[MacOSR]

Simple question: Is Michael Moore an accurate depiction of the Democratic Party?

[Lerkfish]

-

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you have to ask the question, you don't want to hear the answer.

Even the republicans on this board acknowledge the Democratic Party is highly diverse in philosophy and demographics. This is part of the problem in determining the next credible democratic contender.

Therefore, obviously, selecting one person and trying to extrapolate to an entire mosaic of diverse people is inherently flawed.

However, more telling is why you would ask the question.....now why is that?

Because I just heard him on TV promoting a new book. He was framing his viewpoints as the popular Deomocratic party view point.

[nvaughan3]

nah...not all democrats are that fat.

[OreoCookie]

AFAIK he is somehow with the (American) green party ... not equal to Democrats.

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
AFAIK he is somehow with the (American) green party ... not equal to Democrats.

Anywhere I can find more information online?

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
nah...not all democrats are that fat.

[maxelson]

He's about as representative of the average Dem biewpoint as Billy Roper is of the average Rep viewpoint. Hell, I'd say he is about as representative of the run of the mill leftist view as Pat Buchanan is of the average conservative view. Or Pat Robertson. You get the idea.
Although, there are one HELL of a lot of conservatives who would do their damndest to convince you diffrerently. They are not hard to find. They are the ones who accuse the general "leftist" population of spreading nought but FUD- they tend to speak in general terms about all those whom they suspect may stray to the left of their political center. A few of them are right here, on this board. And their stated mission is to "expose the lies of the left".

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:

Although, there are one HELL of a lot of conservatives who would do their damndest to convince you diffrerently. They are not hard to find. They are the ones who accuse the general "leftist" population of spreading nought but FUD- they tend to speak in general terms about all those whom they suspect may stray to the left of their political center. A few of them are right here, on this board. And their stated mission is to "expose the lies of the left".

Actually, I would suggest that there are an awful lot of conservatives that are thankful that Mr. Moore is not representative of the Democrats and / or left-ists. Just because he puts himself forth as such doesn't make it so.

This way there's only one of him. Leftists and normal folks (gentle jab to ya, friend!) would both be in a real pickle if there were more of his ilk who spread FUD as virulently as he does.

In fact, I see a sci-fi/horror B-movie that needs to be made- "Stupid White Male Cloned! 50 Million Moore walking the Earth!!"

*note for the humor-impaired, "Stupid White Men" is the title of a book authored by Mr. Moore.

[Lerkfish]

-

[maxelson]

As I said- a FEW righties. Those not representative of the mainstream right (with whom I have zero issue). I would also suggest that those few are not dissimilar to the type Moore represents himself. Those few who represent a view which I am grateful is not shared by the majority of those mainstream conservatives (gentle jab back? ).

[davesimondotcom]

Michael Moore isn't an accurate depiction of anything.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
As I said- a FEW righties. Those not representative of the mainstream right (with whom I have zero issue).

WAIT JUST A MINUTE.

Which is it?

originally posted by maxelson:
lthough, there are one HELL of a lot of conservatives who would do their damndest to convince you diffrerently. They are not hard to find.

So, it's a HELL of a lot of conservatives a minute ago, but now it's a FEW righties?

The only prior instance you used the word "few" was in terms of finding those righties on this board, which suggests that you mean, there are a HELL of a lot of them, but FEW on this board. This is very different from a FEW righties who wish to paint with a broad brush.

(gentle jab back)

[maxelson]

JAB...JAB...JAB!

Hell of a lot is not equal to ALL. Few is what I mean on these boards.



OK. To soften. There are a HELL OF A LOT less rabid ultra right winged whatevers than there are conservative mainstreamers. AFAIAC, 10 rabids are too many= ONE HELL OF A LOT.

[roger_ramjet]

Who's Billy Roper?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
JAB...JAB...JAB!

Hell of a lot is not equal to ALL. Few is what I mean on these boards.



OK. To soften. There are a HELL OF A LOT less rabid ultra right winged whatevers than there are conservative mainstreamers. AFAIAC, 10 rabids are too many= ONE HELL OF A LOT.

That was soft?

Gosh, I should be alarmed! There are a WHOLE (greater than ONE) HELL OF A LOT of ultra lefty fasty-loosey whatevers than there are lesser lefty mainstreamers!

Ten? Ten are all it takes to make ONE HELL OF A LOT?

I recall Abraham's bargaining with G-d before the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah, where they were dealing on how many righteous people he had to find in order to save the cities. Abraham pleads with G-d to spare the cities for the sake of even 50 righteous people, perhaps forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, and finally ten. Only when not even 10 righteous people can be found does Abraham return to his home.

[davesimondotcom]

I think it would be unfair to say that any one person is an accurate representation of any one party.

[chris v]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think it would be unfair to say that any one person is an accurate representation of any one party.

Where's Captain Obvious??



CV

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think it would be unfair to say that any one person is an accurate representation of any one party.

True, but Moore does crave and receive major exposure. Until some leading Democrats put him in his place, much of the media-addicted public will still undoubtedly feel he and his comrade Sean Penn are the faces of the party.

[finboy]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
Simple question: Is Michael Moore an accurate depiction of the Democratic Party?

He's an accurate depiction of the LEADERSHIP of one part of the Democrat party. There are a lot of folks of the Lefty bent who feel that way but just aren't brave enough to act like him.

As for regular Democrat voters -- he isn't representative.

[MacOSR]

The primary concern I have is that he is VERY vocal and I haven't heard one Deomacrat in leadership that has opposed him. Maybe I have just missed the opposition but this is what concerns me.

[deedar]

Huh? I dunno - is he a Democrat?

Are you sure that you mean "depiction"? I think that you mean "representative of" or "exemplar" or something like that - right?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Who's Billy Roper?

Ultra Right freakshow and Membership Coordinator of the National Alliance- basically a white supreemie group. He was also a hi up on the Council For Conservative Citizens and, while the title was technically accurate (remember the helecopter at the M$ building joke?), had nothing whatever to do with your everyday gathering of conservatives. It iwas just another thinly veiled Neo Nazi group.

More:
http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/roper.htm

[daimoni]

.

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Simple answer: http://www.michaelmoore.com/

In fact, the answer is so obvious.. I wonder why you even asked the (leading) question?


He's not a Democrat nor a Repulican. He campaigned for Ralph Nader's presidential bid in 2000. So I guess that makes him a Green Party member. Whatever. He's just another voter. Move along now.

Where is the answer on his site? It isn't obvious to me

Another question...if he is not a Democrat then why did he speak as if he were one?

[Lerkfish]

-

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I dunno. Ask him. You can email him on his website.

Did you even read the thread?

[Lerkfish]

-

[thunderous_funker]

Lots of people like MM who aren't "Lefties". He's way more Populist than radical. Populism is the path of least resistance--you can just be a critic and never have to offer solutions. You capitalize on the anger and frustration of working class people who feel threatened by corporate interests and alienated by the political system.

All of MM's work are on this theme.

So, if you want to say that the plight of working American families struggling to make ends meet in a global economy while their political system is for sale to the highest bidder is a Democratic theme, be my guest.

To me, he's a Populist who doesn't have too many friends in the Leaderhip of either party (since he love to write books about who buys their votes), but probably sells books and movie tickets to lots of people who are in lots of different parties and even some people that aren't in any party.

In one episode of TV Nation, Mike took key members of the Michigan Militia to AutoWorld (the theme park in Flint that was supposed to save the town after GM left...). They had a bonding experience as the hard-right gun-nuts admitted to Mike that the hippies had been right about corporate America all along and that they should have been fighting together instead of fighting each other.

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, and its a transparent attempt to swipe at democrats, which you keep asking and rephrasing in different ways, ignoring actual answers you receive because you're not generating enough flamebait otherwise.

did I miss any other point besides that?

You missed the whole point of this thread. I find it funny how I come here asking an honest question and I get this is the response. This is sad and not even worth a response! I am here to have an intelligent conversation.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
The primary concern I have is that he is VERY vocal and I haven't heard one Deomacrat in leadership that has opposed him. Maybe I have just missed the opposition but this is what concerns me.

Don't worry about it. He's a windbag. Most know he is a windbag. He influences pretty much NOTHING, politically speaking.
And hey- take a look at what Lerk is saying- whether it was your intention or not, it LOOKS like a flame gathering- not at first, but as he says, you look as if this is the tactic as you go further on. His inference is not based upon thin air.

Final answer, and I think TF has it: He represents more a radical Populist view than anything else. He does not represent the Democratic party or the majority of its members, no matter what he says.

[Lerkfish]

-

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, as maxelson points out, the longer the thread goes on, and the more you ignore actual answers to your question and you just keep rephrasing it indiciates you're doing something other than just trying to have an intelligent conversation. In fact, the closest you come to revealing your real intent is in this post:

what you are actually doing is trying to indict the democratic party for not opposing someone you are concerned is too vocal with their viewpoint. You think you are being subtle about it, but its very transparent.
You hope to show, by attempting to elicit certain responses, that democrats are the same thing philosophically as MM. The evidence is that no matter how many times people tell you he doesn't represent the democratic party, you keep trying to phrase your questions in such a way as to show that he does.

That's not an intelligent conversation, that's going on a fishing expedition, and throwing back all the fishes that aren't the kind you're looking for. In other words, you have a specific agenda, and until someone responds in just that way so you can hook them, you'll keep re-asking the same question.

Let's discuss your actual agenda, then, shall we?

your thesis is that MM is too vocal, and isn't getting slapped down by the Democratic leadership, therefore he is representative of all democrats. But does this logically follow?

Here are the flaws in that thesis:

1. He's a filmmaker, not a politician, and what he says in not even on the radar of the democratic political leadership as something they should respond to. yes, he's making political statements, but until he actually enters the arena, he's not worth the energy to respond to, either way. You'll note also the absence of republican political leadership spending energy on him. The only people up in arms about him are those movements like revoketheoscar and certain right wing talk radio personalities. Note that these are not politicians.

2. Although you obviously want SOMEONE to make him stop talking, that is just not a priority for most liberals or democrats. We aren't that interested in preventing free speech. That doesn't mean we agree with him on every point. For example, I don't like Rush Limbaugh's overall philosophy, but I don't expend any engergy trying to still his voice because I believe he has that right. Merely because I do not spend energy trying to still his voice does not mean I agree with him, nor does it mean he represents me. That's absurd.

3. Your perspective is that he's TOO VOCAL. That means that what he has to say makes you personally uncomfortable, or is too irritating or too pervasive. For one thing, not that many people have seen his movies, so I don't think he's too pervasive. Irritating? yeah, I find him irritating, but that's a style rather than content issue. The real point is, you're expecting other people to have the same intolerance of MM, and if they are not equally as intolerant of him as you are, then they must be in cahoots with him. But that does not logically follow. What it really means is that other people are just not offended or irritated by him to the same degree as you. Deal with it.

Now, there is an intelligent response to your thesis. If you continue to repackage the same question in different ways after this, there's not much I can do except to point out that you're a great deal more transparent than you realize.

Dude...the question was very simple. The only time I questioned others answers was when someone pointed me to where the answers were and I found none so I asked for clarification. Up till now, the only thing I have to go by is what MM actually said.

BTW, I have no thesis...just what MM said?!?! Don't turn this into my "thesis".

Responses to your points.
1. -He didn't claim to be part of the Rep. party...why should they?
2. -What in the world ever gave you the idea that I wanted him to stop speaking?
3. -No, my "perspective" is that I heard what he said and wanted to know if it was true.

I am giving up on an intelligent conversation about MM with you. I'm glad my "transparency" was evident to you

[Axo1ot1]

Just because someone is outspoken doesn't make them extreme. Oh wait Democrats? Yeah the democrats are a bunch of wussies who would eat dirt before speaking their mind, so in that light Moore is extreme.

[bracken]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
Simple question: Is Michael Moore an accurate depiction of the Democratic Party?

His white guilt, fat, rich-but-pretends-to-be-for-the-little-guy, white trashy demeanor makes him look a lot like...Clinton!

[voodoo]

Democrats, Republicans: same difference.

They just have to oppose eachother sometimes to get people to vote either one.

JFK starts the Vietnam war, Nixon ends it, Harry Truman starts the Cold War, Reagan ends it.

Still.. it isn't that clear cut is it?