It's too bad that one particular party in this country never seems to want to take any responsibility or understand how harmful their policies are. They are the partisans. Moore has criticized Democrats, too, when he thinks they are being bone-headed. Republicans somehow never seem to find fault with themselves. It's all about protecting their own, and saying Moore is lying. One day, maybe people will stop caring about their party and start caring about making this country better and helping the poor and middle classes and not just the rich. I am not hopeful, however, when so many poor and middle class Americans don't even see what the real problems are. And why is that? Because they are manipulated every day and that manipulation is NOT from Michael Moore. |
I share most of his beliefs, but I can`t stand the man. Saw his TV-show on DVD, read a biography about him and also watch Manufacturing Dissence, a documentary about his methods. Not good. He make mockumentaries for people, who only want to get their prejudices confirmed.
|
I love all of Michael Moore's documentaries.
He knows how to stick it to "the man". |
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
No, I disagree. He has done films about health care and health insurance. That is a real problem in this country. He has talked about Bush, Gun Control, and capitalism. All of these issues are barely discussed in any kind of meaningful way on television.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
Especially in this age of Fox "news," all we get is one party's point of view, and a lot of partisan screaming at one another. The public rarely gets an in depth discussion.
Moore contributes to the "partisan screaming at one another." His films aren't discussions, they're one-sided monologues. And really, can we stop with things like "Fox 'News'" and "Faux News"? We know you don't like them. These things aren't funny or witty or...anything. It's just a little jab without purpose. It just makes the conversation angrier.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
Moore's films are entertaining. One reason is because the "methods" you obviously don't like.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
I say you don't like them because you are invested in the policies of one particular party.
The difference is that you need to like him in order to excuse his methods, but I don't have to like or dislike anyone or anything to have a problem with what he does. Not liking manipulation is a partisan-free trait. Defending it when someone's on your side is not. In other words, conservatives and moderates (or even completely apolitical people) could have reason to dislike Moore. But you'd have to be liberal to make excuses for him.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
I find it funny that anyone would describe Moore in a negative way by saying he is trying to stir up "anger." LOL. Look at Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and FOX "News." They do that every day. You're describing them, not Moore, imo.
And I'm not saying anyone who ever makes anyone else angry is to be condemned. Sometimes people should be angry. My contention is that that's pretty much all that Moore does, and that he doesn't much care how he does it. Do you see the funny side of this, though? You defend Moore from being slanted and partisan (the two nicest ways to describe what he does) partially because you think he generates discussion, yet the exact same thing could be said about the people and things you just listed. The same thing could be said about Bush, too. Clearly, generating discussion isn't enough for you to forgive someone's partisanship. They have to happen to come down on your side, too. Which means this whole argument is just "stop bagging on Michael Moore, because I agree with him." Which we knew already.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
His films contain very real stories about how people suffered under Bush, the health care system, and under the current state of capitalism. You can deny that all you want, doesn't make it untrue.
His films contain some real stories, sure. They also contain some heavily modified ones. And the real ones are incredibly cherry-picked, too. Emotional appeals and anecdotal evidence produce strong emotional responses, but untenable policy. But since Moore's just going for the emotional jugular, he doesn't care.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
Can he be manipulative? Sure. Most documentaries are.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
I say thank god for Michael Moore. A talented filmmaker willing to make entertaining documentaries about the very real problems we face. what bothers me so much is that people on the Republican side of the aisle run around calling him a liar, because he doesn't agree that their policies have been very helpful to the American people.
Serious question: have you ever gone looking into these things? Have you ever tried to seek out the people who find problems with his films to see what they say, and try to see if it's accurate?
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
You can call Moore partisan all you want, but if the facts support that one particular set of policies has been harmful, then that's what the facts support.
And I'll point out, regardless, that one can always find some sort of fact to make things look a certain way, so merely being armed with one isn't the end of the discussion. There are discussions that come after about which facts to use and why. I don't think Moore ever gets that far, though. Let's be clear: Moore doesn't say "hey, let's go see what the healthcare system is like!" only to learn as he goes that -- surprise! -- it's messed up in all the ways he already thought it was. He has a goal in mind. He knows before he starts what point he's going to make. He's not following the truth wherever it leads, unless you believe he somehow always manages to be dead-on about every major issue he tackles before he even begins making these films. He makes them to try to support the things he already believes, not to find out what he ought to believe.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
It's too bad that one particular party in this country never seems to want to take any responsibility or understand how harmful their policies are. They are the partisans. Moore has criticized Democrats, too, when he thinks they are being bone-headed. Republicans somehow never seem to find fault with themselves. It's all about protecting their own, and saying Moore is lying.
I'd list examples of Republican infighting and defection, but past discussions have shown me that examples going in one direction are always meaningless abberations, while those going in the other are somehow glimpses of the party's very soul. Moore, by the by, has largely criticized Democrats for not going far enough, or for not being effective. That's not breaking ideological ranks, that's just being further left than most of them and being frustrated with a lack of implementation. He knows his fan base, and they're generally more liberal than your average Democrat in Congress, so he's always going to come at them from the left.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 611829)
One day, maybe people will stop caring about their party and start caring about making this country better and helping the poor and middle classes and not just the rich.
