NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean c'mon - the guy is absolutely no threat to the Republican World Order. I find him likeable and entertaining but his movies/books are transparently sloppy and annoyingly ranty at times. This is so abvious that he's unlikely to actually influence anybody. Yes he does sometimes play a bit loose with facts but what popular media doesn't?

Moore ultimately has zero influence - so why are Conservatives so obsessed by him? The big "mobilization" against Moore just gives him more credence than he probably deserves and actually gives him far more publicity he ever would've gotten otherwise. Most people are just checking his stuff out to see why he upsets Republicans so much - but I doubt that they're changing their minds about anything. I wonder why the Right is so determined to make Moore rich?

The Right is actually empowering Michael Moore - ya gotta love the irony.

I think they're scared this time because he's another sign of the mobilized opposition. Think about it for a second--Republicans, and especailly the right wing of the party have had great success in both the political and media arenas for the last 10 years or so. They've owned talk radio and slowly have gotten tv and print so shell-shocked that they won't challenge conservatives on hardly anything. In 1992, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency--since then, the Republicans have turned the tables and the Democrats have been largely ineffective.

But the Republicans sense a shift coming. The Democrats are energized, they've won the last two special elections in the House, they look like they might win back one of the two Houses of Congress and perhaps even the Presidency. And Moore is just another sign that the Democrats are energized--worse, they're pissed off and they're fighting back.

One last reason--until now, pretty much everything Moore is talking about in this film (according to all the reviews--I'll see it tonight) is stuff that's been reported in the news. It just hasn't gotten major play--you'd have to be looking for it to understand how it all works together. What Moore does is he puts it all together, gives it a timeline, and makes it a coherent narrative. And that really scares the right, because as long as Bush's incompetence only appears in individual acts, it's easier to portray him as a strong leader who only occasionally messes up. This points out that his record is one of continual incompetence.

I dunno why right-wingers are so scared of MM, its like asking why lefties foam from the mouth every time FOX or Rush Limbaugh is mentioned.

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?

Not to mention the nature and tone of the criticism that the 'left' has for Limbaugh and Fox is different than the tone and nature of criticism of Moore. Moore does not put 'Fair and Balanced' on his movies or pretend to be news (when asked on the Daily Show last night if he was being fair, he said "No, I have a point of view, an opinion about the what the facts say and I put it out there.") He is making an argument. Fox tries to pretend that it isn't. All that FOX's critics do is call them on it.

In the case of Limbaugh, he falls in Moore's catagory of having a point of view, and opinion, and is clear about that. What the 'left' does is argue and refute that opinion, and when he steps in something like refering to the torture as 'frat pranks' (note to self, avoid whatever frat Rush was in) they call him on it publically.

They do not try to silence either, they simply counter. That cannot be said of how Moore's films are handled. That speaks of fear. And Incertonia has nailed it as far as where that fear comes from.

The problem is you have people going around spouting his opinions as if they are fact. The right isn't afraid of Michael Moore, it's infuriated by him. He slanders them and then pretends as though he doesn't realize he has done so. That sort of insult cannot just be ignored.

Rebulicans are afraid of THE TRUTH. :D

Rebulicans are afraid of THE TRUTH. :D

Sing it, brotha!

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?

OK, then name a conservative documentary maker who's as widely known as Michael Moore.

Rebulicans are afraid of THE TRUTH. :D

Sing it, brotha!

Can I get an AMEN!! :D

The problem is you have people going around spouting his opinions as if they are fact. The right isn't afraid of Michael Moore, it's infuriated by him. He slanders them and then pretends as though he doesn't realize he has done so. That sort of insult cannot just be ignored.

Fine then, counter it with the facts. If Moore makes an assertion that is incorrect, show us the correct facts. Don't accuse the man of being unpatriotic or unAmerican. Practice what you preach and show exactly where it's wrong. Otherwise, it's just more of the same old misdirection that you accuse Moore of doing and that the Right Wing has developed into a science.

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?
Maybe in America. in Europe, people like Choamsky and Moore make bestseller lists and provide fuel to the anti-American fire.

He frightens me for the same reason clowns frighten me O_O

OK, then name a conservative documentary maker who's as widely known as Michael Moore.

Conservatives don't make documentaries, they make action movies with Schwartzenegger, Van Damme etc that show America being attacked by evil outsiders and desperately needing an iron-fisted domestic government.

These action movies are a form of political propaganda too. They're especially effective on a population that has trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy and considers Entertainment Tonight as important a news programme as 60 Minutes is.

Michael Moore is The Red Arrow on a larger scale. Saying that someone in the US/in the world is afraid of Moore is like saying that someone on NationStates is afraid of The Red Arrow :roll:

Conservatives don't make documentaries, they make action movies with Schwartzenegger, Van Damme etc that show America being attacked by evil outsiders and desperately needing an iron-fisted domestic government.

These action movies are a form of political propaganda too. They're especially effective on a population that has trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy and considers Entertainment Tonight as important a news programme as 60 Minutes is.

Weird, I didn't know Van Damme was American. Besides which, I don't recall too many action blockbusters that contain the iron-fisted domestic government message, but I may have been too mesmerized by big explosions to notice-which I would have thought conservatives would be against anyway, seeing as how they're the "family values" party.

The problem is you have people going around spouting his opinions as if they are fact. The right isn't afraid of Michael Moore, it's infuriated by him. He slanders them and then pretends as though he doesn't realize he has done so. That sort of insult cannot just be ignored. :roll: I'm afraid that goes for the Right as well. Since the fall of communism, the Right has slandered Liberals and Democrats with the same criticisms they formerly used for communism. Frankly, that's wrong, as Liberalism and Democrats do NOT seek to overthrow duly-elected governments or impose the political controls one saw in the FSU and still see in today's Mainland China.

The problem is you have people going around spouting his opinions as if they are fact. The right isn't afraid of Michael Moore, it's infuriated by him. He slanders them and then pretends as though he doesn't realize he has done so. That sort of insult cannot just be ignored.

Fine then, counter it with the facts. If Moore makes an assertion that is incorrect, show us the correct facts. Don't accuse the man of being unpatriotic or unAmerican. Practice what you preach and show exactly where it's wrong. Otherwise, it's just more of the same old misdirection that you accuse Moore of doing and that the Right Wing has developed into a science.

Woah, wait a second. I didn't say any of those things. Moore, by his own admission, has said that he didn't make a clear distinction in his movie between opinions and facts. I was simply pointing out that people will probably come away from his movies "convinced" of his opinions simply because he associates them with certain facts. Locating a fact and opinion in the same sentence does not an argument make, and I'm afraid that the average viewer won't realize that, because most people don't bother analyzing what they see very thoroughly. Not only that, I didn't accuse him of being unpatriotic or un-American, I accuse him of being a demagogic zealot. I'm sure he's as patriotic as George Washington, but I don't believe that excuses his behavior.

The problem is you have people going around spouting his opinions as if they are fact. The right isn't afraid of Michael Moore, it's infuriated by him. He slanders them and then pretends as though he doesn't realize he has done so. That sort of insult cannot just be ignored. :roll: I'm afraid that goes for the Right as well. Since the fall of communism, the Right has slandered Liberals and Democrats with the same criticisms they formerly used for communism. Frankly, that's wrong, as Liberalism and Democrats do NOT seek to overthrow duly-elected governments or impose the political controls one saw in the FSU and still see in today's Mainland China.

Lol nothing really to say about your post but that I found FSU (Former Soviet Union) amusing because I used to live in Tallahassee Florida, the home of Florida State University (plus, my mom went to college there).

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?
Maybe in America. in Europe, people like Choamsky and Moore make bestseller lists and provide fuel to the anti-American fire.
You can't seriously mean as many people are taking it as fact, as people who watch Fox news as their only source of "whats going on in the world today"... because really, Moore is a hyped up documentary and Fox news is watched by millions of people every day.

Besides, Moore isn't anti-American and people who are using him as an excuse to have such thoughts are doing only that - using him as an excuse.

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?
Maybe in America. in Europe, people like Choamsky and Moore make bestseller lists and provide fuel to the anti-American fire.
You can't seriously mean as many people are taking it as fact, as people who watch Fox news as their only source of "whats going on in the world today"... because really, Moore is a hyped up documentary and Fox news is watched by millions of people every day.

Besides, Moore isn't anti-American and people who are using him as an excuse to have such thoughts are doing only that - using him as an excuse.
He fuels the fire. Things like this : http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1210/p07s01-woeu.html. He or his book may not be anti-american, but it ends up spreading the effect.

personaly I don't like the left or the right. I don't like Rush and I don't like Michael. They just run off of their own opinions and hot air.
The reason why I dislike him is becouse his documenterys convinsed me to hate everyoe he hates. later i did reaserch on it becouse I was so upset on the horrable things going on in the world that he brought to my attention. what found was Michael moore is realy good at twisting peoples words into something compleatly different.please read this website before putting my opinion down :(
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

The right fears Moore, becuase he shows the reality of the lies and deception of the Bush administration.
He does it in a way that is a personal attack, but nevertheless factual.

they don't like MM because they are afraid of the truth. They are scared of being wrong.

they don't like MM because they are afraid of the truth. They are scared of being wrong.

