People have been learning to use guns on their own or from their fathers for hundreds of years.

People have been learning to drive cars from their parents for nearly a hundred years now, yet there's still a test to make sure you can use it properly before taking it out on the road.

Driving cars isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights either.

Furthermore, a license is not required to drive a vehicle on your own private land.

Nor is a license required to purchase a vehicle.

Here's a good commentary on Michael Moore's outburst and why it was so stupid. Kinda makes the same point I did above, about how he immediately killed his whole message by bringing up the "sour grapes" of the election. Some other good points about celebrities and the war in there as well.

Look, I think he is (and you are) making a big deal about the election mention. That wasn't the point. His point was to exaggerate the lump sum of his grievances. I can see what the reviewer was getting at with most of his points, and I think he was on to something. However, I think you are mistaking the overall point of his article. His basic message, IMO, is that Moore should have been more diplomatic and middle-of-the-road about his speech. You know what I say? Screw that!

I'm tired of people trying to pander to the the greater population. Perhaps if people actually said what they wanted to more, the people of the country would have a better idea of where everyone stood. Instead, regardless of election results, we get a President who panders to the masses, then runs straight back to the right or the left. That is what pisses me off. I dislike moderates who are not actually moderates.

As for the diplomatic speeches, several actors said something about the war. Yes, it seemed kinda dumb. The only one I took seriously was Chris Cooper who said he felt silly for accepting an award while Americans are dying overseas. That's not anti- or pro-war, that's a commentary. The rest of the comments were extremely diplomatic attempts to not insult either side. You know what? Those are less productive than Moore's comments.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm arguing, because i sincerely doubt that anything these people say matters, but since your argument is based in the idea that it does matter, I felt like saying something about it.

Damnit, why am I not going to sleep. I'm still rambling...

Dignan, I can honestly say that I completely agree with you. While I think Moore is an idiot and I don't agree with his ideas, I still give the guy credit for having balls.

His basic message, IMO, is that Moore should have been more diplomatic and middle-of-the-road about his speech. You know what I say? Screw that!

Good, then he'll continue to have his message heard by the 1% of the population who shares his extremism, and the message will be lost on the rest, because of his poor delivery of that message. He could have gotten the same points across (save the sour grapes over the election, which is not in play anymore) using more diplomacy.

This country doesn't need the extreme left and right to become even more extreme. What it needs is for those closer to the middle to become more informed and more active.

Dignan, I can honestly say that I completely agree with you.

Nice. I rest my case.

At least he says what he really thinks.

This country doesn't need the extreme left and right to become even more extreme

I never said that. I said that all the moderates who are simply disquising themselves are what is wrong here. Yeah, Moore was pretty far to the left that night. Great! My point was that the only way you can appeal to anyone to the right is to disguise your tendancy to the left, and what does that solve?

I can hope that out of his comments, people who were undecided might actually take a stance, either way.

To sum up, I disagree.

the only way you can appeal to anyone to the right is to disguise your tendancy to the left, and what does that solve?

I don't think you need to disguise your tendancies to appeal to the other side. You catch more flies with honey. Moore probably has some good points that could be substantiated with sound logic, but when he presents it the way he did on Oscar night, he loses his audience. At some point, the far right would tune him out no matter what he said, but by relying on emotional appeals rather than logic, he's losing any portion of the audience that would listen. If he could have expressed those exact same reservations about the war in a more logical and palatable manner, he might have actually influenced someone to look at their own views in a slightly different light.

Or, in other words, I don't think anyone with views on the extreme left or right needs to express those views in such an extreme manner that nobody will listen to them except their small, captive audience of fellow extremists. But I do appreciate the role of voices on the poles of the political spectrum... I just think they're wasting their time if they're not doing their best to bring about change in the middle of the spectrum.

Well, I can see your point.

I think the problem is that diplomatic wasn't the word I'm looking for, but it is what you were saying is necessary, or as Dictionary.com says, "tact and sensitivity in dealing with others." I suppose I can agree with that.

One thing I'll say for it, it has gotten a lot of people talking, and like I said, hopefully it will make more people think about their own stance.

By the way, I've always liked vinegar more than honey. Mmmmm, boardwalk fries...