• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

Fine, but that doesn't really address any of the reasons I've given for Michael Moore hating America.

Huh? Blanket statements of "liberals are this" and "liberals are that" not displays of hate? That's roughly 50% of the population.

Has Glenn Beck made dozends of books and documentaries for each individual, unrelated thing he dislikes about America, wherein he passionately points out every one of its flaws he can think of without praising it for anything?

Glenn Beck cries for America, for Pete's sake!!!! :2razz:

Glen has got more of a partisan agenda than Moore, IMO. But he does incessantly whine about a bunch of things, particularly the left.

As for Moore, although he criticizes a lot, he does it because he wants change. He does not hate America. You're wrong about Moore not praising, BTW. He has many a time.



Has he stated that Americans might possibly be the stupidest people in the world?

Not sure, but if he has, he wouldn't be off-base. Note the key words here... "might." Might is not "is." Big difference, don't you think?


Okay, but that's not what you said. You said that, using the result, it's easy to conclude that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet.

No, I did not. At least, it was not my intention. I just took note of the National Geographic survey in which the 18-25 age group did quite poorly. They are dumb and did rather poorly on that question. So basically, what I get out of that statement is that the American school system might be lacking in certain areas, which is not news to me.

Here, take a look at another blow hard with his American hating title, 'Stupid in America' by John Stossel. Does he hate America, too?

To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.

Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."

We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, "I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us."

The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids -- it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education -- at many different kinds of schools -- but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business.

Now tell me... if all you know about a student is that they got a D in a single subject one year, could you easily conclude, without knowing anyone else's grades on that or any topic, and without knowing that student's grade on any other subject, that the student is the stupidest person in the school? (Basic logic says that the answer is "no".)

No, of course not. The conclusion I can come up with is that student did poorly in that subject and needs to do something to get his her grades up.

Now answer this...

Did Moore make his statement of "Americas are possibly the dumbest people on the planet" based-on that one fact (the National Geographic survey) or could it have been from other finding that he did not disclose in that one quote?
 
Last edited:
Of course they would have. Free press. The entire theory behind the crafting of the constitution was to have greater checks on government and greater guarantees of liberty to the people than in any other country on the planet. There's a reason that free press is in the first amendment. The press keeps governments honest by digging up their dirty little secrets.

And as for Michael Moore... He's far less radical than Thomas Paine, and Paine is widely regarded as foremost among patriots during the revolution. They'd probably have been buddies.
 
Last edited:
I didn't accuse you of being arrogant. I said that your comments made you sound as arrogant as Moore did with his comments.

Both sides accuse the opposite side of a lot of things. What is your point?

My point is that you used an ad hominem attack on my assertion, and offered no substantive counter argument. Your words don't invalidate anything, they only reveal that you don't know how (or are too lazy) to develop a reasonable argument of your own, and that it is probable that you are threatened by that in some way.

@Fidytree - perhaps, Franklin might have felt that Assange has been a bit reckless, although that has yet to be established. At this point in the story it is just as likely that great care has been exercised in determining what to release. And certainly he would have found Michael Moore to be a little to self-righteous. But he would have been very curious so discover what effect such an institution might have on global politics.

I mean lets face it, if you can't guarantee that you are able to keep anything hidden any longer, wouldn't that force us to adapt a system of diplomacy based on transparency?

Terrorists don't need state secrets to do what they do. They manage just fine with the same information everyone else has.. better, even. Attacking a secret place with strategic value but that no one knows is important isn't going to have the impact they desire. It takes an organized army to make use of that kind of information.
 
Last edited:
My point is that you used an ad hominem attack on my assertion, and offered no substantive counter argument. Your words don't invalidate anything, they only reveal that you don't know how (or are too lazy) to develop a reasonable argument of your own, and that it is probable that you are threatened by that in some way.

@Fidytree - perhaps, Franklin might have felt that Assange has been a bit reckless, although that has yet to be established. At this point in the story it is just as likely that great care has been exercised in determining what to release. And certainly he would have found Michael Moore to be a little to self-righteous. But he would have been very curious so discover what effect such an institution might have on global politics.

