Michael Moore's New Movie - "Where to Invade Next"

[What Would Jesus Do?]

...the film ironically suggests that the man to save us is Moore. He will go out and “invade,” but this time he won’t use weapons; he will just pillage other nations for their good ideas and bring them back for us to claim.

Moore travels to Finland, Slovenia, France, Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, and beyond. In each country he finds a policy that is not only more humane than current U.S. practice, but also more effective. Among the many innovative policies he covers, he documents better women’s rights, prison policy, worker rights, and educational policies than we have in the United States.

The film has been called “chirpy” and “romantic,” but these reviews miss the point. Sure it’s hilariously funny at times, sure it’s deeply ironic, but the focus on covering “good” stories from across the globe only further serves to show what’s tragic here. It’s the deep dialectic between these images that drives the power of the film. With each shiny image abroad, the contrasting images of the United States feel more and more tarnished. All it takes is comparative photos of school lunches in the United States and France to turn American exceptionalism on its head.

http://www.alternet.org/culture/mic...ilm-our-military-has-not-won-war-world-war-ii

 

[swagsurfer02]

Hopefully he invades a weight watchers center....


My man is morbidly obese. I don't approve of his message but he may die before he should thanks to his "first world" diet.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Maybe he should move to france

 

[strummingram]

good for him! I've always enjoyed Moore's films... every one of them.

 

[ICWestfan]

Only 2 countries need invading - Cuba for their cigars and beaches and Canada for their oil.

 

[DanL53]

good for him! I've always enjoyed Moore's films... every one of them.

I would have guessed that strum. I'm a fan of Moore's work as well. Could go on and on about him but the short version is I absolutely love his method of delivering news about problems. And sometimes, he has a sort of interesting start of an idea about solutions. He is at his best when he doesn't venture further than that.

A listened to him at the Iowa Memorial Union years ago. He said pretty much the same thing.

Really looking forward to the new movie.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Believe it or not i've never watched anything he's made

 

[moral_victory]

Believe it or not i've never watched anything he's made

I believe it.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Only 2 countries need invading - Cuba for their cigars and beaches and an eastern bloc country for the sex slaves.

fify

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I should watch the one aabout 9-11

 

[naturalmwa]

Believe it or not i've never watched anything he's made

You would probably like him. He is also a little conspiratorial and thinks there are powers behind the curtain most don't recognize.

 

[strummingram]

You would probably like him. He is also a little conspiratorial and thinks there are powers behind the curtain most don't recognize.

They're not behind any curtains.

 

[strummingram]

Be careful... Michael Moore believes in God.

 

[naturalmwa]

They're not behind any curtains.

That might be true, but the entire point of every Moore film I've seen is to pull back the curtain. So I don't think you speak for his perspective.

 

[hawkeye54545]

Michael Moore is a buffoon. A fat, loud mouthed buffoon.

 

[DanL53]

Awwwwwwwwwwww

Who couldn't like this guy?

 

[unIowa]

I am sure this film is good work as i have enjoyed MMs stuff in the past, however, if he has to go globe hopping for different policy/delivery mechanisms for govt goods/services it probably also means the US is also doing a lot right. My guess is this film's ideas comes from many countries and not just one, see when you are the US the measuring stick is different, you are not stacked against countries one by one but rather stacked up against all of them combined.

 

[swagsurfer02]

I am sure this film is good work as i have enjoyed MMs stuff in the past, however, if he has to go globe hopping for different policy/delivery mechanisms for govt goods/services it probably also means the US is also doing a lot right. My guess is this film's ideas comes from many countries and not just one, see when you are the US the measuring stick is different, you are not stacked against countries one by one but rather stacked up against all of them combined.

An excellent point

 

[YellowSnow51]

.

Moore travels to Finland, Slovenia, France, Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, and beyond. In each country he finds a policy that is not only more humane than current U.S. practice, but also more effective. Among the many innovative policies he covers, he documents better women’s rights, prison policy, worker rights, and educational policies than we have in the United States.

Funny. I didn't think we'd find "immigration policy" on that list. I wish some of these leftist ass hats who praise places like Denmark, would actually have the balls or intellect to admit that none of these places would have a smidgen of their economic "success" without their "draconian" GTFO and STFO immigration policies that GOPers get ripped for wanting to emulate.