Have any of you looked at the websites picking abvious holes in Moore's "facts"? He is a shameless manipulator of facts. He is very clever in the may he guides people to his conclusions by using selective information and editing.

I do not fear Michael Moore, I am concerned that people swallow his opinions as undeniable facts which they are not.

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

You BETTER start fearing him.

Remember where Bush's approval ratings are now.
Now keep in mind that no Incumbent,w ith approval ratings so low, this far from the election has ever won re-election.
Moore's film is aimed at the fence-sitters who are undecided about where they stand.

If this film convinces just 1,000,000 people to vote....Bush is doomed.
History says....Bush is doomed already.

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

You BETTER start fearing him.

Remember where Bush's approval ratings are now.
Now keep in mind that no Incumbent,w ith approval ratings so low, this far from the election has ever won re-election.
Moore's film is aimed at the fence-sitters who are undecided about where they stand.

If this film convinces just 1,000,000 people to vote....Bush is doomed.
History says....Bush is doomed already.

I'm not fearing him. Bush isn't fearing him. Anyone that fears him is a fool!

Moore ultimately has zero influence

No, he does. Here in America there are many people easily brainwashed by the media and will follow where ever the famous people on that glowing box go. America may be a nice country but we're also full of gullible people who would very easily go along withMoore's outrageous beliefs. He's just a crazy man wants people to think like him. And there are people who would.

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

You BETTER start fearing him.

Remember where Bush's approval ratings are now.
Now keep in mind that no Incumbent,w ith approval ratings so low, this far from the election has ever won re-election.
Moore's film is aimed at the fence-sitters who are undecided about where they stand.

If this film convinces just 1,000,000 people to vote....Bush is doomed.
History says....Bush is doomed already.

I'm not fearing him. Bush isn't fearing him. Anyone that fears him is a fool!

You really dont read the post before you, do you?

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

You BETTER start fearing him.

Remember where Bush's approval ratings are now.
Now keep in mind that no Incumbent,w ith approval ratings so low, this far from the election has ever won re-election.
Moore's film is aimed at the fence-sitters who are undecided about where they stand.

If this film convinces just 1,000,000 people to vote....Bush is doomed.
History says....Bush is doomed already.

I'm not fearing him. Bush isn't fearing him. Anyone that fears him is a fool!

You really dont read the post before you, do you?

Yes I do actually. I saw other history compared to this one. Did you know that all the past Electoral College winners that didn't win the popular vote didn't get re-elected? I just realized this when it was mentioned on O'Reilly!

However, Bush has things going for him and against him. Now the question is, how will the voters go! No one knows this answer and it can go either way. Bush could be the first president to get re-elected dispite the history of what I just said or he can be the same as the past presidents that did what he did!

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I'm not scared. I feel so comfortable refutting his claims, that I can say with confidence that his accusations are rooted in his brilliant imagination, but never facts. Besides, he comes across as too radical for even some on the left to handle. But, in all fairness, there are a few liberals I have reason to fear and respect, like Al Franken. But Moore is just a man with a brilliant imagination, a love for film making, missionary zeal, and a gross misunderstanding of politics in general.

Conservatives are supposed to be afraid of Michael Moore? I must have missed the memo? When did it get released. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is usually more on the ball with things like this. I think I missed the memo that said we were supposed to care about what Moore says too. Oh well, I'll just wait for the memo before I actually begin to fear him.

You BETTER start fearing him.

Remember where Bush's approval ratings are now.
Now keep in mind that no Incumbent,w ith approval ratings so low, this far from the election has ever won re-election.
Moore's film is aimed at the fence-sitters who are undecided about where they stand.

If this film convinces just 1,000,000 people to vote....Bush is doomed.
History says....Bush is doomed already.

I'm not fearing him. Bush isn't fearing him. Anyone that fears him is a fool!

You really dont read the post before you, do you?

Yes I do actually. I saw other history compared to this one. Did you know that all the past Electoral College winners that didn't win the popular vote didn't get re-elected? I just realized this when it was mentioned on O'Reilly!

However, Bush has things going for him and against him. Now the question is, how will the voters go! No one knows this answer and it can go either way. Bush could be the first president to get re-elected dispite the history of what I just said or he can be the same as the past presidents that did what he did!

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

Think again.

This movie is going make a lot of money.
This means that many many people are going to see it.
Moreso, its even a good movie from what Im told.
This film is based on the idea of showing people the truth about Bush.
People who vote.

Moore ultimately has zero influence

No, he does. Here in America there are many people easily brainwashed by the media and will follow where ever the famous people on that glowing box go. America may be a nice country but we're also full of gullible people who would very easily go along withMoore's outrageous beliefs. He's just a crazy man wants people to think like him. And there are people who would.

I would. :D

This is no different than Mel Gibson's "Passion" following. Just another croud.

This film is based on the idea of showing people the truth about Bush.
People who vote.

I think a more accurate description would be:

This film is based on the idea of showing people Michael Moore's perception of the truth about Bush.

This film is based on the idea of showing people the truth about Bush.
People who vote.

I think a more accurate description would be:

This film is based on the idea of showing people Michael Moore's perception of the truth about Bush.


...wich may be far more factual than Bush would like.....

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

...wich may be far more factual than Bush would like.....

How do you know? I find it disturbing that so many people take everything Micheal Moore says as gospel. He is a manipulator of facts through creative editing to guide you to his preconceived conclusions. A book has just been released or is soon to be released outlining the techniques Moore uses to twist facts to suit his aims.
I also suggest, for the sake of perspective, that you read the article mentioned earlier regarding this in reference to Bowling for Columbine. This may give you an idea of how he deliberateky deceives his audience.

Michael Moore can say what he wants. The fact that people blindly accept everything he says as undeniable fact is the scary thing. Get both sides and then make a decision, don't just follow the flock.

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

won an oscar and was booed of the stage and the Highest hone at Cannes was also held in FRANCE!!!!!

they don't like MM because they are afraid of the truth. They are scared of being wrong.

Have any of you looked at the websites picking abvious holes in Moore's "facts"? He is a shameless manipulator of facts. He is very clever in the may he guides people to his conclusions by using selective information and editing.

I do not fear Michael Moore, I am concerned that people swallow his opinions as undeniable facts which they are not.


Moore is a proven Liar, and NBC just did a piece on him proving that, His film has no merit and will only prove how much the left lies to get what they want.


http://www.frankenlies.com/

You may also like that site, It proves that another Liberal baby Al Franken is also a damn liar!

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

won an oscar and was booed of the stage and the Highest hone at Cannes was also held in FRANCE!!!!!

Like that means anything.

The point is..Moore is very popular.
Many many people are going to see this film....
People will vote....

Bush will lose.

Yes, because that site seems equally credible

:roll:

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

won an oscar and was booed of the stage and the Highest hone at Cannes was also held in FRANCE!!!!!

Like that means anything.

The point is..Moore is very popular.
Many many people are going to see this film....
People will vote....

Bush will lose.


Um....Most Americans hate moore and the film will flop, Mostly because he is banned from advertising it after July 30th I believe. :)

Lies are only dangerous when noone challenges them. The frightening part about Michael Moore is that even when he is challenged and the misrepresentations are highlighted, people still blindly believe.

When anyone posts criticism of Moore on these forums people attack the poster while conveniently ignoring the issue. Maybe they have learned this from their hero?

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

won an oscar and was booed of the stage and the Highest hone at Cannes was also held in FRANCE!!!!!

Like that means anything.

The point is..Moore is very popular.
Many many people are going to see this film....
People will vote....

Bush will lose.

Denied. I have a feeling your living in fantasyland.

People will go see it yes. My brother's roommate like bowling for columbine but he doesn't take it for gospel. he said it was a good movie, but doesn't take it for gospel.

People will see this but will they take it for gospel? Some will the majority won't!

Yes, because that site seems equally credible

:roll:

So a non-credible sourse such as Moore is ok but another website expressing the opposite view is not?

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

As for the 1,000,000 voters, I doubt the film is going to sway that many. I bet the majority is just going to go see another flick that is playing at the theater. That is what i'm thinking!

I think I have to agree with this, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to be swayed by his movie; I just dislike public apathy.

The majority of America is going to see Spiderman 2 or Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Only those who do will bother to see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who have their minds made up anyway.

Think again..

His last film won an Oscar...his last few books have all been New York Times Bestsellers...
This recent film won the Highest Honor at Cannes.

Many people will see this film before the election.

won an oscar and was booed of the stage and the Highest hone at Cannes was also held in FRANCE!!!!!

Like that means anything.

The point is..Moore is very popular.
Many many people are going to see this film....
People will vote....

Bush will lose.

Denied. I have a feeling your living in fantasyland.

People will go see it yes. My brother's roommate like bowling for columbine but he doesn't take it for gospel. he said it was a good movie, but doesn't take it for gospel.

People will see this but will they take it for gospel? Some will the majority won't!

It wont take a majority.
Right now the country is pretty evenly divided.
All it will take is a small percentage to change thier minds about Bush, and then go and vote.

Remember, No president with numbers like Bush's has ever won re-election.

History says Im right.

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Michael Moore is just another fat white guy that needs to have all of the attention he can get. He's another rabel-rouser, and an idiot to boot.

