NationStates Jolt Archive

bump

Not really... He has an annoying laugh.

beats the hell out of those right-wing nutjobs.

Yeah. Those radio personanlities then proceed to beat the hell out of those Air America guys. Well not Hanity, but Rush can be amusing if you think about some of the stuff he says. Those songs are funny too.

I love him. The liberals finally have a person to stand up and speak his mind instead of just sitting around and speaking his mind to his family and friends. He puts himself on the line to do what he feels is right. I wish we had more people like him.

viva moore!

I meant to put a poll, but I messed up. The choices were going to be:

1)Yes- but not because he's fat
2)Yes- because he's fat
3)He's O.K.- but not because he's fat
4)He's O.K.- because he's fat
5)No- but not because he's fat
6)No- because he's fat
7)Not sure
8)Michael Moore is fat???
9)Who's Michael Moore?
10)Other

Those are what the choices would have been. I would have picked number 5.

Yeah he's alright. He makes too many good points to need to subsidise it with bullshit like he does though. It just lets people arguing against him ignore the actual point he's making.

I've never understood the 'OMG he's fat!!!111' arguement. I thought a large amount of Americans could relate?

... on toast. :D

Do you have some kind of fat fetish?

My answer would have been:

Yes- because he's a good filmmaker.

Do you have some kind of fat fetish?

No. Obviously, the poll was not intended to be completely serious. ;)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Yes, but with a "but". I think Moore is just as annoying and "spin-prone" as conservative pundits. I also question his motivations. While I think he raises important arguments, I think he then edits and spins those fundamentally true points until they fit is editorial vision. This vision is obviously biased and heavily "built" and he does it to satisfy his own ego (at least in my opinion). The trouble is, though, that his final version of those arguments are easy to topple due to his heavy editorializing, whereas the basic questions themselves are valid. Now, though, they have this "Moore-funk" all over them and it makes it harder to honestly debate the issues that he raises.

I also find his heavy-handed editorializing offensive and condecending in the extreme. Instead of just presenting the fact, he spins them to make them more sensational as if their fundamental truth wasn't enough. It's like he's talking down to his audience, instead of assuming that, if the truth is really on his side, they'll be smart enough to see it without his cleaver editing. It becomes less of a case of the truth being told and more of a case of "Michael Moore presents a truth he thinks you just might be able to understand, given how much smarter he is than you."

In the long run, I think he actually does more harm than good to the issues he addresses and further divides an already frighteningly polarized nation to foster his own sense of self-importance. However, I do think he at least get's people talking and considering, even if it's only because they hate what he's saying. And perhaps that's the point after all.

No.

The good side of Michael Moore is that he is standing up and saying things that need to be said. I agree with alot of his points, and I like his political and humanitarian stances.

The bad side of Michael Moore is that he sensationalizes the hell out of everything. His tactics are annoying and resemble those of the worst in his opposition. He is a rat-fink. A good friend of mine once described him as an ankle-biting rodent.

His earliest movies were basically him with a camera following him around. He seems to be progressing towards a less ego-centric aproach to film making; he said in a recent interview that he came to realize "that a little bit of me goes a long way." That I think is a good thing. On the other hand, his more recent endeavors are also more heavily laden with propaganda.

The worst thing about Moore is that he gives those conservatives who are prone to fingerpointing someone representing my views to point at and say, "Look, he's just as bad as us" while ignoring the valid points buried in the layers of hyped up liberal dogma.

The baseline with Moore is that he's got a great message, but should reconsider his sales-pitch.

He makes very good arguments in his films. He's liberal and pro Canadian. He can be a bit full of himself at times.

I'm Number one on that poll

I like moore. I think He's great, and I've seen some of his movies, read some books.

His skill with film editing and movie making is quite impressive, just like his quirky brand of humor. It's just too bad when you realize almost everything he said was either faked, taken out of context, or a lie.

He (Attention whoring antics aside) is a great person. He's intelligent, and sees through to the big picture. I would say that the masses are in general very naive, and need someone to show them the truth. I am so sick of hearing "Why do they hate us?" Its a pretty simple truth when you get to it. America will buy and sell your life if they can make a pretty penny out of the deal.

