NationStates Jolt Archive

* the unjust war in Iraq couldve easily been prevented had the subverted american media only done its jobs--maybe one of Moores next documentarys can be on how to take back the american media and return it to the people

Networks Failed Americans with Their "Rah-rah, let's go to war" Crap
Transcript of Michael Moore vs CBS' Hannah Storm:

Storm: "So this is satire and not documentary? We shouldn’t see this as-"

Moore: "It’s a satirical documentary."

Storm: "Some have said propaganda, do you buy that? Op-ed?"

Moore: "No, I consider the CBS Evening News propaganda. What I do is-"

Storm: "We’ll move beyond on that."

Moore: "Why? Let’s not move beyond that."

Storm: "You know what?"

Moore: "Seriously."

Storm: "No, let’s talk about your movie."

Moore: "But why don’t we talk about the Evening News on this network and the other networks that didn’t do the job they should have done at the beginning of this war?"

Storm: "You know what?"

Moore: "Demanded the evidence, ask the hard questions-"

Storm: "Okay."

Moore: "-we may not of even gone into this war had these networks done their job. I mean, it was a great disservice to the American people because we depend on people who work here and the other networks to go after those in power and say 'Hey, wait a minute. You want to send our kids off to war, we want to know where those weapons of mass destruction are. Let’s see the proof. Let’s see the proof that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.’"

Storm: "But-"

Moore: "There was no proof and everybody just got embedded and everybody rolled over and everybody knows that now."

Storm: "Michael, the one thing that journalists try to do is to present both sides of the story. And it could be argued that you did not do that in this movie."

Moore: "I certainly didn’t. I presented my side-"

Storm: "You presented your side of the story."

Moore: "Because my side, that’s the side of millions of Americans, rarely gets told. And so, all I’m, look, this is just a humble plea on my behalf and not to you personally, Hannah. But I’m just saying to journalists in general that instead of working so hard to tell both sides of the story, why don’t you just tell that one side, which is the administration, why don’t you ask them the hard questions-"

Storm: "Which I think is something that we all try to do."

Moore: "Well, I think it was a lot of cheerleading going on at the beginning of this war-"

Storm: "Alright."

Moore: "A lot of cheerleading and it didn’t do the public any good to have journalists standing in front of the camera going 'whoop-dee-do, let’s all go to war’. And, and it’s not their kids going to war. It’s not the children of the news executives going to war-"

Storm: "Michael, why don’t you do you next movie about networks news, okay? Because this movie-"

Moore: "I know, I think I should do that movie."

Storm: "-because this movie is an attack on the president and his policies."

Moore: "Well, and it also points out how the networks failed us at the beginning of this war and didn’t do their job."

Here's the site, but I would stay away from it...they track 'Liberal Media Bias' (hahahahahaha) on it: Media Research Center.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

* the unjust war in Iraq couldve easily been prevented had the subverted american media only done its jobs--maybe one of Moores next documentarys can be on how to take back the american media and return it to the people

Networks Failed Americans with Their "Rah-rah, let's go to war" Crap
Transcript of Michael Moore vs CBS' Hannah Storm:

Storm: "So this is satire and not documentary? We shouldn’t see this as-"

Moore: "It’s a satirical documentary."

Storm: "Some have said propaganda, do you buy that? Op-ed?"

Moore: "No, I consider the CBS Evening News propaganda. What I do is-"

Storm: "We’ll move beyond on that."

Moore: "Why? Let’s not move beyond that."

Storm: "You know what?"

Moore: "Seriously."

Storm: "No, let’s talk about your movie."

Moore: "But why don’t we talk about the Evening News on this network and the other networks that didn’t do the job they should have done at the beginning of this war?"

Storm: "You know what?"

Moore: "Demanded the evidence, ask the hard questions-"

Storm: "Okay."

Moore: "-we may not of even gone into this war had these networks done their job. I mean, it was a great disservice to the American people because we depend on people who work here and the other networks to go after those in power and say 'Hey, wait a minute. You want to send our kids off to war, we want to know where those weapons of mass destruction are. Let’s see the proof. Let’s see the proof that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.’"

Storm: "But-"

Moore: "There was no proof and everybody just got embedded and everybody rolled over and everybody knows that now."

Storm: "Michael, the one thing that journalists try to do is to present both sides of the story. And it could be argued that you did not do that in this movie."

Moore: "I certainly didn’t. I presented my side-"

Storm: "You presented your side of the story."

Moore: "Because my side, that’s the side of millions of Americans, rarely gets told. And so, all I’m, look, this is just a humble plea on my behalf and not to you personally, Hannah. But I’m just saying to journalists in general that instead of working so hard to tell both sides of the story, why don’t you just tell that one side, which is the administration, why don’t you ask them the hard questions-"

Storm: "Which I think is something that we all try to do."

Moore: "Well, I think it was a lot of cheerleading going on at the beginning of this war-"

Storm: "Alright."

Moore: "A lot of cheerleading and it didn’t do the public any good to have journalists standing in front of the camera going 'whoop-dee-do, let’s all go to war’. And, and it’s not their kids going to war. It’s not the children of the news executives going to war-"

Storm: "Michael, why don’t you do you next movie about networks news, okay? Because this movie-"

Moore: "I know, I think I should do that movie."

Storm: "-because this movie is an attack on the president and his policies."

Moore: "Well, and it also points out how the networks failed us at the beginning of this war and didn’t do their job."

Here's the site, but I would stay away from it...they track 'Liberal Media Bias' (hahahahahaha) on it: Media Research Center.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

moore lambasts lots of things

moore lambasts lots of things
we need 10,000 moores in our media to make it relevant

Wow..that said a whole lot of...well...nothing. It seems to me he dodged talking about his movie and instead threw up a smokescreen about news networks to avoid being questioned about his movie.

Wow..that said a whole lot of...well...nothing. It seems to me he dodged talking about his movie and instead threw up a smokescreen about news networks to avoid being questioned about his movie.
the issue is his movie speaks for itself--why isnt the corporate media in america speaking for the people?

the issue is his movie speaks for itself--why isnt the corporate media in america speaking for the people?

I think the real question you are asking is "why isn't the corporate media in America speaking for the people who share my opinions".

Thats why you love Moore, because he tells you what you want to hear. If the media presents unbiased material then you will essentially only agree with portions of it that back up your opinion. Of course, completely unbiased media is not reality. Here in Australia the media, both corporate and state run are left-biased. Would you be complaining if that were the case in the US? Would you be asking for unbiased reporting if the corporate media reports were the opposite and they were undermining the war?

Oh, and the issue was that he was there to discuss his movie which he conveniently side-stepped.

I think the real question you are asking is "why isn't the corporate media in America speaking for the people who share my opinions".

Thats why you love Moore, because he tells you what you want to hear. If the media presents unbiased material then you will essentially only agree with portions of it that back up your opinion. Of course, completely unbiased media is not reality. Here in Australia the media, both corporate and state run are left-biased. Would you be complaining if that were the case in the US? Would you be asking for unbiased reporting if the corporate media reports were the opposite and they were undermining the war?

Oh, and the isssue was theat he was there to discuss his movie which he conveniently side-stepped.
I would like it if the media was unbiased but its not --in america its rightwing--also Moore should answer questions about his movie but why cant he ask the same question of the corporate media when that question applies alot more to them then it does to Moore

I would like it if the media was unbiased but its not --in america its rightwing--also Moore should answer questions about his movie but why cant he ask the same question of the corporate media when that question applies alot more to them then it does to Moore

How, per se, is the media in America right-wing? And remember, Fox News is only one channel....

Me!

How, per se, is the media in America right-wing? And remember, Fox News is only one channel....

Me!
because the entire mainstream american media is monopolized by a tiny percentage corporate maggots ,like clear channel who owns all the billboards and radio station, who all speak with one voice and censor any opinion that goes against the establishment--the republicans made it this way with media concolidation--its part of their corporate facist agenda to control the flow of information

I would like it if the media was unbiased but its not --in america its rightwing--also Moore should answer questions about his movie but why cant he ask the same question of the corporate media when that question applies alot more to them then it does to Moore

No media is ever going to be 100% unbiased and I have heard from others in this forum that the only right-slanted news service is Fox News. I cannot verify because I am not able to access American news broadcasts over here.

Moore was there to do an interview with regards to his movie. Thats what he was there for. If he wants to ask questions of the corporate media he can do so at anytime. Arrange another interview, I mean it is not like the man finds it hard to get his head on the TV! I would look at his attitude as one of a man avoiding questions about his movie.

The media isn't left or right wing.

It's stupid, lazy, and sensationalist.



That's why I hate it :p

because the entire mainstream american media is monopolized by corporate maggots who all speak with one voice and censor any opinion that goes against the establishment--the republicans made it this way with media concolidation--its part of their corporate facist agenda to control the flow of information

Or, as is clear from this post, you are so far left wing that everything seems to have right-bias.

Do you classify Moore as a "corporate maggot" as he is wealthy and making large sums of money? Or can only far left escape this tag?

No media is ever going to be 100% unbiased and I have heard from others in this forum that the only right-slanted news service is Fox News. I cannot verify because I am not able to access American news broadcasts over here.

Moore was there to do an interview with regards to his movie. Thats what he was there for. If he wants to ask questions of the corporate media he can do so at anytime. Arrange another interview, I mean it is not like the man finds it hard to get his head on the TV! I would look at his attitude as one of a man avoiding questions about his movie.
theyre wrong--the entire american corporate media has a conservative bias but foxnews stands out cause their bias is not only off the charts but theyve been known to outright lie...I think what Moore did was right tho cause the question of propaganda is far more applicable to the american media which refuses to do its job which forced Moore to have to make a movie like this in the first place

The media isn't left or right wing.

It's stupid, lazy, and sensationalist.



That's why I hate it :p

Ah, you raise a good point. Due to the fact that news outlets compete for ratings which then attract advertising etc they will produce news that they think will rate.

The media isn't left or right wing.

It's stupid, lazy, and sensationalist.



That's why I hate it :p
its all those things AND its deeply conservative and pro-establishment

Or, as is clear from this post, you are so far left wing that everything seems to have right-bias.

Do you classify Moore as a "corporate maggot" as he is wealthy and making large sums of money? Or can only far left escape this tag?
no--theyre are studies that prove the conservative media bias in america. Moore isnt a corporate maggot at all since he made his money fighting the corporate beast--theres nothing wrong with wealth--its corporate greed that afflicts the people

no--theyre are studies that prove the conservative media bias in america. Moore isnt a corporate maggot at all since he made his money fighting the corporate beast--theres nothing wrong with wealth--its corporate greed that afflicts the people

Ah, so someone who makes millions speaking out against corporate America is not a maggot but if someone works their way up through a multi-national company by working long hours then he or she is automatically a maggot because they made a success of themselves? Even though they both may now live next door to each other in multi-million dollar mansions in a wealthy area of New York?

In fighting the corporate beast Moore is becoming a corporate beast!

Ah, you raise a good point. Due to the fact that news outlets compete for ratings which then attract advertising etc they will produce news that they think will rate.
they only say what their corporate masters allow them to say

they only say what their corporate masters allow them to say

No, they report news in a style that will attract their target audience. If what you said were true we would never hear about coporate fraud etc which we do hear about.

Ah, so someone who makes millions speaking out against corporate America is not a maggot but if someone works their way up through a multi-national company by working long hours then he or she is automatically a maggot because they made a success of themselves? Even though they both may now live next door to each other in multi-million dollar mansions in a wealthy area of New York?