Weird how none of them talk about bringing that shit here. But all the free shit for anyone who crosses? Hell yeah! Idiot cowards.

 

[YellowSnow51]

I Could go on and on about him but the short version is I absolutely love his method of delivering news about problems.

I don't think you know what the word "news" means. Just like FOX and MSNBC don't either.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I should watch the one aabout 9-11

Yes. You'll find things you like and things you don't like but enough that you like that it's worth watching. Here's a pretty good description from googling:

Michael Moore's political documentary uses humor and connect-the-dots investigative journalism to question the Bush administration's motives for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film argues that President George W. Bush and his inner circle used the media to further an agenda that exploited the 9/11 attacks. The close ties of the Saudis to the Bush family, the cynical profiteering of corporations and a political elite beholden to special interests are all cited as elements of a corrupt system.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I am sure this film is good work as i have enjoyed MMs stuff in the past, however, if he has to go globe hopping for different policy/delivery mechanisms for govt goods/services it probably also means the US is also doing a lot right. My guess is this film's ideas comes from many countries and not just one, see when you are the US the measuring stick is different, you are not stacked against countries one by one but rather stacked up against all of them combined.

Sure, you don't have to be #1 on each separate measure to be #1 in the aggregate. But we claim to be #1 and we simply aren't on too many things that matter. And on many of those things, we aren't all that close.

But that doesn't seem to be the point, anyway. The point seems to that we could be better and the ways to be better aren't all that hard to find.

Maybe if we stop shouting USA USA USA at every opportunity we could do better.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't think you know what the word "news" means. Just like FOX and MSNBC don't either.

Why don't you explain it to us?

 

[pablow]

One of the good ideas he'd find in a lot of these progressive countries is no birth-right citizenship. I like that idea.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

One of the good ideas he'd find in a lot of these progressive countries is no birth-right citizenship. I like that idea.

I wonder how many Americans could pass the citizenship test.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

...the film ironically suggests that the man to save us is Moore. He will go out and “invade,” but this time he won’t use weapons; he will just pillage other nations for their good ideas and bring them back for us to claim.

Moore travels to Finland, Slovenia, France, Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, and beyond. In each country he finds a policy that is not only more humane than current U.S. practice, but also more effective. Among the many innovative policies he covers, he documents better women’s rights, prison policy, worker rights, and educational policies than we have in the United States.

The film has been called “chirpy” and “romantic,” but these reviews miss the point. Sure it’s hilariously funny at times, sure it’s deeply ironic, but the focus on covering “good” stories from across the globe only further serves to show what’s tragic here. It’s the deep dialectic between these images that drives the power of the film. With each shiny image abroad, the contrasting images of the United States feel more and more tarnished. All it takes is comparative photos of school lunches in the United States and France to turn American exceptionalism on its head.

http://www.alternet.org/culture/mic...ilm-our-military-has-not-won-war-world-war-ii

What rights exactly do women not have in this country? Just to start this off.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

You would probably like him. He is also a little conspiratorial and thinks there are powers behind the curtain most don't recognize.

He's correct.

 

[pablow]

I wonder how many Americans could pass the citizenship test.

If the parents are citizens, the children are. If the parents are illegally in the US, the children born here are not citizens. This is the law in almost all 1st world countries except US and Canada. Prior to the Mexican invasion, almost all Americans would pass. Birth-right citizenship as interpreted in the USA is idiotic and not supported by one rational policy consideration.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That might be true, but the entire point of every Moore film I've seen is to pull back the curtain. So I don't think you speak for his perspective.

He does actually, for some of us though, there are no curtains. Some see curtains, some see nothing, and some see right through those curtains as if they are not there.

Someday you may evolve and no longer see the curtains.

 

[naturalmwa]

He does actually, for some of us though, there are no curtains. Some see curtains, some see nothing, and some see right through those curtains as if they are not there.

Someday you may evolve and no longer see the curtains.

I see it took you all of 3 minutes to flip flop. Pull another position out of your hat did you?

He's correct.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I see it took you all of 3 minutes to flip flop. Pull another position out of your hat did you?