Again, if we're going to have this discussion, let's have it. Because the insinuations in this statement are both incorrect, at odds with basic economics, and fairly insulting. It's no wonder you generalize so easily about conservatives if this is the contorted way you view them. It may be difficult to digest, but conservatives don't disagree with you not to be selfish or careless; they do it because they actually disagree with you. And I'm one of them. |
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 611653)
My recollection was that it was a bit more thorough than that. If I recall right, the argument there was that the content of the speech was identical, so it didn't matter which day's footage they used. Or at least not massively. (IE they didn't seem to have picked footage where Heston looked more demonic due to some lighting issue or what have you, but just used what was available. [Not that I wouldn't put the former past his Moorishness ;)]).
Anyway, the part I was talking about is near the end, where he interviews Heston. He makes it look like he confronts him with a picture of a slain child, and he makes it look like Heston just scuffles away heartlessly, but the camera angles are such that there's no way this could have happened. He would have had to splice together his little confrontation with Heston's reaction to something else, which is pretty horrendous. I'm going off memory a bit, of course, but I do remember that half the discussion wasn't really a debunking, but a playing-down of the importance of things.
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 611653)
I think to describe his 'underlying record' as 'pretty manipulative' is, ironically, a touch too broad. He seems to draw on genuine situations, and reasonably sourced stats, even if he selects and presents them in a very partisan way. You should give a drop of credit to the real in his little fantasy lands :p
Maybe just call him a big fat partisan? ;)
Originally Posted by Golgot (Post 611653)
In the gun control case it didn't happen in any sustained form here until discussing that film. But I guess this is a film site, so it's a slanted scenario ;)
|
Originally Posted by christine (Post 611662)
I've seen all of his films including this latest Capitalism, and I must admit to having a soft spot for Michael Moore. Like Golgot, I'm along the same lines of thought as him, but I do see his shortcomings too. I feel like he has a real sense of injustice that burns within him, but he just goes a little OTT sometimes.
It's hard to say, because in the case of any talk radio host, or anyone like Moore, their livelihood eventually gets completely tied up in being who they've been, which isn't conducive to reexamination.
Originally Posted by christine (Post 611662)
If he just introduces a subject to someone who hasn't given much thought and forces them to do some of their own reading and research, I think that's a good thing. It's when people swallow documentaries hook line and sinker as being the total truth that become things difficult. Capitalism and it's shortcomings are such a massive subject and I don't think Moore manages to pull anything together on this film, but just has a series of vignettes. Some of them are interesting as pieces of history, specially the car factory segment, the history of of the American Dream.
Originally Posted by christine (Post 611662)
Some are very silly - his shenanigans in Wall Street - but seeing people being turned out of their homes for not being able to afford the mortgage and then the homes being sold for 25% of what they paid for them, that is capitalism, and that's upsetting.
Originally Posted by christine (Post 611662)
Yods, as far as having your home repossessed, I do think it really could be many many people just like us. In the late 90s for many people seeing such a thing as a mortgage being within your range of possibilities for the first time, enabling you to have the dream of most British people - your very own house. That was something the banks and building societies made very,very easy - too easy it turns out now, but how were ordinary people supposed to know that when the financial institutions behaved as if everything was wonderful. I've been in **** financial situations before through wrong decision making and struggled, even intelligent people don't always do the right thing. :D
I took the original comment to mean, by "any one of us," that these things just fall out of the sky and land on someone random, which I don't believe. For the most part, whether or not that happens to me will depend on me; what kind of house I've bought, whether or not I can afford it, and whether or not I've done my homework in regards to my mortgage and financial situation. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611853)
That's a fair description. I do wonder whether or not his sense of injustice is real, or if it's part of the act. I realize that sounds a little cynical, but I wonder that about a lot of heavily politicized media figures, after awhile. I wonder how many of them start off believing, but more or less do it out of habit after awhile.
It's hard to say, because in the case of any talk radio host, or anyone like Moore, their livelihood eventually gets completely tied up in being who they've been, which isn't conducive to reexamination.
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611853)
I don't want to branch off into a whole discussion of capitalism, but I feel the need to ask: what part of this is upsetting? I don't mean emotionally upsetting; it's always emotionally upsetting to see someone lose a home. But what part do you feel is an injustice?
Imagine buying a place for x amount of dollars and getting evicted for not paying the x amount of dollars mortgage then finding out your home has been sold for 25% of that by people like the self styled Vulture Realtors. I don't like seeing people being put in that situation, that's an injustice imo, as well as emotionally upsetting. If you were in that place - I know you say you will never be, and god willing I hope you never are - but would you see that as fair game?
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611853)
That's certainly true; I've made some bad choices. But I usually chalk them up to myself, and not to a bank or the economic and political system under which I live.
I took the original comment to mean, by "any one of us," that these things just fall out of the sky and land on someone random, which I don't believe. For the most part, whether or not that happens to me will depend on me; what kind of house I've bought, whether or not I can afford it, and whether or not I've done my homework in regards to my mortgage and financial situation.
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 611853)
I took the original comment to mean, by "any one of us," that these things just fall out of the sky and land on someone random, which I don't believe. For the most part, whether or not that happens to me will depend on me; what kind of house I've bought, whether or not I can afford it, and whether or not I've done my homework in regards to my mortgage and financial situation.
blimey, how do you make that multiquote thing work? just taken me ages to get that post right! I must be being a right thicko :laugh: |
At the time, I didn't have the energy to answer Yoda's charges in his post back to me, but I kept thinking about something Yoda said about Fox News and how I shouldn't have included that in this discussion.
I disagree. I found an article that explains why I hate FOX so much: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010...=huffpo-direct Because, you see, FOX News (and conservative talk radio) are directly related to the vilification of someone like Moore. Without their heightened rhetoric, their deception, their sometimes lies, Moore would just be another documentarian with a point of view. All documentary filmmakers have a point of view. Instead, he's vilified and no amount of defense of his facts can persuade these people that their point of view may not be fair to the facts. I left MSNBC off the list because they are a direct reaction to FOX, seeing that something had to be done to counter their extremely biased viewpoint. Thank goodness since the radio waves are owned by conservatives. There is a need out there to counter their deception. A poll was conducted regarding the Tea Party. Only 2% knew that their federal taxes had actually gone down. 98% believed they had increased. I wonder what network these people watch? In addition, have you seen their signs? Obama is a Marxist. Hmm... I wonder where they got that, too? |
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
At the time, I didn't have the energy to answer Yoda's charges in his post back to me, but I kept thinking about something Yoda said about Fox News and how I shouldn't have included that in this discussion.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
I disagree. I found an article that explains why I hate FOX so much:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010...=huffpo-direct I had Fox News on in the background the day of the health care vote in the House and heard Shepherd Smith calling out conservatives and liberals alike as they trotted out their rhetoric. He was courteous and critical of both. This is not an irregular occurance, believe it or not, but obviously it's not something you'll ever see if you don't want to. Serious question: do you ever seek out examples of these sorts of things in regards to media outlets or commentary sources you use, or only the ones you oppose? And feel free to tack on my question a few posts back about searching for evidence on criticisms about Moore, since both would be examples of confirmation bias.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
Because, you see, FOX News (and conservative talk radio) are directly related to the vilification of someone like Moore. Without their heightened rhetoric, their deception, their sometimes lies, Moore would just be another documentarian with a point of view. All documentary filmmakers have a point of view.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
Instead, he's vilified and no amount of defense of his facts can persuade these people that their point of view may not be fair to the facts.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
I left MSNBC off the list because they are a direct reaction to FOX, seeing that something had to be done to counter their extremely biased viewpoint. Thank goodness since the radio waves are owned by conservatives. There is a need out there to counter their deception.
Also, are you aware that many of the people who enjoy Fox believe it's responding to an existing bias in media, which is the same thing you're saying about MSNBC?
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
A poll was conducted regarding the Tea Party. Only 2% knew that their federal taxes had actually gone down. 98% believed they had increased. I wonder what network these people watch?
I've seen some polls along this vein (though not with those numbers), and some of the methodologies are mind-boggling. I saw an entire article written about how ignorant Tea Partiers were that was based on -- get this -- 57 respondents, and that from a single rally. I've seen a few others that mock them for thinking taxes are higher than they are, but only because their answers reflected total tax burden when the question was actually about a single tax (federal income tax). There's another problem with the question: the central complaint the Tea Party movement has with the government is excessive spending and the fact that it will lead to tax increases. The distinction between having higher taxes now and being doomed to have them in the near future doesn't strike me as a huge one. Yet another problem: the tax cut is technically existent, but was so small and inconsequential that I really wouldn't expect anyone to notice it. Yet another problem: asking about federal taxes only is silly. I'll have to check, but I believe state tax burdens have had to go up in many places because of local budget shortfalls.
Originally Posted by tramp (Post 614356)
In addition, have you seen their signs? Obama is a Marxist. Hmm... I wonder where they got that, too?
People make up their own minds. You watch news, and I'm sure you read things (blogs, newspapers, etc) that you agree with. And I'm sure you hear things from them you didn't previously know. And conservatives do, too. And like you they decide which things to accept, and which things not to. They're not mindless automatons. I'm going to make an appeal, yet again, that we do away with these vagaries and hazy assertions. I've had all I can handle about how conservatives do this, or Republicans do that. Such statements are always myopic generalizations devoid of the kind of evidence befitting the scope of their claim. And, frankly, I think they make for a convenient diversion when someone tries to steer the discussion towards facts and falsifiable things. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 03:09 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums