Micheal Moore: Oscar Rant

[Pu-239]

He has the right to free speech, so we have the right to diss him .


[ssss]I don't like how everyone who doesn't like Shrubby is considered anti-American. Looks like a return to the 50s. Oh well I really don't care about Shrubby except for Asscroft/Religion/Pro Business to the point of only giving MS a slap on the wrist, which will screw the computer industry for years to come.[/semi-sarcasm/serious]

Oops, did I just pull a Michael Moore? . Silly Me!!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

He has the right to free speech, so we have the right to diss him .


[ssss]I don't like how everyone who doesn't like Shrubby is considered anti-American. Looks like a return to the 50s. Oh well I really don't care about Shrubby except for Asscroft/Religion/Pro Business to the point of only giving MS a slap on the wrist, which will screw the computer industry for years to come.[/semi-sarcasm/serious]

Oops, did I just pull a Michael Moore? . Silly Me!!

No, you didn't just pull a Michael Moore. But run that speech past a customer where you work and you're getting into Michael Moore territory. See what I'm saying?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Why do we keep hearing that he has a right to free speech.
Why does this stupid line keep being repeated ad nausium?
This is the mother of all red herrings.

Only the government can censor you. PERIOD, end of fucking storie.
For the stupid, and you know who you are.
Freedom of the press belongs to the man who OWNS ONE!

If you do not own the microphone, you do NOT have a RIGHT to speak into it!
The world is full of soap boxes, and I hear megaphones are cheap.
Supply your own forum.

[Pu-239]

I was being sarcastic. Of course we know he's not being censored. I'm just saying it works both ways.

[Uraniun235]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Darth Wong]

He has the right to free speech, so we have the right to diss him .

[ssss]I don't like how everyone who doesn't like Shrubby is considered anti-American. Looks like a return to the 50s. Oh well I really don't care about Shrubby except for Asscroft/Religion/Pro Business to the point of only giving MS a slap on the wrist, which will screw the computer industry for years to come.[/semi-sarcasm/serious]

Oops, did I just pull a Michael Moore? . Silly Me!!

No, you didn't just pull a Michael Moore. But run that speech past a customer where you work and you're getting into Michael Moore territory. See what I'm saying?

That analogy is incorrect. At your workplace, you are not called upon to give a speech which may or may not include things like religion and politics as long as you spout the party line, but may not include any of those things if you don't.

[Darth Wong]

Let me explain what the problem is with the angry reaction to Moore's little speech:

1) If Michael Moore had said "we live in troubled times. We have an embattled military which must bring a sadistic dictator to heel" nobody would have had a problem.

2) If Michael Moore had said "I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Lord Jesus Christ for giving my guidance and helping me accomplish everything that I've achieved" nobody would have had a problem.

But if he says that the war is being done for fictitious reasons, then he's an asshole. And let's suppose that he went up there and said "I would like to thank Charles Darwin for showing what ridiculous nonsense Christian origin myths are". He would have been widely lambasted from coast to coast for abusing the moment to peddle his views on religion. In short, it's OK to use the podium for politics or religion as long as you have the "correct" attitudes.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Let me explain what the problem is with the angry reaction to Moore's little speech:

1) If Michael Moore had said "we live in troubled times. We have an embattled military which must bring a sadistic dictator to heel" nobody would have had a problem.

2) If Michael Moore had said "I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Lord Jesus Christ for giving my guidance and helping me accomplish everything that I've achieved" nobody would have had a problem.

But if he says that the war is being done for fictitious reasons, then he's an asshole. And let's suppose that he went up there and said "I would like to thank Charles Darwin for showing what ridiculous nonsense Christian origin myths are". He would have been widely lambasted from coast to coast for abusing the moment to peddle his views on religion. In short, it's OK to use the podium for politics or religion as long as you have the "correct" attitudes.

And that may be true of most people; my reaction, however, would be the same to any of those things, and brings me to why I think my analogy does hold:

Yes, Moore was up there to give a speech; he was not, however, invited to give a religious speech, or a political speech. In fact, as you recall someone mentioned on Page 1 (and I can't confirm or deny this part of it) all attendees were specifically forbidden from making political speeches. Moore, if nothing else, stepped outside the officially set boundaries of the program, hijacked a forum contrary to the explicit instructions of the forum host, and proceeded to sermonize.

And for the record, I'd like to state right now that there is a difference between giving a fictitious middle-eastern deity a brief nod of credit (stupid as it may be) and sermonizing in front of thousands of people when not doing so is an explicit condition of your invitation to speak.

[Next of Kin]

And for the record, I'd like to state right now that there is a difference between giving a fictitious middle-eastern deity a brief nod of credit (stupid as it may be) and sermonizing in front of thousands of people when not doing so is an explicit condition of your invitation to speak.

How is that different if Moore was to come out and say, "I'd like to thank <insert deity here> because he is a most merciful and just ruler. Without his guidance I would not have amount to much!"

[Darth Wong]

And for the record, I'd like to state right now that there is a difference between giving a fictitious middle-eastern deity a brief nod of credit (stupid as it may be) and sermonizing in front of thousands of people when not doing so is an explicit condition of your invitation to speak.

So it's not about right or wrong, but breach of contract with the show's producers? Please explain why anyone is getting all worked up about this besides the show's producers, then.

I reiterate that pro-war proclamations or declaration of faith in Jesus would have been fine, but anti-war proclamations or declaration of contempt for creationism would be unacceptable, and it is this double-standard which rules the day.

[Alex Moon]

And for the record, I'd like to state right now that there is a difference between giving a fictitious middle-eastern deity a brief nod of credit (stupid as it may be) and sermonizing in front of thousands of people when not doing so is an explicit condition of your invitation to speak.

How is that different if Moore was to come out and say, "I'd like to thank <insert deity here> because he is a most merciful and just ruler. Without his guidance I would not have amount to much!"

First of all, the latter actually relates to his reason for being there. He is acknologing(sp?) those he thinks were important to his winning an award, which would include <insert deity here>. Moore's speech ranted against the legitamacy of Bush and this war, which has nothing to do with his winning an award for a documentary.

Second, the latter doesn't directly attack portions of his audience. If he had said, "I'd like to thank <insert deity here>, who is the one true god, and whose guidence got me here. I am lucky to have found him, especially in these days when schools indocrinate our children in false, atheistic beliefs and encourage immorality..." then he would be just as wrong as he was for his speech on Sunday, because he has gone from a statement of thanks to those he believes to be important, to a challenge to viewers that their beliefs are wrong.

One thing to remember is that the Oscars are as much about publicity as they are about the awards. The Actors and Actresses are there to get noticed; to be seen by the public. Turning it into a political rally in only going to cause viewers who would otherwise watch the show to change the channel, or even worse not watch next year.

[Darth Wong]

Second, the latter doesn't directly attack portions of his audience ...

Go up there and proclaim your allegiance to Satan and see how people react.

One thing to remember is that the Oscars are as much about publicity as they are about the awards. The Actors and Actresses are there to get noticed; to be seen by the public. Turning it into a political rally in only going to cause viewers who would otherwise watch the show to change the channel, or even worse not watch next year.

So it's not about right or wrong, but RATINGS?

[Alex Moon]

Second, the latter doesn't directly attack portions of his audience ...

Go up there and proclaim your allegiance to Satan and see how people react.

Depends on how I say it. They'll probably give me weird looks, but I doubt very much more if all I said was something like "...my producers, my fellow actors, my faith in Lucifer which has supported me all these years..."

One thing to remember is that the Oscars are as much about publicity as they are about the awards. The Actors and Actresses are there to get noticed; to be seen by the public. Turning it into a political rally in only going to cause viewers who would otherwise watch the show to change the channel, or even worse not watch next year.

So it's not about right or wrong, but RATINGS?

Partially.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And for the record, I'd like to state right now that there is a difference between giving a fictitious middle-eastern deity a brief nod of credit (stupid as it may be) and sermonizing in front of thousands of people when not doing so is an explicit condition of your invitation to speak.

So it's not about right or wrong, but breach of contract with the show's producers? Please explain why anyone is getting all worked up about this besides the show's producers, then.

I reiterate that pro-war proclamations or declaration of faith in Jesus would have been fine, but anti-war proclamations or declaration of contempt for creationism would be unacceptable, and it is this double-standard which rules the day.

And I understand your scorn for the double-standard. I share it. But that means that I'll display scorn for Moore's pissy little diatribe, just as I'm disgusted by Andre (?) Brody's doe-eyed little litany at the Academy Awards for his childhood buddy serving in Kuwait. I don't give a shivering shit about Moore's Disney-esque political fantasies or Brody's tribute to his teeter-totter pal. This is all shit they need to be telling their mommies over the telephone, not the American public, who didn't tune in to listen to them rant and ramble about off-topic bullshit.

[Skelron]

You know I watched most of the Oscar's and was looking forward to Moore's speach and see nothing wrong with what he said. When he spoke of the We are against it, it can be inferred not as We the American people but maybe We the people on this stage, the people that came up with me to back up my speech are against this!! Seeing as how it is the very next Sentence it seems more logical... And another thing, it seemed to me that a lot of people made little comments in their speech that where Pro-War and they are not being lambasted.

As Wong has pointed out most people are attacking Moore because he has a different opinion, it has nothing to dfo with the fact that it was the Oscar's and the Oscar's is 'not political' The Oscar's has ALWAYS had Celebs spouting their Political opinion's and never been attacked for it, but suddenly it's one made very publically and one which splits the nations and the opponments of his view attack him for holding an opinion and talking about it.

Micheal Moore is a Political Comedian, if he didn't mention Politics in his speach then I for one would have been very dissapointed, it is also Not as if it came as a Big surprise the Commentator's had been saying for days that if Moore won then he would make an anti-War speech, if the idea of him making a Speech was so bad to the organisers of the oscars they would have said sorry no speech... THEY DIDN'T. Maybe because it would be one of the Dramas of the event something they can Market for posterity, the big News event of this years oscar.... IE They wanted him to make a fuss...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You know I watched most of the Oscar's and was looking forward to Moore's speach and see nothing wrong with what he said. When he spoke of the We are against it, it can be inferred not as We the American people but maybe We the people on this stage, the people that came up with me to back up my speech are against this!! Seeing as how it is the very next Sentence it seems more logical... And another thing, it seemed to me that a lot of people made little comments in their speech that where Pro-War and they are not being lambasted.

As Wong has pointed out most people are attacking Moore because he has a different opinion, it has nothing to dfo with the fact that it was the Oscar's and the Oscar's is 'not political' The Oscar's has ALWAYS had Celebs spouting their Political opinion's and never been attacked for it, but suddenly it's one made very publically and one which splits the nations and the opponments of his view attack him for holding an opinion and talking about it.

Micheal Moore is a Political Comedian, if he didn't mention Politics in his speach then I for one would have been very dissapointed, it is also Not as if it came as a Big surprise the Commentator's had been saying for days that if Moore won then he would make an anti-War speech, if the idea of him making a Speech was so bad to the organisers of the oscars they would have said sorry no speech... THEY DIDN'T. Maybe because it would be one of the Dramas of the event something they can Market for posterity, the big News event of this years oscar.... IE They wanted him to make a fuss...

No, what they said was, "Don't make a political speech." Haven't you been paying attention?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This may turn into a split thread here, but I noticed something else about your examples of "toeing the line", DW, that I wanted to bring up:

Keeping in mind that most of the people who thank "God" for their success at awards shows probably aren't Christian anyway, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention "Jesus", aren't they actually spouting Deist stuff, rather than Christian?

The only problem there might be with this idea is that Deists don't believe God actually does anything, right?

A matter of confusion and curiosity.

[Queeb Salaron]

This may turn into a split thread here, but I noticed something else about your examples of "toeing the line", DW, that I wanted to bring up:

Keeping in mind that most of the people who thank "God" for their success at awards shows probably aren't Christian anyway, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention "Jesus", aren't they actually spouting Deist stuff, rather than Christian?