I think you need to rethink this. How exactly did I flip-flop here? I agreed that Moore is correct in what he said. I then agreed with Strumm that there are in fact no curtains. This is where you always failed to understand. The statement you said is that most people fail to understand.

I made the point that the curtains are only there for those who can't understand. You're confused, get some coffee and come back to this. You though may never understand the point though,.. eh?

 

[naturalmwa]

I think you need to rethink this. How exactly did I flip-flop here? I agreed that Moore is correct in what he said. I then agreed with Strumm that there are in fact no curtains. This is where you always failed to understand. The statement you said is that most people fail to understand.

I made the point that the curtains are only there for those who can't understand. You're confused, get some coffee and come back to this. You though may never understand the point though,.. eh?

First you agreed there are curtains, then you decided they were not there. Your decorator must be insane.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. He makes movies.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

First you agreed there are curtains, then you decided they were not there. Your decorator must be insane.

No, I agreed that most people behind the curtains are unknown to most. Then I furthered that statement that there are no curtains in reality. It's just that people never think to look any further than what they see on TV. You're not evolved enough to understand this. That is okay, as evolution does take time.

 

[naturalmwa]

1) I agreed that most people behind the curtains

2) there are no curtains

I don't know how I can make it any more clear than to just point out your own words. It's OK if you're crazy, we've come to expect that from you.

 

[unIowa]

If the parents are citizens, the children are. If the parents are illegally in the US, the children born here are not citizens. This is the law in almost all 1st world countries except US and Canada. Prior to the Mexican invasion, almost all Americans would pass. Birth-right citizenship as interpreted in the USA is idiotic and not supported by one rational policy consideration.

Birth-right citizenship used to make sense when we were still trying to "fill-up" the country but now that we have an ample population base it probably no longer makes sense. I am sure many here will say that statement makes me a racist of some sort but I am just looking at it from a logistical standpoint.

Much like many of our other 1st world friends the USA no longer needs as many immigrants as we once did. That doesn't mean we don't need any or want some just that we should be able to pick and choose who we want, if you want a job in USA submit an application and resume and we will tell you who qualifies based on our needs.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If the parents are citizens, the children are. If the parents are illegally in the US, the children born here are not citizens. This is the law in almost all 1st world countries except US and Canada. Prior to the Mexican invasion, almost all Americans would pass. Birth-right citizenship as interpreted in the USA is idiotic and not supported by one rational policy consideration.

I don't see anything wrong with our approach. What's idiotic about it? It may have fit our culture better back in the days when traveling around the world was harder. But it still seems fine to me.

That said, my question was a different one. How many current US citizens could pass the test? And if they can't, why should a lucky accident of birth grant them citizenship, but not others also born here?

Why do you hate the US constitution?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Is citizenship a state of mind or a tie to place?

When JFK said "I am a donut" was he giving up his US citizenship?

 

[pablow]

I don't see anything wrong with our approach. What's idiotic about it? It may have fit our culture better back in the days when traveling around the world was harder. But it still seems fine to me.

That said, my question was a different one. How many current US citizens could pass the test? And if they can't, why should a lucky accident of birth grant them citizenship, but not others also born here?

Why do you hate the US constitution?

First Q: 40% ish; second Q: 1. white-ish privilege 2. legacy citizenship 3. membership benefit 4. elitism. But I could go for making everyone take the written and driving test.

 

[unIowa]

I don't see anything wrong with our approach. What's idiotic about it? It may have fit our culture better back in the days when traveling around the world was harder. But it still seems fine to me.

That said, my question was a different one. How many current US citizens could pass the test? And if they can't, why should a lucky accident of birth grant them citizenship, but not others also born here?

Why do you hate the US constitution?

I tend to look at more as an efficiency of govt and our economy issue. Unfortunately we can't keep people from popping out kids and global population seems to be a real problem, plus today we have ample population in the US.

Do we really need more people via immigration or will organic population growth be sufficient for our countries needs? If yes then any immigrants brought into the USA we would want to have skills that will benefit the entire US.

It's like we are a company that currently has no open jobs but "man o man" if we could ever get that guy we would make room for them (kind of like how Tom Crean makes room for new recruits for Indiana basketball).