In fighting the corporate beast Moore is becoming a corporate beast!
someone isnt a corporate maggot cause they are rich. Corporate maggots prey on the people with predatory greed

No, they report news in a style that will attract their target audience. If what you said were true we would never hear about coporate fraud etc which we do hear about.
we only hear about it when its too late--theres no preventative reporting like the kind that Moore does

someone isnt a corporate maggot cause they are rich. Corporate maggots prey on the people with predatory greed

Much the same way Moore preys on the left-leaning public with his biased movies knowing he will make money of their blind faith? Then employ a "war-room" of lawyers to try and extract money out of anyone who dares criticise his films?

we only hear about it when its too late--theres no preventative reporting like the kind that Moore does

Moore prevents? Ok, Moore had footage of prisoner abuses in December 2003 but did not pass the footage to the authorities because he wanted to keep it for his film. By producing Farenheit 9/11 after the fact how did that prevent? By making Bowling for Columbine after the incident, how did that prevent?

Moore makes money by telling you what you want to hear. If he did do what he is doing for the greater good then why did he not pass the prisoner abuse footage to the authorities? Because he put the dollar before his so called causes.

I hate to break it to you TRA (I dunno who the old TRA was, but it's an easy nickname for your current name, so yeah :p), but moore is a part of the media

And the media wants one thing.

$$$$$

Moore prevents? Ok, Moore had footage of prisoner abuses in December 2003 but did not pass the footage to the authorities because he wanted to keep it for his film. By producing Farenheit 9/11 after the fact how did that prevent? By making Bowling for Columbine after the incident, how did that prevent?

Moore makes money by telling you what you want to hear. If he did do what he is doing for the greater good then why did he not pass the prisoner abuse footage to the authorities? Because he put the dollar before his so called causes.
But why do you condemn Moore for doing what the lamestream American media SHOULD be exposing? Alot of all of these abuses coulda been prevented if our media did its job why does Moore have to singlehandedly do the job for every single media outlet in america?

Because Moore already has claims over that niche of money making

I hate to break it to you TRA (I dunno who the old TRA was, but it's an easy nickname for your current name, so yeah :p), but moore is a part of the media

And the media wants one thing.

$$$$$
Moore belongs to the peoples media not the corporate beast media which tried to censor his movie

Or, as is clear from this post, you are so far left wing that everything seems to have right-bias.

Do you classify Moore as a "corporate maggot" as he is wealthy and making large sums of money? Or can only far left escape this tag?Being fairly distinctly anti-corporate would tend to discourage me from laying a "corporate maggot" badge on him.

People's media, corporate beast media...think there's a big difference?


Both = $$$$$. Only difference is, Moore already has claim to his niche. What do you honestly think would happen if someone tried to do the same stuff he does?

Ah, so someone who makes millions speaking out against corporate America is not a maggot but if someone works their way up through a multi-national company by working long hours then he or she is automatically a maggot because they made a success of themselves? Even though they both may now live next door to each other in multi-million dollar mansions in a wealthy area of New York?

In fighting the corporate beast Moore is becoming a corporate beast!
I'm sorry, this may come as a shock to you, but most of us leftists don't automaticly hate anyone who's rich. I like rich people. Some of my best friends are rich people. But its when they go shoving their lifestyle and their agenda down my throats, thats when I start having problems.

Politically I'm tolerant of rich people. Its just the actual act that disgusts me.

Anyway, sorry, enough satire. Moore isn't inherantly bad just because he's rich. The fact that he has money makes as little difference to how much leftists like/dislike him as it does to how much righties like/dislike him. Put simply... its a non-issue. The top three richest American presidents in history? Washington, Kennedy and Kerry (alright, Kerry isn't there yet, but trust me, it'll happen). It doesn't make a difference.

People's media, corporate beast media...think there's a big difference?


Both = $$$$$. Only difference is, Moore already has claim to his niche. What do you honestly think would happen if someone tried to do the same stuff he does?
Well, yes I do think theres a difference. If I were to take a guess, I'd say that Moore is probably voting for Kerry. Under Kerry's tax plan, Moore and wife and his kids will be down a couple of million dollars. Under a liberal president, Moore's material for criticising right-wing, corporate culture governments is rather limited, so he's going to sell fewer books and make fewer films. I think that probably, if he were truly as greedy as you say he is, he'd be a little more pragmatic about which candidate to support.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I don't hink Moore is greedy.

