Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Real Micheal Moore?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 233020" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Amen to that. I know there are problems and matters we all wish were different but it's also very important to sit back and share a laugh together as much as you can. We may all have opinions of wide scope and some love to use one tag or another to label the other guy but in the end, we're all Americans and we'll sink or swim together. </p><p> </p><p>Over the last 20 years or so I've noticed that the parties have changed from having both so-called liberals and conservatives among their ranks to now where if you are liberal, it's expected for you to be a democrat and if conservative it's expected for you to be a republican. Undying party loyality to the cause however is always a must and you will get blackballed if you don't play the game. IMO look no further than Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman to see that simple fact. Chuck Hagel to some degree and I still think Joe Biden has some good ideas worth discussion on Iraq but he's getting blocked out IMO on his side. </p><p> </p><p>Back in the day when both types were in both parties you had a lot more cross party cooperation because you needed the consensus to get anywhere. The democrats had on one hand Ted Kennedy but then they also had a hardcore conservative like the late Larry McDonald. Repubs had a Phil Crane or even a young Ron Paul while they had the more liberal type in Nelson Rockerfeller. I mean even McGovern admitted he voted for Gerald Ford over his own party's choice of Jimmy Carter so the cross party thing was for real and people saw themselves as Americans first and foremost and then came the dynamic of party and conservative/liberal or that's how I see it anyway.</p><p> </p><p>Now we find ourselves very divided along almost party lines and in comes the "liberal" or "conservative" tags, neo-con in many cases with conservatives, and the discourse has taken a completely different shift. People will even defend their elected party leaders but as I see it, the defense is of the ideas and mindset but it's been transposed onto the elected leaders based on party affliation in some type of cult of personality. It's almost like the Hollywood press and tabloids who publically loath and scold the Paris Hiltons, Nicole Richie, Lindsey Lohans and Brittney Spears of the world but the simple fact is, what would happen to them if these girls and others like her weren't around? How many of them would be package car loaders on some UPS Preload somewhere? </p><p> </p><p>We've fashioned in many ways our leaders into the arca-types in the political realm of the ladies mentioned above and if we stop the cult of personality with gov't, then it comes down to the issues themselves but could we or better yet, would we be able to mentality throw away the early simpleton's way of dealing with gov't and use our brain matter to think about and resolves our various issues in a more grown up way? Wish I had the answer or anything close to one but I don't.</p><p> </p><p>As for McGovern, in hindsight of 30 plus years we can now say that McGovern was right about Vietnam and had he instead of Nixon been elected, the country would have at least been spared Watergate. Vietnam still ended under Nixon as it was obvious what needed to happen but McGovern a the least was more honest up front about it. In fairness to Nixon, being the sitting President, maybe he didn't have the luxury of being that open and honest so then begs the question, what is wrong with our society when our elected officials can't be totally open and hinest? </p><p> </p><p>What will be said 30 years from now about our current times? It may be close for me but hope I'm here to see it. I'd imagine I got a couple of things right and a lot of things wrong to be honest. Hopefully I'll get the chance to find out.</p><p> </p><p>I know this got way away from Micheal Moore but Moore in one respect is representive of the greater problem in that early on, whether you agreed with him or not, he had a very independent, marvick stance on many issues and he wasn't and didn't allow himself to be definded with one party or the other. However, he did change all of that so that now what he has to say is seen not as a question of "why is stuff like this?" and "where did we go wrong or how do we correct it?" but rather his works are seen as nothing more than an extension of a political agenda.</p><p>I'll just leave it that and go forward.</p><p> </p><p>I have enjoyed your many comments Sammie! Thanks for making me think. My brain could always use the exercise because my waistline sure doesn't get it!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/lol.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Lol :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 233020, member: 2189"] Amen to that. I know there are problems and matters we all wish were different but it's also very important to sit back and share a laugh together as much as you can. We may all have opinions of wide scope and some love to use one tag or another to label the other guy but in the end, we're all Americans and we'll sink or swim together. Over the last 20 years or so I've noticed that the parties have changed from having both so-called liberals and conservatives among their ranks to now where if you are liberal, it's expected for you to be a democrat and if conservative it's expected for you to be a republican. Undying party loyality to the cause however is always a must and you will get blackballed if you don't play the game. IMO look no further than Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman to see that simple fact. Chuck Hagel to some degree and I still think Joe Biden has some good ideas worth discussion on Iraq but he's getting blocked out IMO on his side. Back in the day when both types were in both parties you had a lot more cross party cooperation because you needed the consensus to get anywhere. The democrats had on one hand Ted Kennedy but then they also had a hardcore conservative like the late Larry McDonald. Repubs had a Phil Crane or even a young Ron Paul while they had the more liberal type in Nelson Rockerfeller. I mean even McGovern admitted he voted for Gerald Ford over his own party's choice of Jimmy Carter so the cross party thing was for real and people saw themselves as Americans first and foremost and then came the dynamic of party and conservative/liberal or that's how I see it anyway. Now we find ourselves very divided along almost party lines and in comes the "liberal" or "conservative" tags, neo-con in many cases with conservatives, and the discourse has taken a completely different shift. People will even defend their elected party leaders but as I see it, the defense is of the ideas and mindset but it's been transposed onto the elected leaders based on party affliation in some type of cult of personality. It's almost like the Hollywood press and tabloids who publically loath and scold the Paris Hiltons, Nicole Richie, Lindsey Lohans and Brittney Spears of the world but the simple fact is, what would happen to them if these girls and others like her weren't around? How many of them would be package car loaders on some UPS Preload somewhere? We've fashioned in many ways our leaders into the arca-types in the political realm of the ladies mentioned above and if we stop the cult of personality with gov't, then it comes down to the issues themselves but could we or better yet, would we be able to mentality throw away the early simpleton's way of dealing with gov't and use our brain matter to think about and resolves our various issues in a more grown up way? Wish I had the answer or anything close to one but I don't. As for McGovern, in hindsight of 30 plus years we can now say that McGovern was right about Vietnam and had he instead of Nixon been elected, the country would have at least been spared Watergate. Vietnam still ended under Nixon as it was obvious what needed to happen but McGovern a the least was more honest up front about it. In fairness to Nixon, being the sitting President, maybe he didn't have the luxury of being that open and honest so then begs the question, what is wrong with our society when our elected officials can't be totally open and hinest? What will be said 30 years from now about our current times? It may be close for me but hope I'm here to see it. I'd imagine I got a couple of things right and a lot of things wrong to be honest. Hopefully I'll get the chance to find out. I know this got way away from Micheal Moore but Moore in one respect is representive of the greater problem in that early on, whether you agreed with him or not, he had a very independent, marvick stance on many issues and he wasn't and didn't allow himself to be definded with one party or the other. However, he did change all of that so that now what he has to say is seen not as a question of "why is stuff like this?" and "where did we go wrong or how do we correct it?" but rather his works are seen as nothing more than an extension of a political agenda. I'll just leave it that and go forward. I have enjoyed your many comments Sammie! Thanks for making me think. My brain could always use the exercise because my waistline sure doesn't get it! :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Real Micheal Moore?
Top