I dislike him. he is guilty of the same things he accuses others of:
fearmongering
hate speech
rasism
profiting off of a war
manipulating facts

I believe his heart is in the right place, I can't say I always agree with him, although often I do. I wish I was a smart as him so I too could make 100 million dollars exposing Bush for the moron he is.. ;)

I don't know. I'd never heard of him before Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, and I haven't seen it yet.

If he coherently argues against the conservatives, I love him. If he's just a con-bashing idiot, he's giving all the rest of us liberals a bad name.

He's a lying liberal-leftie cocksucker.

funny, the deomcrats let him into their convention but didnt let him speak. that was because they do not want to be actualy associated with him as his facts are warped. I saw farenheit 911 with a lib. friend of mine. She also has the 9/11 report. even she admits the movie was dead wrong in many of its conspiracy theories to bring down Bush. He is a radical partisan and its that sort of far out of the mainstream bomb throwing antics that will doom a party and the democrats know it.

He's a lying liberal-leftie cocksucker.

Perhaps, but he's more successful then you'll ever be.. :cool:

He's a lying liberal-leftie cocksucker.

That was certainly colorful. I wonder which one you object to most.

i have nothing else to say about mr. moore. buy his book for a couple of laughs and long sighs. thats what i did. so sad. if only he sourced the book more. and if only some of the sources he did have were not aljezeera.....

funny, the deomcrats let him into their convention but didnt let him speak. that was because they do not want to be actualy associated with him as his facts are warped. I saw farenheit 911 with a lib. friend of mine. She also has the 9/11 report. even she admits the movie was dead wrong in many of its conspiracy theories to bring down Bush. He is a radical partisan and its that sort of far out of the mainstream bomb throwing antics that will doom a party and the democrats know it.

Nothing he said in F9/11 was factually incorrect, where the argument is made is in how he viewed that and then further gave his opinion on those facts. Trust me, if the facts themselves were in question, he'd of already been dragged into court in thoudsands of lawsuits. That's the best indicator that his movie has no factual errors.

He's a lying liberal-leftie cocksucker.
He has always spoken highly of you!!

Overall, I like him...

I dislike him. he is guilty of the same things he accuses others of:
fearmongering
hate speech
rasism
profiting off of a war
manipulating facts
What rasism?
What hate speech?

Bush IS guilty of fearmongering?
Cheney is profiting off the war?
Bush has manipulated facts?

I like him because he's one of those people who actually take action to right wrongs instead of sit around and brood about them.

I have seen both Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 911.

He delivers his message in an easily digestible form.

He is a true patriot who proves that the "pen is mightier than the sword".

Why can't the Moore haters be as creative as the Bush haters?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346539

Basically, I agree with some previous comments made. My opinion boils down to this:

He brings the public eye to some very important issues. He brings up some good points. However, in bringing up these points he does some really stupid stuff that a) makes a complete ass out of himself, and b) completely destroys his credibility.

I'd be willing to bet that a pretty large majority of the US population (don't know about people outside the United States, but I wouldn't be surprised if, among those who know of Michael Moore, the opinion remains the same), when they hear anything Michael Moore says, either have serious doubts as to the particulars of his arguments, or completely dismiss it as propoganda.

I know of very few people who would take anything Michael Moore says at face value.

I could like him and his point of view if he would just tell the truth. I have a problem with and one that takes the national stage and must lie to support his arguement. I believe there is much to disagree with the present administration without lying about the facts.

NO, I hate socialists!

NO, I hate socialists!

Well, I know SOMEBODY who won't be getting a Christmas card from the American Socialist Party this year.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/ref=pd_nfy_home_6/002-7512135-6244022?v=glance

And it's true

All Farienheit 9/11 is, is a taking-out-of-context piece of bull. Oh, yeah, he also stole the title from what's-his-name. So, stupid title, stupid movie.

I encourage everyone to buy that book.

Anyone who thinks Michael Moore represents the left-wing is a moron (no pun intended). My best friends are liberals and they despise Moore. They know that he's a mere propagandist with a blatant agenda to brainwash people. If you can't see that fact, I pity you.

