So, was I too subtle while also too cartoonish?
But all of those cartooned examples, which are not only just typically considered "good" and "worthwhile" and consistent with most citizens' values, they're consistent with, and even indices to a weak degree, of (gasp!) liberalism. As a society, as a culture, we pretty much want to keep them. Right?
So my sarcastic point was that "some" elements of socialism are accepted. Doesn't that set up a debate of when/where/how much socialism is too much, rather than whether it is invariably 100% evil all the time in every context? Must its opponents and antagonists be too principled to allow practicality? Must we in the abstract leave everything up to a marketplace that has its problems and quirks? Of course not. Should/can bureaucracy be completely eliminated? Nope.
Please do not assume Micheal Moore is a "model" to which each and every liberal aspires and that liberals back him invariably on every thought he has or does not have. Hell, even I can tell the difference between Rush and Savage. I don't lump them together. Would you prefer showing you're too unwilling or too simple to differentiate between lunatic fringe and garden variety liberals?
Oh well. Enough of musing for now. Almost time for a cold adult beverage,onlytwoconceptstogo. First, history suggests before long, the far right will soon have its own Michael Moore doing politic-ocumentary (make up your own word here) theatrical releases before long. You might ignore it then, just like I'm rather ignoring Moore right now myself. Sorry. I'm skipping Bubba's book too. Second, the outrage over Moore's latest is priceless advertising. How many people rented "Ishtar" years ago to see if a movie could POSSIBLY be as bad as it was rumored to be? Half of its receipts had to have been from that morbid curiosity. (Yes, it was that bad.) Same thing will happen to the box office for this movie. The complainers may even mean a few people on this board go see it who otherwise would not. Was that in mind when this was posted?
