3/24 Michael Moore is a fat whiny twit, and a not particularly bright or
witty one at that. I thought I should point that out. -John
\_ I doubt anyone was particularly surprised that he took time
to speak his mind (as that's what his career is based on),
and I thought it was pretty nifty for him to invite his fellow
documentarians up on stage with him. As for the rest, I can
understand why you'd say that, and I can also see why people
think otherwise. He earned a lot of cred with "Roger and Me."
--erikred
\_ I think it's pretty silly that everyone criticises hollywood
celebrities for using their "soapbox" of fame to get whatever
message they may have out. yes, they're mostly idiots. but it's
the press's fault that they treat what hollywood people say
as news. what if they treated everything we say on the motd as
news? I realize that Moore is not part of hollywood exactly,
but people have been making a stink about this issue recently,
and i think it's relevant.
\_ Hey, he gets his opinion, I get mine. And why voicing an
opinion about his personality constitutes a judgment on any
"issue" is beyond me.
\_ sort of like you.
\_ Hey, great point. You're pretty funny. Do you sign your
posts, or do you just make kneejerk anonymous digs? Do you
think dumbshit cowards like you deserve anything but scorn?
Sad pathetic fuck. -John
\_ I think Moore acted like an idiot too. I mean it may be
a war fought on "fictitious" reasons, but Bush won the
election fair and square, nothing fictitious about that.
That Bush is a moron doesn't change that fact.
\_ I respectfully disagree: The number of votes by which
Bush "won" was so slight as to be well within the
the statistical margin of error for an election of
this size. Further, machinations by Republican
appointees to the Supreme Court made a controversial
decision that lent legititmacy to an otherwise shady
outcome. I don't expect that to sway you, but I want
you to know that I disagree. --erikred
\_ Well put. I agree. - some other guy
\_ He won, period. Every reasonable vote count since
has come to the same conclusion. The Supreme Court
simply preempted the state legislature and expedited
a foregone outcome. The Florida Supreme Court severly
overstepped its delegated powers and deserved to be
smacked down. The relevant USSC decision was 7-2.
The legal opinion is available, search for it.
Whether Bush won by 500 votes or 50,000 is irrelevant.
No president has had a majority of votes since Reagan.
\_ Keep towing that line.
\_ And if you're feeling frisky, you can toe
that line too.
\_ Recounting all of the ballots in Florida would
have led to a Gore victory, according to NYT,
Washington Post, et al. Or is that not a
"reasonable count" in your definition, since
it does not give the conclusion that you
desire?
\_ Go read the legal opinions and decisions.
Don't demagogue from a point of ignorance, at
least be intellectually honest and research
it yourself. USSC decision 7-2. The same
thing happened to Nixon against Johnson.
Nixon chose not to litigate it.
\_ Got the decision. More specious was
whether the Supreme Court should have
reviewed the case at all.
Also, the number of votes is important
to our claim of being a democratic
country and opens the discussion for
the need for severe electoral reform.
\_ Electoral reform, for what?
Do you understand the point of
the electoral college
or why Senators, until Wilson, were
elected by state legislators? Please,
again, to be intellectually honest
with yourself learn about the
electoral college and read the legal
opinions.
\_ do you understand why no other
democracy uses an electoral
college? -tom
\_ none as old as our's.
\_ Yes. The EC is what gives
states equal footing in the
national discourse. It allows
for equal representation of
ideas in our REPUBLIC (not
a democracy).
\_ Could it be because we are not
nor were ever meant to be a
democracy?
\_ We have the opportunity
to have an educated
electorate vote in
free elections for
elected representatives.
Times have changed since
1776. It's time we
changed with them. Thus
the call for reform.
"One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with
complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's
presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.
It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian
of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent." -Justice Stevens
(writing for the 4 dissenting judges who voted against the
decision awarding the election to Bush, not 2, like you imply)
\_ This was not the relevant decision. There were two decisions handed
down, one 5-4, the other 7-2. |
http://csua.com/feed/