Perhaps, but he's more successful then you'll ever be.. :cool:

Ahhh... love is in the air

do ya feel it? do ya feel the love?

You have to give Moore credit he brings to the front issues that the Right wing Media (yes the right wing owns the media, not the left. The leaders of most newspapers are right but they need the left because money is more important than partisan) would never discuss. LIke Bush's military records "accidently" being destroyed by the pentagon a day or was a week before sheduled to be disclosed.
Accidents "happen", yeah right.
Moore may warp or present only half of a issue though but making people think should be important. Moore has learned he shows himself too much in past and stop, I like that.
I'd say Moore has a 80% grade so far, he isn't best but he has done the Country a great service by presenting these issues.

Perhaps, but he's more successful then you'll ever be.. :cool:

Wow, it's the appeal to popularity! Wheee!

Eh, he's okay. He makes some good points but like other people said, he adds in too much bullshit. He would be better off if he just stuck to his guns.

I also find his heavy-handed editorializing offensive and condecending in the extreme.

Just to quickly address this issue and let ya'll get back to your Moore discussion:

1] Moore is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer.
2] All documentaries require editorializing.
3] All documentary makers tend to opinionize.
4] Moore is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer.

Catch that?

5] Moore is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer.

Stop trying to critique his work from the standpoint of Moore as a news journalist.

Why?

6] Moore is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer.

Okie ... back to the program ... my popcorn is gettin' cold.

6] Moore is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer.

If Moore simply puts forward his opinion, why does he call his films 'documentaries?' Only putting forward one side of an argument is generally referred to as 'propaganda.'

Lampshades
His skill with film editing and movie making is quite impressive, just like his quirky brand of humor. It's just too bad when you realize almost everything he said was either faked, taken out of context, or a lie.


I concur on all your points here. Some of what he is trying to say is true in part, but because it is his own Op/Ed on what is going on, his movies aren't objective and take things out of context. When things are taken out of context, it becomes an untruth. People that try to interpret the Bible by pulling one or two passages out and making them support their opinion do this all the time.

You can make Saddam Hussein seem like a good guy with a bad hair cut if you wanted to, by taking things out of context.

A true documentary shows all sides and does NOT edit anything. Ever watch the documentaries on WWII and the Nazis rise to power? If you watch them for what they are, you would never see that Nazism was a GOOD thing. But give Moore the same footage, he could make Hitler seem like your uncle JimBob who woke up on the wrong side of the bed and needed a couple valium to get through the day. "oh feel sorry for Hitler, his mother beat him and he couldn't get a decent date in high school, and what a waste of a talented mind"

I respect Michael Moore. I wouldn't say I like him, but I don't dislike him -- it takes quite a bit to get on my bad side. I don't dislike Limbaugh or Bush either.

He does have some good things to say, and he generally is bale to say it without resorting to the level of namecalling. He doesn't rely on key words, like terrorist, evil, hate, liberal or morals. He doesn't reduce his arguments to sound bites, he actually tries to explain himself. moreover, he believes in himself and what he is saying enough to put his own butt on the line... watch either of his shows and you'll see what I mean. He personally advocates for people when he thinks there's something to speak about. Compare this to Limbaugh who, for years, railed against drug users and then... surprise, it happened to him.

Moore is worth listening to, but you don't have to believe everything he says.

If Moore simply puts forward his opinion, why does he call his films 'documentaries?' Only putting forward one side of an argument is generally referred to as 'propaganda.'

A "documentary" is merely an opinion on film. Moore takes some news clips and puts them together and voices over his opinion.

Now, here's where the breakdown happens ... (fictional example)

Moore voiceover: President Bush admits to being an asshole.
CNN clip from June 2002 plays an interview with Bush and Bush is saying, "Yes, I am an asshole."

Now here's what happens: A liberal (such as myself) sees this clip and chuckles and says to himself, "Ha!". A conservative sees this clip and gets angry and calls Moore a propoganda spewing liar. The proof that Moore is a liar: He's fat and arrogant.