The only problem there might be with this idea is that Deists don't believe God actually does anything, right?

A matter of confusion and curiosity.

Lots of people believe in God. You don't have to be Christian to believe in him, either. In fact, I believe in the existence of God, and I am not Christian (I reject Jesus as the son of God... The Christians don't like that.) Granted, I would never THANK God for ANYthing... Different story.

And why do you assume that most people who thank God that accept awards aren't Christian? There are a LOT of Christians in America. Granted, that Christianity is severely divided, but they all believe in God.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This may turn into a split thread here, but I noticed something else about your examples of "toeing the line", DW, that I wanted to bring up:

Keeping in mind that most of the people who thank "God" for their success at awards shows probably aren't Christian anyway, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention "Jesus", aren't they actually spouting Deist stuff, rather than Christian?

The only problem there might be with this idea is that Deists don't believe God actually does anything, right?

A matter of confusion and curiosity.

Lots of people believe in God. You don't have to be Christian to believe in him, either. In fact, I believe in the existence of God, and I am not Christian (I reject Jesus as the son of God... The Christians don't like that.) Granted, I would never THANK God for ANYthing... Different story.

And why do you assume that most people who thank God that accept awards aren't Christian? There are a LOT of Christians in America. Granted, that Christianity is severely divided, but they all believe in God.

That's not precisely what I was getting at; I'm trying to sort out how many of the people who thank God on awards stages are actually Christian, and how many are actually Deists. See, by your definition, you yourself are a Deist (if I understand the definition right) and not a Christian, since Christians believe God boinked a chick and spawned hisself a hippie brat.

[Skelron]

And another thing, it seemed to me that a lot of people made little comments in their speech that where Pro-War

No, what they said was, "Don't make a political speech." Haven't you been paying attention?

As I said at this point There where a couple of Pro-War comments in a few speeches, Pro-War is Political Too you know!! Guess what Lads a Politcal Guy made a Political Speech!!! Shit man HOW Dare he, I mean this is the Oscar's And we never have Politics there.

Oh and there exists a saying in the Oscars, when you win an Oscar you can do whatever the hell you like when making that speech. One guy used it to kiss Halle Belle, Moore made a Political Speech as did another, at the end of his speech he told the Band to stop playing so he could add his own Political message on the end, why does no body have a problem with that HE BROUGHT POLITICS INTO THE OSCAR's as well. Or have people only watched Moores segment and reasoned no politics made it into the rest of the account. Hell just not mentioning the war could be seen as Politics, who you thank is politics, winning an Award is Politics. Life is Politics, the Oscars is Politics, and one guy being open and Blatent about is refreashing.

[SirNitram]

And another thing, it seemed to me that a lot of people made little comments in their speech that where Pro-War

No, what they said was, "Don't make a political speech." Haven't you been paying attention?

As I said at this point There where a couple of Pro-War comments in a few speeches, Pro-War is Political Too you know!! Guess what Lads a Politcal Guy made a Political Speech!!! Shit man HOW Dare he, I mean this is the Oscar's And we never have Politics there.

I don't support either side speaking about it during the Oscar's. But Moore was especially boorish and assholian.. But we knew that.

Oh and there exists a saying in the Oscars, when you win an Oscar you can do whatever the hell you like when making that speech.

Really. I've never heard of it.

One guy used it to kiss Halle Belle, Moore made a Political Speech as did another, at the end of his speech he told the Band to stop playing so he could add his own Political message on the end, why does no body have a problem with that HE BROUGHT POLITICS INTO THE OSCAR's as well. Or have people only watched Moores segment and reasoned no politics made it into the rest of the account. Hell just not mentioning the war could be seen as Politics, who you thank is politics, winning an Award is Politics. Life is Politics, the Oscars is Politics, and one guy being open and Blatent about is refreashing.

I see your grasp of capitalization and punctuation is liberal, as well as your definition of where politics belongs. Since you'll define any situation to include politics(Disturbing, really. Does this include your sex life, if you have any?), I can see there is no convincing you of anything.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And another thing, it seemed to me that a lot of people made little comments in their speech that where Pro-War

No, what they said was, "Don't make a political speech." Haven't you been paying attention?