I just don't think that the media has as much of a horrible right wing biast as others do :p



What I'm saying is, both appeal to their branch of the masses. Fox, for example, KNOWS that it'll get a lot of veiwers if it takes a biast approch, and it works.



Why do you think Moore sensationalizes his movies (and if you've seen them, you know he does)? Because it'll attract more viewers.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I don't hink Moore is greedy.In that case, I may need some extra help understanding what you mean in this post:

People's media, corporate beast media...think there's a big difference?


Both = $$$$$. Only difference is, Moore already has claim to his niche. What do you honestly think would happen if someone tried to do the same stuff he does?

So the big news networks were cheerleaders for the war. Yeah right. If anything, they were trying to discourage it. The thing that no one gets is that the media is, with a few exceptions, not either liberal or conservative. They are doom and gloom. They make it look like America is always wrong, or that we're in trouble, simply because it gives them higher ratings. At least, that's how it works here.

I'm sorry, this may come as a shock to you, but most of us leftists don't automaticly hate anyone who's rich. I like rich people. Some of my best friends are rich people. But its when they go shoving their lifestyle and their agenda down my throats, thats when I start having problems.

Politically I'm tolerant of rich people. Its just the actual act that disgusts me.

Anyway, sorry, enough satire. Moore isn't inherantly bad just because he's rich. The fact that he has money makes as little difference to how much leftists like/dislike him as it does to how much righties like/dislike him. Put simply... its a non-issue. The top three richest American presidents in history? Washington, Kennedy and Kerry (alright, Kerry isn't there yet, but trust me, it'll happen). It doesn't make a difference.

Moore adresses this in interviews in the film The Corporation (not his documentary). In one segments he states that there are corporations and companies that 'do good, provide for the greater good.' Further, at the end he adresses what the more weak minded critics try to bring up, that Moore has the audacity to make money doing what he's doing. He does not demonize making money, he demonizes making money irresponsabily (insert some vien popping notion about being irresponsable with his opinions, blah blah blah). He notes the cunundrum of using corporate machinations to critcize corporations. It is the flaw, there is money to be made in his criticism so they can't help but make it. But, as he notes, they are counting on you not doing anything other than watching. He's counting on the opposite.

In the same movie, Noam Chomsky makes an important distinction of the demonization. Seperating a monstrous institution from monstrous people. One does not have to be the latter to be involved in the former.

As for the assertation that Moore would not abide compitition, I submit for your approval one Mr. Al Frankin.

So Moore makes money. It is not inconsitant. It's not even his point. Try harder.

So the big news networks were cheerleaders for the war. Yeah right. If anything, they were trying to discourage it. The thing that no one gets is that the media is, with a few exceptions, not either liberal or conservative. They are doom and gloom. They make it look like America is always wrong, or that we're in trouble, simply because it gives them higher ratings. At least, that's how it works here.
is that why the media censored outright or totally downplayed the MILLIONS of people worldwide who were protesting this sick war before Bush forced it on all of us and "liberated" Iraq for rapists?

is that why the media censored outright or totally downplayed the MILLIONS of people worldwide who were protesting this sick war before Bush forced it on all of us and "liberated" Iraq for rapists?
They didn't downplay it. It was plastered on the nightly news that there was a huge protest in Rome. One of the world's largest, I believe.

is that why the media censored outright or totally downplayed the MILLIONS of people worldwide who were protesting this sick war before Bush forced it on all of us and "liberated" Iraq for rapists?

Can you honestly tell me that CNN is conservative? MSNBC? ABC? NBC? CBS? The New York Times? The LA Times? If you say 'yes' to even one of these, you're the on the far-fringe of the Left....

Second question: Should Saddam Hussein have been taken from power?

Me!

They didn't downplay it. It was plastered on the nightly news that there was a huge protest in Rome. One of the world's largest, I believe.
Im talking about the american media that went out of its way to make antiwar demonstrators appear rediculous--the american media (which always speaks with one voice) all supported this war

Im talking about the american media that went out of its way to make antiwar demonstrators appear rediculous--the american media (which always speaks with one voice) all supported this war

You've got to be kidding me....you're saying Dan Rather agreed with this war? You're saying that Alan Colmbs agreed with this war? You're saying that Wolf Blitzer agreed with this war? You're saying that Chris Matthews agreed with this war? Et al infinitium...I could on for hours with names of Leftist media members....

Over 80% of newscastors are registered Democrats -- how do you explain that one, MKULTRA? Or are you so far Left that anyone Right of freaking Josef Stalin is a "fascist Republican?"

Me!

Can you honestly tell me that CNN is conservative? MSNBC? ABC? NBC? CBS? The New York Times? The LA Times? If you say 'yes' to even one of these, you're the on the far-fringe of the Left....

Second question: Should Saddam Hussein have been taken from power?

Me!
those media outlets you list are all pro establishment pablum media which all supported the war and never takes any progressive stance on anything until its considered safe to do so then they try and make it appear like that was their position all along--at least the NY Times had the integrity to apologize for carrying Bushs WMD lies unquestioningly tho. Saddam is a bad man who should be executed but I dont see how he was more dangerous then the Saudi royal family who are Bushs masters.

those media outlets you list are all pro establishment pablum media which all supported the war and never takes any progressive stance on anything until its considered safe to do so then they try and make it appear like that was their position all along--at least the NY Times had the integrity to apologize for carrying Bushs WMD lies unquestioningly tho. Saddam is a bad man who should be executed but I dont see how he was more dangerous then the Saudi royal family who are Bushs masters.

Oh my dear Lord....you are too far gone to save...by chance, is your homepage any of the following?

http://www.prisonplanet.tv
http://www.moveon.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com

If so, it would really explain you then....

Me!

You've got to be kidding me....you're saying Dan Rather agreed with this war? You're saying that Alan Colmbs agreed with this war? You're saying that Wolf Blitzer agreed with this war? You're saying that Chris Matthews agreed with this war? Et al infinitium...I could on for hours with names of Leftist media members....

Over 80% of newscastors are registered Democrats -- how do you explain that one, MKULTRA? Or are you so far Left that anyone Right of freaking Josef Stalin is a "fascist Republican?"

Me!
I never heard any of those guys speak out against the war BEFORE it happened--maybe now they are now that they see that it failed but they never took a stand when it coulda made a difference. Chris Matthews is a fat rightwing bleached blonde sow, I dont know how you can say hes leftwing--80% of the media may be registered dems but that doesnt mean their corporate masters who monoploize our media ALLOW them to say anything relevant--People who expose lies tend to get fired from the corporate media and blackballed--why isnt Noam Chomsky ever allowed to be interviewd on the corporate media? Why did the corporate media assassinate Howard Deans candidacy when he criticized them?

I never heard any of those guys speak out against the war BEFORE it happened--maybe now they are now that they see that it failed but they never took a stand when it coulda made a difference. Chris Matthews is a fat rightwing bleached blonde sow, I dont know how you can say hes leftwing--80% of the media may be registered dems but that doesnt mean their corporate masters who monoploize our media ALLOW them to say anything relevant--People who expose lies tend to get fired from the corporate media and blackballed--why isnt Noam Chomsky ever allowed to be interviewd on the corporate media? Why did the corporate media assassinate Howard Deans candidacy when he criticized them?

Oh God! Figures, you're a Chomskyite......that old Communist fart should be deported...no, stratch that, tried for treason.... out of curiosity, how old are you?

Secondly, Howard Dean assassinated his own Presidency when Mount St. Dean exploded.....on camera....he has no one to blame but himself....

Me!

But why do you condemn Moore for doing what the lamestream American media SHOULD be exposing? Alot of all of these abuses coulda been prevented if our media did its job why does Moore have to singlehandedly do the job for every single media outlet in america?

I don't condemn Moore, I condemn people who swallow his opinions as undeniable fact and therefore do not think for themselves.
Moore does not do anything other than produce movies that try and push his views. Nothing wrong with that, but he is not a maker of documentaries and nor does he do the job purely for the betterment of mankind. Your view of him as some sort of saint or saviour is frightening.

he didnt explode on camera--in the room he was in he sounded very normal.The media totally distorted it then patted themselves on the back when they denied the american people the choice of picking the most relevant candidate of them all

Being fairly distinctly anti-corporate would tend to discourage me from laying a "corporate maggot" badge on him.

Then by MKULTRA's interpretation he is just a maggot.

I'm sorry, this may come as a shock to you, but most of us leftists don't automaticly hate anyone who's rich. I like rich people. Some of my best friends are rich people. But its when they go shoving their lifestyle and their agenda down my throats, thats when I start having problems.

I never said you did. I love how people take artistic licence with other people's posts. You do not consider Michael Moore to be shoving his agenda down people's throats? I would beg to differ considering he has been in the media in foreign countries encouraging people to vote as he would vote.

Politically I'm tolerant of rich people. Its just the actual act that disgusts me.

The act of being rich? They should act "less rich" in your presence? Now you are telling them how to act.

Anyway, sorry, enough satire. Moore isn't inherantly bad just because he's rich. The fact that he has money makes as little difference to how much leftists like/dislike him as it does to how much righties like/dislike him. Put simply... its a non-issue. The top three richest American presidents in history? Washington, Kennedy and Kerry (alright, Kerry isn't there yet, but trust me, it'll happen). It doesn't make a difference.

I never said he was inherently bad, whether he is rich or otherwise. MKULTRA seems to have a view that rich people are bad people. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of MKULTRA's posts. He condemns the rich yet worships Moore. Moore is rich so it is not that difficult to see the problem with his reasoning and yet even simpler to see thats what I was getting at. I do not condemn rich people, regardless of their beliefs or how they obtained their wealth. Sure, some reach people could spend their money more responsibly but who am I or anyone else to tell them how to live their lives?

Moore = not a saint

Look, what I was trying to say was this: Moore pushes his opinion on people, and he does it in a very bad way. And yes, he makes a lot of money doing it.

He sensationalizes things and twists a LOT of facts around.




So please don't assume everything he says is completely true.

I don't condemn Moore, I condemn people who swallow his opinions as undeniable fact and therefore do not think for themselves.
Moore does not do anything other than produce movies that try and push his views. Nothing wrong with that, but he is not a maker of documentaries and nor does he do the job purely for the betterment of mankind. Your view of him as some sort of saint or saviour is frightening.
being an australian you have no idea the kind of culture war thats being waged here

I never said you did. I love how people take artistic licence with other people's posts. You do not consider Michael Moore to be shoving his agenda down people's throats? I would beg to differ considering he has been in the media in foreign countries encouraging people to vote as he would vote.



The act of being rich? They should act "less rich" in your presence? Now you are telling them how to act.



I never said he was inherently bad, whether he is rich or otherwise. MKULTRA seems to have a view that rich people are bad people. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of MKULTRA's posts. He condemns the rich yet worships Moore. Moore is rich so it is not that difficult to see the problem with his reasoning and yet even simpler to see thats what I was getting at. I do not condemn rich people, regardless of their beliefs or how they obtained their wealth. Sure, some reach people could spend their money more responsibly but who am I or anyone else to tell them how to live their lives?
I never said all rich people are bad--theres some rich people with a social conscience like Warren Buffet, George Soros etc--I look to Hollywood for all my values--the only morally incorrect rich people are corporate maggots and the ones who vote republican

being an australian you have no idea the kind of culture war thats being waged here

That is irrelevant. I know deceit when I see it and Moore's movies are deceitful. I know blind faith when I see it. My nationality has no relevance to being able to identify these things.

I never said all rich people are bad--theres some rich people with a social conscience like Warren Buffet, George Soros etc--I look to Hollywood for all my values--the only morally incorrect rich people are corporate maggots and the ones who vote republican

What about "corporate maggots" like Bill Gates who donates millions to charity? And basing people's worth to the community on who they vote for is moronic.