Well, got news for you kiddies .... Moore shows actual, unedited, undoctored newsclips. With this President, it happens to be easy. Liberals and Conservatives all agree that Bush doesn't need much help in making himself look bad. The clip of Bush on the golf course comes to mind.

The difference is, if I show this picture (I, being a liberal):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

then I am going to be blasted as being a pinko liberal spewing propoganda against the government. When, in fact, all I did was show a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, I'm not fat, but I am pompous ... and my being pompous is proof enough that I must be a liar - even though I did not take the picture nor did I allow its release to the public.

If a conservative shows the same picture, he is shown to be a hero for his brave journalism and probably given a Pulitzer.

Strange world in which we live. Liberal Opinion = Lies, Conservative Opinion = Pulitzer.

*shrug*

And in case you here who think documentaries can be edited, think again.

Definition: \Doc`u*men"ta*ry\, a.
Pertaining to written evidence; contained or certified in
writing. ``Documentary evidence.'' --Macaulay.


You cannot edit evidence and factual stuff.

Example, a police report of the what happened at an incident is part objective and part subjective. It is based on that officer's viewpoint.

A camera rolling capturing all the action and going's on while the incident happened would be factual and direct evidence, hence it could be a documentary.

Documentaries use actual documents, legal documents, written documents, video footage, audio tracts of actual people that were part of the incident or event being discussed in the documentary, confessions from the suspects. There is no place for an editorial in a documentary. The only exception would be to edit how much video or audio or whatever to put in the documentary. But everything said or pictured in a documentary must be actual source stuff, not something made up or edited to look real.

A "documentary" is merely an opinion on film. Moore takes some news clips and puts them together and voices over his opinion.

No, it's not. If it was, Pearl Harbour would be a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be factual depitions of reality.

Well, got news for you kiddies .... Moore shows actual, unedited, undoctored newsclips.

Yes, he doesn't edit clips together to invent a speech by Charlton Heston that never happened and an election advert for Bush that never existed, for instance.

And quit making assumptions about my political views, please. I'm no conservative.

Yes, he doesn't edit clips together to invent a speech by Charlton Heston that never happened and an election advert for Bush that never existed, for instance.

And quit making assumptions about my political views, please. I'm no conservative.

I have never seen any conclusive proof that Moore invented the Heston speech nor have I seen any proof of faking a Bush advertisement.

I never said anything about your political affiliations, only my own.

Showing a picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand doesn't tell anything other than they shook hands. We don't know the context of the meeting or the hand shake. I don't even know when this occurred, but damn skippy it happened way before 9/11/01.

So, then I the viewer see this photo, and using my personal bias come up with a reason I think this happened and formulate an opinion. That is not something that goes into a documentary. Just the photo and a description of the real what, when, where, goes there. The why part can be speculative. Asking "why" to anything promotes a subjective answer.

If you asked 100 people why this hand shaking occurred, you'll get a lot of different answers, if you ranked them as "what a liberal would say" and "what a conservative would say", you'd have a split right down the middle.

Being labelled a liberal or conservative already has built-in biases, thus subjective ideals. Documentaries to be true to nature should never have a bias. If they do, they are Op/Ed pieces not true documentaries.

I have never seen any conclusive proof that Moore invented the Heston speech nor have I seen any proof of faking a Bush advertisement.

This do? http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I think Michael Moore is great, even though im British, I think he is the only person really brave or stupid enough to stand up to the yankke political system, which is corrupt and far too right-wing.

Long live Mr. Moore!

His films are called documentaries for the simple fact of what they are, they're not action/adventure/romance/etc... David Attenborough is not a journalist but his nature films are decribed as documentaries, because (steady yourselves) they document facts, like a paper or essay, but in film form. I've done Media Studies, so don't argue, peons.

Anyway, back on topic, I've seen Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 911 and read Stupid White Men, and I repect him for doing the same thing I'd be doing: getting angry at the sheer amount of corruption and gross injustice that there is in the US. I applaud him for facing down borderline psychotics like Charton Heston, and I applaud his meticulous research.

Sure, his work is biased, but as posted before, his FACTS are all in order, we'd have seen thousands of suings for libel and slander if they were not. But the people he targets for exposé know full well what they're doing, and so can't take legal action, they are cowed by the truth.