He's out for the attention and the money people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Those that believe in the hogwash that he's spilling out of his pig mouth are entitled to their opinions, however misguided and wrong they may be.

Republicans are not afraid of the truth; ironically it is the other way around. Those on the left are idealists, and they live the furthest from reality. Most on the right are realists, which base their opinions on the truth as it is known.

Michael Moore made (and is still making) a lot of money out of the gullibility of people. Tell them what they want to hear, twist the facts to suit these conclusions and watch the money roll in.

As they say, there is a sucker born every minute.

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Michael Moore made (and is still making) a lot of money out of the gullibility of people. Tell them what they want to hear, twist the facts to suit these conclusions and watch the money roll in.

As they say, there is a sucker born every minute.

Just like Rupert Murdoch.

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Amen.

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Who cares? We are talking about Michael Moore in this thread. Are you also admitting then that Moore is not credible?

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Who cares? We are talking about Michael Moore in this thread. Are you also admitting then that Moore is not credible?

Absolutely not.

Ive read his books and seen his movie, just not the new one yet.
Have you?

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So you are then saying that Fox News is also credible?

So you are then saying that Fox News is also credible?

Lol I was just thinking that but forgot to add this. Thanks!

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

So you are then saying that Fox News is also credible?

I would say that there is no worse News Company on earth.
No other Organization is geared at spinning news into Republican propoganda as Fox News.

The sad truth is that the majority of America doesn't have the attention span or interest to care about politics. Harry Potter will see Moore's movie, and those are also the people who see Spiderman swayed by his movie.

What? It's what Theodonesia said...

;)

Their both biased. Yeah.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

So then I have a problem. Is your earlier statement a lie?

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

and both are proven liars.
Especially O Reilly.

and if youve seen the show, you know that Colmes is just a puppet, placed there to look objective.

Please trim your posts to get rid of the quote pyramids. :D

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

and both are proven liars.
Especially O Reilly.

and if youve seen the show, you know that Colmes is just a puppet, placed there to look objective.

Its my favorite show as is O'Reilly! I watch both of them and i like what I see. As for Colmes being a puppet, I see no strings attached to him. He does speak his mind as does Hannity.

You don't like O'Reilly cause he tells the truth.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

So then I have a problem. Is your earlier statement a lie?

Nope.

Simply that both parties are presenting you with very jaded views of the world around you.
In Moores case, he uses selective facts and figures, to paint a very opinionated view of the President.
Fox News, is used to using bias and deciet, and blatant lies to spew right Wing propoganda.

I'd say that Moore is the better of the two becuase he makes no pretenses about his objectivity, as where FN pretends to be "Fair and Balanced".

I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

and both are proven liars.
Especially O Reilly.

and if youve seen the show, you know that Colmes is just a puppet, placed there to look objective.

Its my favorite show as is O'Reilly! I watch both of them and i like what I see. As for Colmes being a puppet, I see no strings attached to him. He does speak his mind as does Hannity.

You don't like O'Reilly cause he tells the truth.

Wrong again.

Bill O reilly is currently the biggest liar on television.

For instance.....

Bill says that he is an Independant.

Lie.
He was a registered Republican in 1994 in Nassau County.

Their both biased. Yeah.

I didn't say they weren't.

Wasn't this thread meant to discuss Michael Moore?

Wasn't this thread meant to discuss Michael Moore?

We are.

I was comparing Fox News to Michael Moore.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

Exactly.

Right or wrong, you have to admire the mans bravery to make a film like this.

Nope.

Simply that both parties are presenting you with very jaded views of the world around you.
In Moores case, he uses selective facts and figures, to paint a very opinionated view of the President.
Fox News, is used to using bias and deciet, and blatant lies to spew right Wing propoganda.

I'd say that Moore is the better of the two becuase he makes no pretenses about his objectivity, as where FN pretends to be "Fair and Balanced".

It would be naive to think Moore does not believe his views to be factual and fair. Whether he publicly states it or not he would not bother making a movie or movies that he did not believe were factual. The thing is, he wraps his bias and lies in a "satirical coating". The truth is he manipulates facts and uses editing to twist facts to suit his argument.
You would think Moore is the better of the two, not because of the "Fair and Balanced" motto, but because Moore shares your beliefs.

Just for the record, you obviously think his "jaded views" and "selective facts" that produce an "opinionated view" are the truth.


The right fears Moore, becuase he shows the reality of the lies and deception of the Bush administration.
He does it in a way that is a personal attack, but nevertheless factual.


This film is based on the idea of showing people the truth about Bush

Others share this view:


Rebulicans are afraid of THE TRUTH


they don't like MM because they are afraid of the truth. They are scared of being wrong.

This is the blind devotion that is scary. Not Michael Moore or what he says but the fact that people blindly follow his rhetoric.

Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'.
I dunno, foriegners in particular (link earlier in thread) take this guy pretty seriously.

[quote:98e0fb56cb="Zyzyx Road"]I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

and both are proven liars.
Especially O Reilly.

and if youve seen the show, you know that Colmes is just a puppet, placed there to look objective.

Its my favorite show as is O'Reilly! I watch both of them and i like what I see. As for Colmes being a puppet, I see no strings attached to him. He does speak his mind as does Hannity.

You don't like O'Reilly cause he tells the truth.

Wrong again.

Bill O reilly is currently the biggest liar on television.

For instance.....

Bill says that he is an Independant.

Lie.
He was a registered Republican in 1994 in Nassau County.[/quote:98e0fb56cb]


Still at it? Give it up. Has he Re-Registered after 1994? Also, Why would he register to vote in a place he doesn't live?

So you are then saying that Fox News is also credible?

I would say that there is no worse News Company on earth.
No other Organization is geared at spinning news into Republican propoganda as Fox News.


:roll:


http://student.gwhs.org/~afink/images/troll.jpg

Nope.

Simply that both parties are presenting you with very jaded views of the world around you.
In Moores case, he uses selective facts and figures, to paint a very opinionated view of the President.
Fox News, is used to using bias and deciet, and blatant lies to spew right Wing propoganda.

I'd say that Moore is the better of the two becuase he makes no pretenses about his objectivity, as where FN pretends to be "Fair and Balanced".

It would be naive to think Moore does not believe his views to be factual and fair. Whether he publicly states it or not he would not bother making a movie or movies that he did not believe were factual. The thing is, he wraps his bias and lies in a "satirical coating". The truth is he manipulates facts and uses editing to twist facts to suit his argument.
You would think Moore is the better of the two, not because of the "Fair and Balanced" motto, but because Moore shares your beliefs.

Just for the record, you obviously think his "jaded views" and "selective facts" that produce an "opinionated view" are the truth.


The right fears Moore, becuase he shows the reality of the lies and deception of the Bush administration.
He does it in a way that is a personal attack, but nevertheless factual.


This film is based on the idea of showing people the truth about Bush

Others share this view:


Rebulicans are afraid of THE TRUTH


they don't like MM because they are afraid of the truth. They are scared of being wrong.

This is the blind devotion that is scary. Not Michael Moore or what he says but the fact that people blindly follow his rhetoric.

Your quite wrong, and you should not make such assumptions about people you dont know.

I have less regard for Fox News becuase they have the GALL to call themselves "Media" and pretend to be a fair , and legitimate source of World News.
Tghe truth is , they lie, and distort facts to thier own ends, much in the same way you are accusing Moore of.

The difference?

One is a Film maker....

The Other is bad Journalism.

Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'.
I dunno, foriegners in particular (link earlier in thread) take this guy pretty seriously.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I'm a foreigner and I know exactly what Moores agenda is. To satirise and ridicule the Right and Bush in particular. The French and Germans etc are also well aware of Moores 'credentials'. Just because we like his films more (we don't have to live under King W) doesn't mean we're stupid.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

So now you want fims censored to the lowest common denominator to avoid people (you infer 'stupid' people) believing everything they see?

Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'.
I dunno, foriegners in particular (link earlier in thread) take this guy pretty seriously.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I'm a foreigner and I know exactly what Moores agenda is. To satirise and ridicule the Right and Bush in particular. The French and Germans etc are also well aware of Moores 'credentials'. Just because we like his films more (we don't have to live under King W) doesn't mean we're stupid.

Did you read the article Kwangistar pointed you to?

Well we rightist dont fear such a non-sensical, jibbrish documentary he produce for he himself hasnt produce anything evident and he is a traitor to the country, to our men in the military service, leader and to the notion of fighting for what is right...He declares that the war effort in wrong, well guess what ur wrong?!? Bush maybe what u think he is, but if ur in his position where all these things occur time after time, ur only way is to go do is right war...SOmetimes, we sacrifice tfor a benefit of a better future, if Bush just stares what is he now?? oh he is a pessimist... So michael moore is just who had attention deficit disorders and like to discourage the boys in fighting overseas...Also with his malcontent of patriotism and nationalism makes him a piece of crap to us rightist!

Hein-reich!

Did you read the article Kwangistar pointed you to?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Of course, I read a whole thread and its links before commenting. Now you're making a lot of assumptions. Young Europeans don't need Moore to know that Bush is a maniac. The film was enjoyed in the same way it is (by some) in the US as satire.

So now you want fims censored to the lowest common denominator to avoid people (you infer 'stupid' people) believing everything they see?

No, I have not said anything of the sort. I have said that people should get as much information as they can. See his films but also check what he says against facts. Read articles that criticise Moore and then make up your own mind.

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say people were stupid. I did not say I wanted Moore's films banned or censored.

Moore's cool man. Cause he acctually goes along with what he says. He's not a big hipocryt (did i spell that right hypocryt)?

Did you read the article Kwangistar pointed you to?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Of course, I read a whole thread and its links before commenting. Now you're making a lot of assumptions. Young Europeans don't need Moore to know that Bush is a maniac. The film was enjoyed in the same way it is (by some) in the US as satire.

Then why the government concern if, as you say, it is nothing out of the ordinary?

Well we rightist dont fear such a non-sensical, jibbrish documentary he produce for he himself hasnt produce anything evident and he is a traitor to the country, to our men in the military service, leader and to the notion of fighting for what is right...He declares that the war effort in wrong, well guess what ur wrong?!? Bush maybe what u think he is, but if ur in his position where all these things occur time after time, ur only way is to go do is right war...SOmetimes, we sacrifice tfor a benefit of a better future, if Bush just stares what is he now?? oh he is a pessimist... So michael moore is just who had attention deficit disorders and like to discourage the boys in fighting overseas...Also with his malcontent of patriotism and nationalism makes him a piece of crap to us rightist!

Hein-reich!
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I would have posted a longer reply to you but I refuse to answer people writing in lazy gibberish. Moore is a patriot. He loves his country and wants to see it go his way. Just as another 'patriot' is happy to see his president reviled and scarifice young Americans daily for his 'love' of country.

Moore's cool man. Cause he acctually goes along with what he says. He's not a big hipocryt (did i spell that right hypocryt)?

Then I will not reply to this for the same reason.

So now you want fims censored to the lowest common denominator to avoid people (you infer 'stupid' people) believing everything they see?

No, I have not said anything of the sort. I have said that people should get as much information as they can. See his films but also check what he says against facts. Read articles that criticise Moore and then make up your own mind.

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say people were stupid. I did not say I wanted Moore's films banned or censored.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Oh, I must have read this wrongly then.

"The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing"

Oh, I must have read this wrongly then.

"The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing"

You must have. It says it is scary that people blindly accept Moore's OPINION as undeniable fact.
The title of this thread is asking why the Right Wing is scared of Moore. I am saying it is not Moore we should be afraid of but the fact that people blindly follow what Moore says.

Perhaps you can tell me how you interpreted what I said.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?


Now you are just trying to piss people off.

Rightwingers are not scared of Michael Moore, they laugh at him. He is a joke. Rightwingers are scared of the people that believe what he says. There is something disturbing about them.

Rightwingers are not scared of Michael Moore, they laugh at him. He is a joke. Rightwingers are scared of the people that believe what he says. There is something disturbing about them.


AMEN!

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?


Now you are just trying to piss people off.

Not at all.
They are very valid comparisions.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?

I'll say it again. I did not say it was. This topic is about why the Right Wing is scared of MICHAEL MOORE. I am saying it is not Michael Moore or his books or films that people should be afraid of but the fact people blindly accept his opinion as fact. The same could be said for Fox News and those that blindly follow them. But that would be a different thread.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?


Now you are just trying to piss people off.

Not at all.
They are very valid comparisions.

No, It is flamebait. Your constant attacks against Fox News without proof is annoying.

Rightwingers are scared of the people that believe what he says. There is something disturbing about them.

It should not only be right wingers that are scared by the blind devotion to Michael Moore. Everyone should be. People should expose themselves to both sides of an argument and make a decision based on that.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?

I'll say it again. I did not say it was. This topic is about why the Right Wing is scared of MICHAEL MOORE. I am saying it is not Michael Moore or his books or films that people should be afraid of but the fact people blindly accept his opinion as fact. The same could be said for Fox News and those that blindly follow them. But that would be a different thread.

and yet, Im making my point by saying that there is no difference.

More people blindly follow Fox, than Moore.
So, in effect why would you make the point about people doing so with Moore?

Can we lose the quote pyramids..please?

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?


Now you are just trying to piss people off.

Not at all.
They are very valid comparisions.

No, It is flamebait. Your constant attacks against Fox News without proof is annoying.

You obviously dont know what either trolling or Flambait are.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Afraid of Moore? Not really. What is driving the 'right' into a frenzy is its insecurity. Even they see (though understandably, won't admit it) that the war on Iraq was wrong, has been botched, and is probably driving Iraq into a downward spiral to civil war. They too see el Presidente Bush stating with strength and confidence 'we will not give in to terrorists'. They too know that anti-American terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the war (as opposed to anti- American sentiment). They too now see Iraq as a breeding ground for Quaeda thanks to the illegal war. And they too see el presidente pounding his podium bravely, while the real brave people are the servicemen in Iraq. And finally, at last, they too see the average American realising just how much they've been consistantly lied to.
Moore, unlike politicians, makes no pretence of stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone who sees his films knows perfectly well that they are watching one mans 'take'. I can just remember when people like him were lauded by all sides as a patriot. That has sadly gone.

You make some huge assumptions and then coat it by saying "though understandably, won't admit it".

The topics you mention are not related to the topic of this thread. As far as Michael Moore never claiming his movies and books were the whole truth. So what? The point I am making is there are people who do take it as the whole truth. That is the scary part. Not Moore, not his fims, not his books. The blind following of his "take" is the scary thing.

Is it really any more frightening than the number of people that blindly listen to Fox News, or Rush Limbuagh?


Now you are just trying to piss people off.

Not at all.
They are very valid comparisions.

No, It is flamebait. Your constant attacks against Fox News without proof is annoying.

You obviously dont know what either trolling or Flambait are.


Of course I know, You do both all the time. :)

You obviously dont know what either trolling or Flambait are.\
Your tired assumption that all conservatives are slavishly devoted to Fox News is flamebait.

and yet, Im making my point by saying that there is no difference.

More people blindly follow Fox, than Moore.
So, in effect why would you make the point about people doing so with Moore?

Because this thread is about Michael Moore. Not Fox News. You can counter with mentioning Fox News but that would only be useful if I were arguing that Fox News was undeniably factual. The thing is, I am not. You have made your point about Fox News but we are talking about why Right wingers fear Michael Moore.

You obviously dont know what either trolling or Flambait are.\
Your tired assumption that all conservatives are slavishly devoted to Fox News is flamebait.


BRAVO!

http://www.gravett.org/pc/archives/moore-fatass-new.jpg
Please go to see F 9/11, this man is starving.

http://www.gravett.org/pc/archives/moore-fatass-new.jpg
Please go to see F 9/11, this man is starving.


Now you are Trolling and Flamebaiting, Be carefull ok?

and yet, Im making my point by saying that there is no difference.

More people blindly follow Fox, than Moore.
So, in effect why would you make the point about people doing so with Moore?

Because this thread is about Michael Moore. Not Fox News. You can counter with mentioning Fox News but that would only be useful if I were arguing that Fox News was undeniably factual. The thing is, I am not. You have made your point about Fox News but we are talking about why Right wingers fear Michael Moore.

No.
Its valid becuase your attempting to say that people who listen to Moore, are taking his every word as fact.
In fact, most of us dont.
Im making the point that there are FAR more poeple who do the same thing, everyday, two of them can been seen posting in this thread.
Thus, itsa very valid comparison.

As for being afraid of him, its his message that they fear.
Right or not, Bush cant afford anyone crossing over, and this film will have an impact on certain people who may be undecided.

Please stick to the issues.

Please stick to the issues.

Your talkin to them right?

No.
Its valid becuase your attempting to say that people who listen to Moore, are taking his every word as fact.
In fact, most of us dont.
Im making the point that there are FAR more poeple who do the same thing, everyday, two of them can been seen posting in this thread.
Thus, itsa very valid comparison.

As for being afraid of him, its his message that they fear.
Right or not, Bush cant afford anyone crossing over, and this film will have an impact on certain people who may be undecided.

You have said what he says is fact. Others that have posted on this thread have said the same thing. I have not said everyone who listens to Moore takes what he says as fact.
This thread is about why right wingers apparently fear Moore. My stance has been that I do not fear Moore or his message. What scares me is that people blindly accept what he says as fact.
You have made your point. I said that people who blindly accepted Fox News as fact were just as scary but that is not the topic of this thread.

Please stick to the issues.

Your talkin to them right?

I am talking to FOB about his picture post.

:shock: this thread is going in circles :shock: I think we passed these arguments before.

Moore is an interesting character, one who poses as a bumbling, amiable idiot, who just happens, by dint of hard work and good luck, to be able to show how the big, bad, right wing is reducing America to an authoritarian state.

In fact Moore is very smart. He knows there’s an audience out there - a liberal one - that really believes this garbage, and he plays to it. He’s a showman above all, a moneymaker who acts and dresses as the socialist man-of-the-people while he sends his kids to private schools and lives in a multi-million dollar property and earns millions of dollars a year from his book deals and his movies.

Moore preaches to the converted. Bush has nothing to worry about concerning this movie - there can hardly be an American alive not aware of Moore’s far-left political biases. It’s a shame in a way, because a few of the issues he raises in his movie deserve to be discussed, but his reputation precedes him. No one outside the left takes him seriously at all.

:shock: this thread is going in circles :shock: I think we passed these arguments before.

Yes, we have covered this before. :lol:

Well...It depends on what you consider "facts" to be.

Moore uses facts.
Facts are truth.

Moore simply, and openly uses facts and the truth to portray Bush, according to his opinion.

So, in that case, yes, I do consider Moore to be truthful, and factual.
BUT, even I, take him with a grain of salt.

Moore makes very inflammatory remarks, so he has to provide his arguments in a logical and truthful, if opinionated, manner.

I don't know what the big deal is, in fact my husband and I just got back from seeing the movie.. it didn't tell us any thing we didn't already know, so much so in fact I slept though at least 1/2 an hour of it..lol :lol:

It was good, but it was stuff we already knew.

Well...It depends on what you consider "facts" to be.

Moore uses facts.
Facts are truth.

Moore simply, and openly uses facts and the truth to portray Bush, according to his opinion.

So, in that case, yes, I do consider Moore to be truthful, and factual.
BUT, even I, take him with a grain of salt.

Moore makes very inflammatory remarks, so he has to provide his arguments in a logical and truthful, if opinionated, manner.
\
Moore manipulates facts to suit his needs, omits facts that disagree with his assertions, and lies when the facts don't fit his ideas, then hides behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment.

Moore is an interesting character, one who poses as a bumbling, amiable idiot, who just happens, by dint of hard work and good luck, to be able to show how the big, bad, right wing is reducing America to an authoritarian state.

In fact Moore is very smart. He knows there’s an audience out there - a liberal one - that really believes this garbage, and he plays to it. He’s a showman above all, a moneymaker who acts and dresses as the socialist man-of-the-people while he sends his kids to private schools and lives in a multi-million dollar property and earns millions of dollars a year from his book deals and his movies.

Moore preaches to the converted. Bush has nothing to worry about concerning this movie - there can hardly be an American alive not aware of Moore’s far-left political biases. It’s a shame in a way, because a few of the issues he raises in his movie deserve to be discussed, but his reputation precedes him. No one outside the left takes him seriously at all.

Well said. I have been saying that his message is not to be feared. I do believe it is scary that some people blindly treat opinion as fact without checking the credibility of the source and without reading the opinions of others to gain the full picture.

Well...It depends on what you consider "facts" to be.

Moore uses facts.
Facts are truth.

Moore simply, and openly uses facts and the truth to portray Bush, according to his opinion.

So, in that case, yes, I do consider Moore to be truthful, and factual.
BUT, even I, take him with a grain of salt.

Moore makes very inflammatory remarks, so he has to provide his arguments in a logical and truthful, if opinionated, manner.

Moore manipulates facts and rearranges facts to suit his argument. Read the website (from earlier link) detailing his methods of deception. It even has original sources for its information.

Well...It depends on what you consider "facts" to be.

Moore uses facts.
Facts are truth.

Moore simply, and openly uses facts and the truth to portray Bush, according to his opinion.

So, in that case, yes, I do consider Moore to be truthful, and factual.
BUT, even I, take him with a grain of salt.

Moore makes very inflammatory remarks, so he has to provide his arguments in a logical and truthful, if opinionated, manner.
\
Moore manipulates facts to suit his needs, omits facts that disagree with his assertions, and lies when the facts don't fit his ideas, then hides behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment.


Prove to me, where Moore has lied.

Just ONCE.

If you cant....shaddap.

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Whatever, man. Believe what you want, his movies have all been debunked.

I don't know what the big deal is, in fact my husband and I just got back from seeing the movie.. it didn't tell us any thing we didn't already know, so much so in fact I slept though at least 1/2 an hour of it..lol :lol:

It was good, but it was stuff we already knew.

I know. As I have been saying, I do not fear what Moore has to say and I do not want him censored or banned. I do find people who blindly believe everything he says scary. Scary because it shows people are losing the ability to gather information and make an informed decision.
The same goes for people who blindly follow Fox News or Osama bin Laden.

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html



He won't believe a word.

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html



He won't believe a word.

Maybe not. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

Hey this is from Slate, Eric Alterman's favorite site.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I see deliberate editing, but not one lie.
Moore admits to this as well.

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I see deliberate editing, but not one lie.
Moore admits to this as well.

So when he interviewed Charlton Heston and said that Heston came to Flint immediately after the death of the 6 year old for a gun rally when in fact Heston came as part of an election campaign well after the incident occured is not a lie?

It is possible to lie by omission.

Read and make up your own mind Backwoods:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I see deliberate editing, but not one lie.
Moore admits to this as well.

So when he interviewed Charlton Heston and said that Heston came to Flint immediately after the death of the 6 year old for a gun rally when in fact Heston came as part of an election campaign well after the incident occured is not a lie?

It is possible to lie by omission.

He said the NRA came.
They did.

OK, then name a conservative documentary maker who's as widely known as Michael Moore.

Conservatives don't make documentaries, they make action movies with Schwartzenegger, Van Damme etc that show America being attacked by evil outsiders and desperately needing an iron-fisted domestic government.

These action movies are a form of political propaganda too. They're especially effective on a population that has trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy and considers Entertainment Tonight as important a news programme as 60 Minutes is.

Good point. I remember seeing in one of these movies, the big bad terrorist has the president's daughter and outlines his complaints - why he is terrifying. What is her answer? What is the filmmakers' answer? No answer - in the end he just gets blown up or something and the day is saved. That is as propagandistic as anything Moore has made, although Moore is very methodical about backing up what his statements - this kind of thing is just jingoistic.

Because he is like so damn sexy!!!

He said the NRA came.
They did.

From the website:

Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Hey this is from Slate, Eric Alterman's favorite site.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

What is interesting about this is that Christopher Hitchens writes it. Hitchens is widely regarded as even further to the left than Moore, but nevertheless rather more broadminded.

That's an interesting link, thanks.

I just found it really interesting. I normally only read altermans articles on Slate, to see what crazy thing he believes this week, but I heard about that article on Limbaugh's show.

Hey this is from Slate, Eric Alterman's favorite site.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

What is interesting about this is that Christopher Hitchens writes it. Hitchens is widely regarded as even further to the left than Moore, but nevertheless rather more broadminded.

That's an interesting link, thanks.

Funny, when that link was posted on another thread Hitchins was discredited by the left as a right wing journalist.

He said the NRA came.
They did.

From the website:

Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.

[

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.

This is after Denver..in Flint. Please refer to the correct part of the article.

He said the NRA came.
They did.

From the website:

Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.That meet-up had been scheduled for months, would have been immpossible to cancel or change, and was toned way down in defference to the victims. Then Moore comes along, splices it with another speech Hestoon made, and exploited the victim's families.

wich was shortly after another School shooting in the Flint Burrell Elementary school.

I remember this becuase I live about 45 minutes away from there.

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.

So it was not a "big gun-rally" but a political rally.

[

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.

This is after Denver..in Flint. Please refer to the correct part of the article.

I did,
and I am.
See above.

wich was shortly after another School shooting in the Flint Burrell Elementary school.

I remember this becuase I live about 45 minutes away from there.

It was 8 months afterwards.

You misread it.


The NRA did come to Denver.

The part of the movie is from those two speeches.
Most of if in Denver, wich did meet even after the shooting at columbine.
Heston, and the NRA did appear in Flint, to support Bush.

So it was not a "big gun-rally" but a political rally.

If you dont consider the N.R.A to be a "Gun Rally" kind of people?

any rally where the N.R.A. shows up..IS a pro-gun rally.

wich was shortly after another School shooting in the Flint Burrell Elementary school.

I remember this becuase I live about 45 minutes away from there.

It was 8 months afterwards.

8 months after Columbine.

If you dont consider the N.R.A to be a "Gun Rally" kind of people?

any rally where the N.R.A. shows up..IS a pro-gun rally.

Bush, Gore and Moore himself was there. Were they also speaking at a "big gun rally" or were they speaking at the political rally that actually took place?

wich was shortly after another School shooting in the Flint Burrell Elementary school.

I remember this becuase I live about 45 minutes away from there.

It was 8 months afterwards.

8 months after Columbine.

No, the rally was held in October 2000, the 6 year old was killed in February 2000.

If you dont consider the N.R.A to be a "Gun Rally" kind of people?

any rally where the N.R.A. shows up..IS a pro-gun rally.

Bush, Gore and Moore himself was there. Were they also speaking at a "big gun rally" or were they speaking at the political rally that actually took place?

What would you call Charlston Heston, speaking on the behalf of the N.R.A in a Democratic town like Flint?

Rally in Flint: http://www.freep.com/news/politics/zero18_20001018.htm

Death of 6 year old in Flint: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/29/school.shooting.04/

What would you call Charlston Heston, speaking on the behalf of the N.R.A in a Democratic town like Flint?

Don't side step the issue. Was it a big gun rally or a political rally? Because, if you concede it was a political rally then Moore lied.

What would you call Charlston Heston, speaking on the behalf of the N.R.A in a Democratic town like Flint?

Don't side step the issue. Was it a big gun rally or a political rally? Because, if you concede it was a political rally then Moore lied.


Anytime the N.R.A makes a rally, especially when backing a political party, or candidate, their primary goal is a pro-gun rally.

This was an especially good part of Hitchens' article:

"Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation."

Hitchens is 100% right. The poster for this thread was right as well. The "Right-wing" is shooting itself in the foot here, by complaining about the horrendous political bias of the movie. Fox News and the rest should be quiet, give it no more publicity, and let the film die the quick death it deserves. Americans are smart enough to see beyond the far-left, paranoid conspiracy-theory propaganda.

Even Stephistan said it made her fall asleep. In other words, there's nothing new there. The movie just feeds the deluded fantasies of the left, and doesn't even do that very well.

What would you call Charlston Heston, speaking on the behalf of the N.R.A in a Democratic town like Flint?

Don't side step the issue. Was it a big gun rally or a political rally? Because, if you concede it was a political rally then Moore lied.


Anytime the N.R.A makes a rally, especially when backing a political party, or candidate, their primary goal is a pro-gun rally.Look, Michael moore is a liar, we have provided numerous sites for you to visit to see for yourself. THis argument about timing of rallies is a joke. He misrepresent everything in his lies.

Anytime the N.R.A makes a rally, especially when backing a political party, or candidate, their primary goal is a pro-gun rally.

Stop avoiding the question. Was the rally a political rally attended by Bush, Gore and Moore or was it a gun rally?

This was an especially good part of Hitchens' article:

"Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation."

Hitchens is 100% right. The poster for this thread was right as well. The "Right-wing" is shooting itself in the foot here, by complaining about the horrendous political bias of the movie. Fox News and the rest should be quiet, give it no more publicity, and let the film die the quick death it deserves. Americans are smart enough to see beyond the far-left, paranoid conspiracy-theory propaganda.

Even Stephistan said it made her fall asleep. In other words, there's nothing new there. The movie just feeds the deluded fantasies of the left, and doesn't even do that very well.

I agree. Would you believe I was aguing with someone on another thread that thought Hitchins was telling people not to see the film?

Anytime the N.R.A makes a rally, especially when backing a political party, or candidate, their primary goal is a pro-gun rally.

Stop avoiding the question. Was the rally a political rally attended by Bush, Gore and Moore or was it a gun rally?

Im not avoiding the question.

You asked if it was a political rally, or a Gun Rally?

Im telling you.....whenever the National Rifle Association appears at a rally, thier primary goal, is to back a candidate that will endorse less gun control.
SO.....yes. It was most certainly a Gun rally, once the NRA got involved.

Im not avoiding the question.

You asked if it was a political rally, or a Gun Rally?

Im telling you.....whenever the National Rifle Association appears at a rally, thier primary goal, is to back a candidate that will endorse less gun control.
SO.....yes. It was most certainly a Gun rally, once the NRA got involved.

So Bush, Gore, Nader and Moore were also at the "gun rally"? Backwoods, just admit it. Moore lied.

Address or debunk any of the facts here. Prove he is not a liar.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm

Im not avoiding the question.

You asked if it was a political rally, or a Gun Rally?

Im telling you.....whenever the National Rifle Association appears at a rally, thier primary goal, is to back a candidate that will endorse less gun control.
SO.....yes. It was most certainly a Gun rally, once the NRA got involved.

So Bush, Gore, Nader and Moore were also at the "gun rally"? Backwoods, just admit it. Moore lied.

No. The NRA wasnt campaining for them.
Only Bush.


If not for Gun owners right, what possible reason would the NRA be in Flint MI?

No. The NRA wasnt campaining for them.
Only Bush.


If not for Gun owners right, what possible reason would the NRA be in Flint MI?

You just answered your own question.

Im not avoiding the question.

You asked if it was a political rally, or a Gun Rally?

Im telling you.....whenever the National Rifle Association appears at a rally, thier primary goal, is to back a candidate that will endorse less gun control.
SO.....yes. It was most certainly a Gun rally, once the NRA got involved.

So Bush, Gore, Nader and Moore were also at the "gun rally"? Backwoods, just admit it. Moore lied.

No. The NRA wasnt campaining for them.
Only Bush.


If not for Gun owners right, what possible reason would the NRA be in Flint MI?This is typical. Drag us all down on one tiny thing, while ignoring the fact that he is totally wrong on the whole.

Heston was at the rally to support Bush in his campaign. Not as a representative of the NRA.

It was a political rally and Backwoods knows.

Hey this is from Slate, Eric Alterman's favorite site.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

What is interesting about this is that Christopher Hitchens writes it. Hitchens is widely regarded as even further to the left than Moore, but nevertheless rather more broadminded.

That's an interesting link, thanks.

Funny, when that link was posted on another thread Hitchins was discredited by the left as a right wing journalist.

Regarding Hitchens, he's called himself in the past a Marxist. I believe he still is one. His brother, Peter Hitchens, is a famous right-wing conservative in the UK, and the two often debate publicly with strongly opposing views expressed.

But Christopher made the terrible mistake of actually condemning Bill Clinton for his behavior while in office. He thought that the ex-president was, really, morally repugnant, and some of the hard-core liberals never forgave him from that point on. Slate, though, is rather more broadminded. The "notorious" right-winger David Horowitz for example used to write for it (and maybe still does).

No. The NRA wasnt campaining for them.
Only Bush.


If not for Gun owners right, what possible reason would the NRA be in Flint MI?

You just answered your own question.

No I didnt.

They wouldnt be there for any reason becuase Flint, Mi is a completely Democrat town.
General Motors, remmeber.....blue collar.

They were there having a gun rally in support of Bush, and pro-gun lobbyists.

IE....a gun rally.

No I didnt.

They wouldnt be there for any reason becuase Flint, Mi is a completely Democrat town.
General Motors, remmeber.....blue collar.

They were there having a gun rally in support of Bush, and pro-gun lobbyists.

IE....a gun rally.

The same thing all the other people who were at the rally were doing. Rev. Jesse Jackson was there as a surrogate for Gore. Was it then an affirmative action rally also?

No I didnt.

They wouldnt be there for any reason becuase Flint, Mi is a completely Democrat town.
General Motors, remmeber.....blue collar.

They were there having a gun rally in support of Bush, and pro-gun lobbyists.

IE....a gun rally.

The same thing all the other people who were at the rally were doing. Rev. Jesse Jackson was there as a surrogate for Gore. Was it then an affirmative action rally also? and a reperations rally.

No I didnt.

They wouldnt be there for any reason becuase Flint, Mi is a completely Democrat town.
General Motors, remmeber.....blue collar.

They were there having a gun rally in support of Bush, and pro-gun lobbyists.

IE....a gun rally.

The same thing all the other people who were at the rally were doing. Rev. Jesse Jackson was there as a surrogate for Gore. Was it then an affirmative action rally also?

If it involved Jackson advocating the candidate who supports it....yes.

Regarding Hitchens, he's called himself in the past a Marxist. I believe he still is one. His brother, Peter Hitchens, is a famous right-wing conservative in the UK, and the two often debate publicly with strongly opposing views expressed.

But Christopher made the terrible mistake of actually condemning Bill Clinton for his behavior while in office. He thought that the ex-president was, really, morally repugnant, and some of the hard-core liberals never forgave him from that point on. Slate, though, is rather more broadminded. The "notorious" right-winger David Horowitz for example used to write for it (and maybe still does).Hitchens is that rare bird who underwent a change in ideals when he saw that the money was really good from right-wing foundations. In his younger days when he was writing "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" he was basically a socialist. In the late nineties when he joined the Clinton-haters club, he moved swiftly to the right, and there he stands today.

In a way, he's much like Horowitz, who was associated with the Black Panthers in the late 60s and early 70s and then became a radical righty.

If it involved Jackson advocating the candidate who supports it....yes.

so it was a combined gun rally and affirmative action rally...interesting

If it involved Jackson advocating the candidate who supports it....yes.

so it was a combined gun rally and affirmative action rally...interesting

You know exactly what I mean.

The only reason that the NRA goes anywhere is with a political agenda.
The people in the audience are members.
They all have one mind as far as gun control goes.

as for Jackson, he spoke at a different time, than did heston.
Different crowd.

Backwoods, we can dance around the issue all you like. The rally was a political rally not a gun rally. Michael Moore lied.

If it involved Jackson advocating the candidate who supports it....yes.

so it was a combined gun rally and affirmative action rally...interesting

You know exactly what I mean.

The only reason that the NRA goes anywhere is with a political agenda.
The people in the audience are members.
They all have one mind as far as gun control goes.

as for Jackson, he spoke at a different time, than did heston.
Different crowd.Was like in football, the Ref blew the whistle, and all the left-leaning frineds of Jesse Hijackson swooped in as the pro-gun crowd left?

I motice too that the folks who like Moore are mostly pretty calm and level-headed about it, while those who hate Moore are incredibly forceful and aggressive. An example is how *desperate* they are to "prove" Moore had told a lie.

It's like the lefties are mellow and the rightwingers are shaking with rage and popping veins. Why is that?

I motice too that the folks who like Moore are mostly pretty calm and level-headed about it, while those who hate Moore are incredibly forceful and aggressive. An example is how *desperate* they are to "prove" Moore had told a lie.

It's like the lefties are mellow and the rightwingers are shaking with rage and popping veins. Why is that?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not a flamebait.

You obviously haven't read the thread. Please show me where anyone has been forceful and aggressive.
Better still, how about you contribute to the topic of discussion once you have caught up on what has been discussed.

I motice too that the folks who like Moore are mostly pretty calm and level-headed about it, while those who hate Moore are incredibly forceful and aggressive. An example is how *desperate* they are to "prove" Moore had told a lie.

It's like the lefties are mellow and the rightwingers are shaking with rage and popping veins. Why is that?

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You can also see one other glaring thing too, and it goes right through society, even into 'showbiz'. The 'Left' have a much better sense of humour than the right. The right take themselves much more seriously than the left.
Just peruse this site for proof. There are always exceptions on both sides, but you can see the trend.

http://web.macam98.ac.il/~ochayo/humor/gif/laugh.gif

[Right or wrong, you have to admire the mans bravery to make a film like this.

I think he's got cojones too, because judging from all the blind raging hatred against Moore he must know he stands a chance of being shot. (It seems many here would enjoy that too.) Nobody on the Right is in equal danger.

http://www.gravett.org/pc/archives/moore-fatass-new.jpg
Please go to see F 9/11, this man is starving.

Oh that is brutal but I can't stop laughing. LOL.

[Right or wrong, you have to admire the mans bravery to make a film like this.

I think he's got cojones too, because judging from all the blind raging hatred against Moore he must know he stands a chance of being shot. (It seems many here would enjoy that too.) Nobody on the Right is in equal danger.

Blind hatred? Where? Wanting to see Moore shot? Who said that? Why start a thread if you can't hold a realistic discussion of the issue? Spouting mindless crap and insults is not discussing the issue.

I do not hate Moore, I do not fear Moore. The people that are scary are the ones that blindly accept everything he says as fact despite the obvious evidence that it is nothing more than his opinion.

If Michael Moore was anything but a filmmaker in the media light, then he would be completely out of work. Documentaries can be biased, just like essays. But if Michael Moore did write an essay he would be laughed out of every college in the world. He would get an A for effort, however. I mean, you must be very brave to press such outlandish and unbelievable things. Then, when it turns out the little evidence he gave in the essay was complete bullcrap, he would be dubbed the king of bad essays.

Michael Moore makes movies for entertainment. You're entertained because you're interested, I'm entertained because I can't believe anyone would take him for face value. We all go home happy. I would just like to say that if you believe everything Moore says, or you cite Moore in an argument, or you feel that the man is "enlightening" then you are an idiot, and should be eliminated as part of a master eugenics program.

Oh, and what's with the title? I'm right, so I'm *SCARED* of Moore? Suuuuuure. I see him as a real threat.

I motice too that the folks who like Moore are mostly pretty calm and level-headed about it, while those who hate Moore are incredibly forceful and aggressive. An example is how *desperate* they are to "prove" Moore had told a lie.

It's like the lefties are mellow and the rightwingers are shaking with rage and popping veins. Why is that?

Duh... because all lefties smoke pot! :wink: (jk)

Hmm... and it seems like the exact opposite is true whenever anyone mentions FOX News. Maybe it's because people in general get mad whenever someone with perceived influence disagrees with them? Naw, couldn't be... the obvious explanation is that left-wingers are generally better people.

:roll:

Hmm... and it seems like the exact opposite is true whenever anyone mentions FOX News. Maybe it's because people in general get mad whenever someone with perceived influence disagrees with them?

Y'know, I think you might be on to something there... :)

I am not scared of the movie its just sad the this anti American garbage will be shown in a theater.

I am not scared of the movie its just sad the this anti American garbage will be shown in a theater.

it's not anti-american, its anti-bush administration.

I am not scared of the movie its just sad the this anti American garbage will be shown in a theater.

it's not anti-american, its anti-bush administration.

Which is why it won't be shown after July 30! Because it can be considered political!

I am not scared of the movie its just sad the this anti American garbage will be shown in a theater.
guess what? radical right wingers are not all of america nor do they solely represent america, get off your conservative high horse and see if you can get on the reality train the next time it goes by

Is Micael Moore on the reality train?

You obviously haven't read the thread. Please show me where anyone has been forceful and aggressive.FOB's photo perhaps?
Better still, how about you contribute to the topic of discussion once you have caught up on what has been discussed.Surely the idea that anyone follows someone else blindly is scary- whether a journalist, a politican, or a cop. Journalist objectivity is impossible- so I prefer those who wear their biases on their sleaves- like Michael Moore or PJ O'Rourke- at least they're honest about it.

Is Micael Moore on the reality train?

Most definitely, YES.

Is Micael Moore on the reality train?

Most definitely, YES.

Most definitely, NO

Bill O'Reilly said on air that he would like to shoot Michael Moore, if that isn't very dangerous blind hatred nothing is.

I haven't seen fahrenheit, he did put forth a lot of interesting FACTS. Yes he is a showboater but only to help put forth his message. Name one major political figure that hasn't been an expert at showboating.

To say that he presses "outlandish and unbelievable things" just shows that you are so biased that you won't even accept reputable facts.

Bill O'Reilly said on air that he would like to shoot Michael Moore, if that isn't very dangerous blind hatred nothing is.

Hear that, Tygaland?

You obviously haven't read the thread. Please show me where anyone has been forceful and aggressive.FOB's photo perhaps?
Better still, how about you contribute to the topic of discussion once you have caught up on what has been discussed.Surely the idea that anyone follows someone else blindly is scary- whether a journalist, a politican, or a cop. Journalist objectivity is impossible- so I prefer those who wear their biases on their sleaves- like Michael Moore or PJ O'Rourke- at least they're honest about it.Actually my photo was rather passive. AN Aggressive attck on him would be to say he is a liar, he love "fictition", and if I saw him on the street, I would kick his ass.

[Right or wrong, you have to admire the mans bravery to make a film like this.

I think he's got cojones too, because judging from all the blind raging hatred against Moore he must know he stands a chance of being shot. (It seems many here would enjoy that too.) Nobody on the Right is in equal danger.

Hear that Garaj Mahal? Something of a quantum leap considering you did not show where anyone wanted to kill Moore. Whoever said that is an idiot. However staing that "many people here" would enjoy seeing him killed is a disgrace.

FOB's photo perhaps?

If you read the posts following that I stated we should stick to the issues rather than resort to physical insults. Also, it may have been in bad taste but hardly aggressive or forceful.

Surely the idea that anyone follows someone else blindly is scary- whether a journalist, a politican, or a cop. Journalist objectivity is impossible- so I prefer those who wear their biases on their sleaves- like Michael Moore or PJ O'Rourke- at least they're honest about it.

I have also stated that anyone who follows anything blindly is scary. Please read the thread before posting.

Bill O'Reilly said on air that he would like to shoot Michael Moore, if that isn't very dangerous blind hatred nothing is.

I haven't seen fahrenheit, he did put forth a lot of interesting FACTS. Yes he is a showboater but only to help put forth his message. Name one major political figure that hasn't been an expert at showboating.

To say that he presses "outlandish and unbelievable things" just shows that you are so biased that you won't even accept reputable facts.

You haven't seen the movie but you claim he put forward a lot of FACTS? Interesting. If you also haven't realised this is a thread about Michael Moore, not just Farenheit 9/11.
There have been links to reviews, in particular on concerning Bowling for Columbine that show clear "dishonesties" in Moore's movie. did you by chance read any of these articles?

Bill O'Reilly said on air that he would like to shoot Michael Moore, if that isn't very dangerous blind hatred nothing is.

I haven't seen fahrenheit, he did put forth a lot of interesting FACTS. Yes he is a showboater but only to help put forth his message. Name one major political figure that hasn't been an expert at showboating.

To say that he presses "outlandish and unbelievable things" just shows that you are so biased that you won't even accept reputable facts.

You're post lacks cohesion, a sense of logic, or proof.

In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?
Furthermore, there's a difference in terms of honesty. Michael Moore has been accused of "fun with facts" as it were, but Limbaugh writes his own data left and right, and Fox News is full of people who do the same.

However, I'm not sure how relevant the lack of moral equivalency between the left and the right is to Kwangistan's point.

And Michael Savage heads or at least prominently participates and coordinates the "Paul Revere (sic) Society". All pun intended. Interestingly enough he's admitted of late that a sensible conservative would take the risk of distancing themselves from the republicans through all of their wonderful accomplishments in the last few months. He also supports a minimum wage increase since he's ACTUALLY WORKED for sh*t-for-wage jobs before. And his degree is in nutrition by the way, however astute or horribly fascist he may represent himself at times. So it's just a voice through a medium doing it all. Nothing wrong with Moore's accomplishment. Besides, how much actual doctoring was involved in any of Moore's publications? In print, anything is suspect. With video ... that's a hades of a lot harder. For those of you complaining about it all being about his opinion remember that he narrates and isn't often the star. Argue with the forensics there. :?
In all fairness, Kwangistar, you've got to admit that Fox News and Limbaugh have way more influence than Moore does. Moore comes out with a movie every what, 3 or 4 years at best? Fox and Limbaugh are on every day and to a far larger audience. Compare apples to apples why don't you?
Maybe in America. in Europe, people like Choamsky and Moore make bestseller lists and provide fuel to the anti-American fire.
You can't seriously mean as many people are taking it as fact, as people who watch Fox news as their only source of "whats going on in the world today"... because really, Moore is a hyped up documentary and Fox news is watched by millions of people every day.

Besides, Moore isn't anti-American and people who are using him as an excuse to have such thoughts are doing only that - using him as an excuse.
He fuels the fire. Things like this : http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1210/p07s01-woeu.html. He or his book may not be anti-american, but it ends up spreading the effect.

Yep. LOL! And "The Simple Life"'s viewer polls can attest to the same qualities you're espousing here. You know ratings and groups are unquestionably right and everyone else just needs to fall in line.
I never said that Michael Moore was a credible source.

Thank you, you went where I wanted you to go. Michael Moore is not a credible source.

Moore is every bit as credible as Fox News is.

Moore is 100% worse than fox news!

Nope..its just that you dont like what Moore says.

I don't trust what Moore says! He is a compulsive lier and has been proven as such! Hence he's 100% worse than Fox News!

So ahve Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
The difference is that Moore doesnt claim to be "Fair and Balanced".

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

Astute. Fariness, THIS FAR ALONG in the thread.
Blind devotion to ANY media source merits the consequences to any of the devout. "AMEN"! LOL!
All the more reason to know the source of the quotes and the source of the funding. This kinda stuff ain't free you know.
Rightwingers are scared of the people that believe what he says. There is something disturbing about them.

It should not only be right wingers that are scared by the blind devotion to Michael Moore. Everyone should be. People should expose themselves to both sides of an argument and make a decision based on that.

Astute. Fariness, THIS FAR ALONG in the thread.
Blind devotion to ANY media source merits the consequences to any of the devout. "AMEN"! LOL!
All the more reason to know the source of the quotes and the source of the funding. This kinda stuff ain't free you know.


Not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say, it is a little disjointed. The article criticising the "honesty" of Bowling for Columbine does actually link to news reports etc of the incidents when they took place to verify their criticisms.
I have also said that blind devotion to either "side" is doing yourself an injustice.

"Cloak of the First Amendment?"
Do you intend to represent a political view with that obviously loaded statement? Is that amendment inparticular an assault on some kind of socio/political sensibility on your part?
Interesting how that same issue gives you the RIGHT to state such a potentially inflammatory statement.
It's a good thing people who understand what the right is employ it, don't you think? As well, a good thing that people with yours and my best interests at heart (one degree of separation) are making sure that if it suited you to appreciate that right, you could, without intervention and deliberate application of misinformation, or, overt removal of speech altogether?
So, just asking, why exactly does his new film have such strict limitations to its availability for view of the common populace of the United States? If it's political it isn't under FREE SPEECH ANYMORE? Where, EXACTLY, is that printed? Anyone on this thread truly KNOW where the information is regarding that? :x
Well...It depends on what you consider "facts" to be.

Moore uses facts.
Facts are truth.

Moore simply, and openly uses facts and the truth to portray Bush, according to his opinion.

So, in that case, yes, I do consider Moore to be truthful, and factual.
BUT, even I, take him with a grain of salt.

Moore makes very inflammatory remarks, so he has to provide his arguments in a logical and truthful, if opinionated, manner.
\
Moore manipulates facts to suit his needs, omits facts that disagree with his assertions, and lies when the facts don't fit his ideas, then hides behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment.

Just saying with fewer words what you could summate on your own.
I stated only that i appreciate your ability to be fair about this topic, and a little cynical about how far along this thread it had to go before you qualified yourself.

Astute. Fariness, THIS FAR ALONG in the thread.
Blind devotion to ANY media source merits the consequences to any of the devout. "AMEN"! LOL!
All the more reason to know the source of the quotes and the source of the funding. This kinda stuff ain't free you know.


Not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say, it is a little disjointed. The article criticising the "honesty" of Bowling for Columbine does actually link to news reports etc of the incidents when they took place to verify their criticisms.
I have also said that blind devotion to either "side" is doing yourself an injustice.

An example to support my last post.
I don't know what the big deal is, in fact my husband and I just got back from seeing the movie.. it didn't tell us any thing we didn't already know, so much so in fact I slept though at least 1/2 an hour of it..lol :lol:

It was good, but it was stuff we already knew.

I know. As I have been saying, I do not fear what Moore has to say and I do not want him censored or banned. I do find people who blindly believe everything he says scary. Scary because it shows people are losing the ability to gather information and make an informed decision.
The same goes for people who blindly follow Fox News or Osama bin Laden.

Michael Moore can say what he wants. The fact that people blindly accept everything he says as undeniable fact is the scary thing. Get both sides and then make a decision, don't just follow the flock.

My third post in this thread on page 2.

An example to support my last post.
I don't know what the big deal is, in fact my husband and I just got back from seeing the movie.. it didn't tell us any thing we didn't already know, so much so in fact I slept though at least 1/2 an hour of it..lol :lol:

It was good, but it was stuff we already knew.

I know. As I have been saying, I do not fear what Moore has to say and I do not want him censored or banned. I do find people who blindly believe everything he says scary. Scary because it shows people are losing the ability to gather information and make an informed decision.
The same goes for people who blindly follow Fox News or Osama bin Laden.

How does this support your last post. It shows I have qualified my stance numerous times in this thread before the one your drew attention to.

...

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

Alan Colmes is a sock puppet who has Hannity's stinky hand right up his pooper.

Righto.
Last post not meant to be a contradiction to earlier post, only meant the extent of elucidation you'd taken.
Simply had load-up problem of second page.
The last post was in supposition of the first post i put up with that information, not knowing you'd stated that page 2.

My apologies if it seemed a bit obfuscative.

Righto.
Last post not meant to be a contradiction to earlier post, only meant the extent of elucidation you'd taken.
Simply had load-up problem of second page.
The last post was in supposition of the first post i put up with that information, not knowing you'd stated that page 2.

My apologies if it seemed a bit obfuscative.

Apology accepted. :D

...

That's because Moore isn't! Bill O'Reilly is the Highest Rated Prime Time Cable show! As for Hannity, he has ALAN COLMES on the OTHER SIDE!!!!

Alan Colmes is a sock puppet who has Hannity's stinky hand right up his pooper.

Do you have evidence of this? :wink:

To make this little thing a little more fun, take what you want from it ... got it off of the drudgereport.
This just in! :

By E & P Staff

Published: June 27, 2004
NEW YORK They like Mike. While the country as a whole appears split, along political lines, over the controversial Michael Moore documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," movie reviewers at U.S. daily newspapers are not.

An E & P survey of 63 daily papers that ran reviews, in "red" and "blue" states alike, finds that 56 gave the film a positive nod, with only 7 abstaining, an almost 90% favorable rating.

The seven in the "anti" camp were: Detroit Free Press, Denver Rocky Mountain News, San Jose Mercury-News, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Philadelphia Daily News and the Charlotte Observer.

Among the "pro" crowd were reviewers from moderate to conservative papers such as the Boston Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, San Diego Union-Tribune and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Many of the positive reviews expressed reservations but overall weighed in on the plus side.


- Straughn note: NOT WHOLE ARTICLE. I didn't include embellishments either way about it, derogatory comments or implications of worth (the post there implies that already).
Something to fear ..... ? Time to ... froth at the mouth?

Was this based on its content or entertainment value or a combination of both?

Was this based on its content or entertainment value or a combination of both?
It is entertainment! Why is this so hard to understand?
It present 'facts' in a way that gives weight to his views. He appears pretty up front about it. If those who object to the liberty of thought in the US want to put him down, make a bloody film and do it!
Take him for what he is, watch the film, chew it up spit out the bones and make your own decisions about the views he puts forward. And if you can't dothat you should not be able to vote. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Was this based on its content or entertainment value or a combination of both?
It is entertainment! Why is this so hard to understand?
It present 'facts' in a way that gives weight to his views. He appears pretty up front about it. If those who object to the liberty of thought in the US want to put him down, make a bloody film and do it!
Take him for what he is, watch the film, chew it up spit out the bones and make your own decisions about the views he puts forward. And if you can't dothat you should not be able to vote. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I was asking what the survey results were based on. Not whether I thought it was entertainment or a documentary. If you had actually bothered reading any previous posts you would find that I have said exactly what you have said with regards to making up your own mind on that film.

I mean c'mon - the guy is absolutely no threat to the Republican World Order. I find him likeable and entertaining but his movies/books are transparently sloppy and annoyingly ranty at times. This is so abvious that he's unlikely to actually influence anybody. Yes he does sometimes play a bit loose with facts but what popular media doesn't?

Moore ultimately has zero influence - so why are Conservatives so obsessed by him? The big "mobilization" against Moore just gives him more credence than he probably deserves and actually gives him far more publicity he ever would've gotten otherwise. Most people are just checking his stuff out to see why he upsets Republicans so much - but I doubt that they're changing their minds about anything. I wonder why the Right is so determined to make Moore rich?

The Right is actually empowering Michael Moore - ya gotta love the irony.

I dont fear him at all but to make a movie about america's worst tragedy while people are still feeling the hurt. It isn't right to feed off the dead to get a political point across.