I mean lets face it, if you can't guarantee that you are able to keep anything hidden any longer, wouldn't that force us to adapt a system of diplomacy based on transparency?

Terrorists don't need state secrets to do what they do. They manage just fine with the same information everyone else has.. better, even. Attacking a secret place with strategic value but that no one knows is important isn't going to have the impact they desire. It takes an organized army to make use of that kind of information.

Not necessarily. It could be in fact encourage the same reaction as before, if not more stringent. Nevertheless, your point could stand if say it is like a nuclear option, in such that nuclear weapons have complicated the political-military means of determining action and methodology.
 
How do you know?? Did they tell you??

Actually they told everyone...Granted not in refrence to wikileaks exactly but what they had to say of the press is applicable to wikileaks.

"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe." ~ Thomas Jefferson

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of
speech.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

And a couple of others....

“To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been obtained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.” ~ James Madison

“Not for its own sake alone, but for the sake of society and good government, the press should be free. Publicity is the strong bond which unites the people and their government. Authority should do no act that will not bear the light.” ~ James A. Garfield


I particularly like Garfields statement here. Especially since it can be directly related to wikileaks.
 
There is a huge difference between a free press and wikileaks. Wikileaks is making public classified information. PFC Bradley Manning will rot in prison for his treasonous act. He should be executed by firing squad. Wikileaks is an anarchist organization that our founding fathers would absolutly not approve of.

Which if you study American history is the ultimate job of the Press when it comes to governments.

As for Manning goes, yes he is a traitor. I've stated as much in quite a few threads already. But Manning does not equal wikileaks.
 
It's a good thing Michale Moore is always wrong :D Let's not change that now.

I highly doubt the founders would have supported the British army stealing and leaking military information about the Colonial forces or leaking other information. For one, Assange is not an American and is not protected by our Constitution. His actions are also putting lives at risk and are bad for our nation. I don't think the founders would approve of a foreigner leaking critical information out.

Part in Bold: Incorrect. As the Amendments in the Constitution (also known as the Bill of Rights) are restrictions on the government, not on the people. As such the bill of rights would benefit anyone that is not in the government. Including those that are not American citizens.
 
Not necessarily. It could be in fact encourage the same reaction as before, if not more stringent. Nevertheless, your point could stand if say it is like a nuclear option, in such that nuclear weapons have complicated the political-military means of determining action and methodology.

I think it is reasonable to consider Wikileaks the 'nuclear option' of the fourth estate. And like the atom bomb, once it was developed, its eventual use was inevitable. Better sooner than later.
 
Last edited:
there wouldn't have been a McDonalds within a million miles of him.

Wow, good thing Republican Governor Chris Christie wasn't born back then. :roll:
 
Which if you study American history is the ultimate job of the Press when it comes to governments.

As for Manning goes, yes he is a traitor. I've stated as much in quite a few threads already. But Manning does not equal wikileaks.

If someone knowingly bought stolen property wouldn't they be as bad the thief who stole it. If someone knowingly drove a bank robber to the bank and helped them carried the cash out and drive that bank robber off to safety then isn't that person as bad as the bank robber even if he never pointed a gun at anyone or told anyone to giver up their money?
 
If someone knowingly bought stolen property wouldn't they be as bad the thief who stole it. If someone knowingly drove a bank robber to the bank and helped them carried the cash out and drive that bank robber off to safety then isn't that person as bad as the bank robber even if he never pointed a gun at anyone or told anyone to giver up their money?

You can use these examples all that you want. Doesn't mean that they apply to free press. There are exceptions to every rule.
 
Why is it shocking to you that he stood with the Democrating party in 2004? Does it need to be more obvious that he wanted Bush out more than anything? If you think he's such a Democrat lover and a shill for the party, why don't you google what he's been saying for the last year or so. There is no doubt Moore is liberal and firm in his stance. However I have not seen anything to indicate that he's partisan.


:confused: he accused Bush of being a party to 9/11. there's a quick "nutcase" test: you are on the right - are you a "birther"? you are on the left - are you a "truther"? Moore campaigned for democratic candidates up and down this land, and they were more than happy to accept the angry, psycho left in for their energy, money, activism....

but the hard-left is now eating the Democrat Party.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Justabubba is now thread banned

Can I be thread banned? I have never been thread banned before and Im feeling left out. Do I get air miles with a thread ban? Im just askin, don't get all but hurt on me.
 