That's the thing, nobody can say he doesn't speak the truth. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that someone out there is exposing the rampantly growing rot in the US government this century. I can only hope it'll make a difference. All we can do is try to educate as many people as possible.

A conservative friend told me that he distrusts Moore because he has one agenda: to get rid of Bush, and he reckons everything else is merely subservient to the main underlying anti-Bush sentiment. Well, that's one way of looking at it, but I said that Bush is basically a bad thing for the US as a whole. He's dragged its reputation through the mud now, and it'll be a long time before any country trusts the US again. Or doesn't make fun of it. The general global opinion of the US since Bush got in is one of corruption and double-dealing, profitism, and an almost complete lack of human compassion. Well, what do you expect from a halfwit who cheated his way into power?

Get Bush out, and (please) don't let it happen again. Americans! Stand up for yourselves, don't let your vote (and with it, the entire concept of democracy) get thrown in the bin like happened to hundreds of thousands of others in 2000. Watch the bastard like a hawk. Ask yourself: 'does he speak for me?', 'what is his agenda?', and 'does he actually give a flying shit about anyone other than himself?'. I think we already know the answers. We need people like Moore to take people like Bush to task.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a rationalist.

And I'm not anti-American either. I know over a dozen Americans, and they are the nicest people I'd ever hope to meet (I even slept with one!)

So, do you care about truth and freedom, or are you Bush's bitch, and dead inside?

'I don't have any evidence, so here's a bunch of insults, appeals to motive and so on.'

That's nice.

This do? http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I'm not too sure I'd trust the opinion of a man who's book is titled, "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man". David Hardy obviously has some personal issue with Moore and, thus, his opinion is jaded.

Do you have a credible news source?

I'm not too sure I'd trust the opinion of a man who's book is titled, "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man". David Hardy obviously has some personal issue with Moore and, thus, his opinion is jaded.

Do you have a credible news source?

Hold on, versus Moore himself who describes Charlton Heston as 'evil' in several interviews and wrote a book called, um, 'Stupid White Men?' Does either of us have objective evidence, if it comes to that?

Michael Moore = Fat.

'nuff said.


There is a good article about Michael Moore at http://life.short.be/
(psst...the news there is pretty good too)

To Getin Hi:

It's nice that you think you understand the American political system when most Americans under 35 don't understand it. There is corruption in all political systems. But is not just on the Republican side, it is all over. Bush has some admirable conservative traits, Kerry might but I haven't seen any yet. The tv and newspaper media in the US is left wing and if you don't believe that then you have been drinking the same Koolaid punch the rest of Michael Moore & co have been drinking.

I think big money rules this country, and I think that is shameful. IF you happen to have a lot of money, and both Bush and Kerry have oodles of money to help each of their own side, then you can buy the best lawyer, go to the best schools, buy off the most lobbyists for your agenda, and buy off the most corrupt media person out there to do your bidding. That is not unheard of. Sirros is funneling millions into Kerry's campaign, with MOVEON.org and other organizations and websites. All it takes now is big money.

The real tragedy is that because of the money and greed in politics, real hard working people like my family and most other American's families do not get heard and their ideas and morals and convictions are overlooked. There would be less people on welfare and less abortions and less corruption if more politicians and big corporate businesses were honest.

It's the honesty and integrity that hard working Americans of old that we used to see. The affluent Kennedys and Kerrys and Clintons want their power and money to do what they want. However, they never do what they say. Put in a president that is like the people and maybe things will change.

Take the money, lobbyists, special agendas out of the equation and then politics in the real world would be more like what it is say in a high school setting where kids don't have the big money and lobbyists supporting their corrupt ways.

Hold on, versus Moore himself who describes Charlton Heston as 'evil' in several interviews and wrote a book called, um, 'Stupid White Men?' Does either of us have objective evidence, if it comes to that?

Well, now, bear in mind that I never said Moore *didn't* do what David Hardy alleges, I merely stated that Hardy isn't exactly a credible source and the evidence he presents is shakey at best - yes, I did read through the site very carefully as I am one who considers all aspects of an issue before making up my own mind.