As I said at this point There where a couple of Pro-War comments in a few speeches, Pro-War is Political Too you know!! Guess what Lads a Politcal Guy made a Political Speech!!! Shit man HOW Dare he, I mean this is the Oscar's And we never have Politics there.

Oh and there exists a saying in the Oscars, when you win an Oscar you can do whatever the hell you like when making that speech. One guy used it to kiss Halle Belle, Moore made a Political Speech as did another, at the end of his speech he told the Band to stop playing so he could add his own Political message on the end, why does no body have a problem with that HE BROUGHT POLITICS INTO THE OSCAR's as well. Or have people only watched Moores segment and reasoned no politics made it into the rest of the account. Hell just not mentioning the war could be seen as Politics, who you thank is politics, winning an Award is Politics. Life is Politics, the Oscars is Politics, and one guy being open and Blatent about is refreashing.

Go back, read my post concerning Andre Brody in this thread. That said, when your view of life is that it is entirely composed of and defined by social maneuvering for the purpose of using and controlling your fellow human beings, and that a particularly crude and childish political temper-tantrum in front of millions of people is "refreshing"... ugh. Go. Shoo. Back tae the loch wi' you!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'd also like to know what you meant by "pro-war comments". There's a pretty good gap between a "comment" (i.e. "...and I want to thank our boys overseas...") and a five minute sermon starting with "Less us stawmp all them thar Eye-rackies!"

[Skelron]

[quote="SirNitramI see your grasp of capitalization and punctuation is liberal, as well as your definition of where politics belongs. Since you'll define any situation to include politics(Disturbing, really. Does this include your sex life, if you have any?), I can see there is no convincing you of anything.[/quote]

Okay I'll respond to the rest of your post in a minute, but I wanted to approach this seperatly, My first year here at University speaking (Studying Politics) We focused on one particular argument, Whether or Not Robinson Cruesoe, before Man Friday appeared on the scene, was in a Political situation. What does this signify, that in Politics it is already accepted that two or more people in the same place are taking part in Politics, it may not be the standard interpretation of Politics, the Macro View. In reality through life uses in our interactions the very self same things that Politics do, we compromise, we discuss, if a situation gets WAY out of hand, it could even dissolve into Violence. (War... on an Micro level...) Life therefore whether or not you realise it is a Political situation.

Example in my Flat there are two of us, My Flat mate anoyed at the 24 hour news coverage of the war, that repeats the same things refuses to watch anything to do with the war, myself, studying as am the subject of Politics, want to watch it, so we Compromise, I watch stuff on it when I wake up, to see whats happened when I went to sleep, and later on in the night whens he's gone to bed, and I'm still up, being more a night person.... Taking out the War issue this was a Compromise, neither of us had to discuss it, it just happened, but at it's heart this was a political interaction over how time was spent.

Oh and despite the very personal attack on 'My Sex life' I'll admit nah, I'm still very much the virgin, I'm not ashamed of the fact, and if the issue ever comes up in discussion admit the fact, but that has nothing to do with my views on Politics, more to do with my lack of confidence, at least at first now, as mentioned in a different thread, a personal decision to wait till it means something so make of it as you like. As for my Punctuation, yep it can bad, and for that I apolgise, It's strange considering that I have a full list of Family that are teacher's that I can never get the hang of Punctuation.

[Skelron]

I don't support either side speaking about it during the Oscar's. But Moore was especially boorish and assholian.. But we knew that.

So it was the method he used, He only had a thirty second Sound bite time to do it, and hay thats his style. As I said I personally liked it.

Oh and there exists a saying in the Oscars, when you win an Oscar you can do whatever the hell you like when making that speech.

Really. I've never heard of it.

Oh yep it exists, I think it's one of those erm Unofficial sayings, It was brought up by the BBC's Coverage guests, When discussing the Kissing incident, basically in those 30 Seconds the Guests will forgive you just about anything... Your invincible:)

Doh not as much to cover as I thought, oh well, I'll have to examine a few other posts, and respond to them... but maybe not right away.