If someone knowingly bought stolen property wouldn't they be as bad the thief who stole it. If someone knowingly drove a bank robber to the bank and helped them carried the cash out and drive that bank robber off to safety then isn't that person as bad as the bank robber even if he never pointed a gun at anyone or told anyone to giver up their money?

Information is not property. You cannot own information. You can copyright it in a fixed form, but the information itself cannot be owned. And in order for dissemination of that information to be considered criminal, you have to prove actual harm caused. No such harm has resulted from WikiLeaks, and I highly doubt it will.
 
And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb. :lamo

The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."
 
And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb. :lamo

The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."

Read post 80. Their own words shows that they would have supported wikileaks.
 
The whole question is meaningless you might as well ask which i-phone apps whould genghis khan have.
 
Read post 80. Their own words shows that they would have supported wikileaks.

What, all that stuff about the free press? Got nothing to do with what they thought of spies.
 
What, all that stuff about the free press? Got nothing to do with what they thought of spies.

So, Assaunge is a spy now? I would have to say that he makes a pretty piss poor spy....

Merriam-Webster: defination of spy

transitive verb
1: to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
2: to catch sight of : see
3: to search or look for intensively —usually used with out <spy out places fit for vending … goods — S. E. Morison>
intransitive verb
1: to observe or search for something : look
2: to watch secretly as a spy

Parts of this defination would apply to assaunge certainly...of course those same parts would also apply to every other single news agency out there...and a lot of individual people ta boot. However there is no part of it that would apply for what you are talking about.
 
So, Assaunge is a spy now? I would have to say that he makes a pretty piss poor spy....

Merriam-Webster: defination of spy



Parts of this defination would apply to assaunge certainly...of course those same parts would also apply to every other single news agency out there...and a lot of individual people ta boot. However there is no part of it that would apply for what you are talking about.

Considering the dude is in the specific business of collecting and publishing state secrets, then yes, they'd have considered him a spy, and they wouldn't have wrangled with any matters of conscience over it. People of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then.

They'd laugh at the idea that he's a "journalist" and that his modus operandi is what's contemplated by the "free press."
 
God, I am so sick of this bull**** "what the founders would have wanted/thought crap".

Who the **** cares? They're dead and gone, get over it. Jesus H. Christ.
 
God, I am so sick of this bull**** "what the founders would have wanted/thought crap".

Who the **** cares? They're dead and gone, get over it. Jesus H. Christ.

Their work (the Constitution) isn't. It's still alive, and writer's intent is extremely important in interpreting any document. So yeah, what they wanted still matters to a certain extent.
 
God, I am so sick of this bull**** "what the founders would have wanted/thought crap".

Who the **** cares? They're dead and gone, get over it. Jesus H. Christ.

I think you should take it up with Michael Moore, then.
 
Considering the dude is in the specific business of collecting and publishing state secrets, then yes, they'd have considered him a spy, and they wouldn't have wrangled with any matters of conscience over it. People of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then.

They'd laugh at the idea that he's a "journalist" and that his modus operandi is what's contemplated by the "free press."

Considering that they wanted the press to be free specifically to be the watchdog of the government it is easily understandable that the press publicating secrets would be a part of that job. As you say...people of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then. To think that a group that is meant to be kept free and to be the watchdog of the government and yet wouldn't publish secrets, well, that would be stupid. Wouldn't you say?
 
Considering that they wanted the press to be free specifically to be the watchdog of the government it is easily understandable that the press publicating secrets would be a part of that job. As you say...people of education and accomplishment weren't that stupid then. To think that a group that is meant to be kept free and to be the watchdog of the government and yet wouldn't publish secrets, well, that would be stupid. Wouldn't you say?

They would NOT countenance someone whose specific aim was to obtain and publish state secrets, under the guise of "freedom of the press" or otherwise. That's tubthumping asininity.

They wanted to protect the freedom to criticize the government without punishment. That is in no way the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom